Marshmallow
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2012
- Messages
- 4,469
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
A divided nation | Peace or War with Taliban?
- Thread starter jaibi
- Start date
SarthakGanguly
BANNED
- Joined
- May 10, 2013
- Messages
- 18,416
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
One of the best posts I have ever read - 
Anotherangle
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2012
- Messages
- 196
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
I do not get it, how did you conclude from the Indian status duo that Jinnah did not deceive us- I am not saying he deceived but we misinterpret-
We are the Muslim stat, not a theocracy, nor secular and this is at least what we should be.
There was also very strong and larger religious class that supported Pakistan movement; Yet there were those who opposed the idea on solid grounds and if we go secular, their vision would stand victorious (Just to add a note, most religious scholars-whether they supported Pakistan or opposed-were worried about bloodshed that would result from division, they were not wrong and AbdulKalam azad was also right about division of Pakistan in 25 years- proven facts)
Your Example of India does not fit well as India is not like Pakistan
1. India has no role of military in politics, we have till today
2. india has no single linguistic province dominating the national institutions, we have and it will remain so, even if we divide that province- punjab.
3. India troubled provinces are not more than 20%, Pakistan has trouble in 75% (3 out of 4 provinces)
4. India has a historical narrative- they were colonized and got independence in 1947; if you do away with Islam, what historical narrative you have other than anti-Hindu? So if you are not Islamic, you are only anti-Hindu secualr (Muslim/Pakistani/what?), who made Pakistan to be free from Hindu oppression? look at the contradictions in the single phrase; only because we did away with Islam, we would not be able to teach history to coming generations and answer the question why your majority Muslim province could not offer their majority population ample economic opportunities?
5.(edit) India could not choose other than secular model a) because it would have divided India before 1947- b) Muslims were leaders of the Congress c) the party claimed to represent every one, d) Hinduism was/is actually no united religion (e.g Herigons are beef eater-it was declared one religion after 19th centuries Hindu movements), so 70% Hindu even do not make an overwhelming majority and 30% population is too large to be ignored,especially when some states have majority population of non-Hindus. Indian unity is hidden in secularism; While Pakistan is 97% Muslim, its unity is in Islam!
The minorities were all well in Pakistan until the war on terror started, and you don't make minorities your president or prime minister- just try mentioning Islam with Obama's name, all secularism in US will vanish in thin air!!
Agreed and social equality has nothing to do with secularism or Islamic republic;Instead spread quality education- moreover I grew up under the shadow of Sindhudesh, so I know what is real problem; as long as punjabis are 60% of Pakistanis there cannot be equal sharing of power; can you change this with secularism?
how then secularism is healthy?it will cut the religion out of every body's heart? or is it as healthy as in Egypt? Dear Islam is not about defense; it is about our history and future, about constitution, about way of life, about millions martyrs during 47, about millions martyrs in 71, about survival of my generation; It is no small matter and those who argue for anti-Islamist secular state are less wise than that vision-less, half stupid general Musharraf.
Sold to us, When first time???! you go back to decide about the time to 1940s or 1970s; if you say 70s and 80s, then it was to avoid another tragedy of 71 like, and for no more reason- not done by politician but by PA. YoU CHOOSE TO BE PAKISTANI? I HAVE LIVED MOST MY LIFE AMONG THOSE MILLIONS WHO CHOOSE NOT TO BE CALLED PAKISTANI, WHENEVER THEY CAN CHOOSE!
jaibi
SENIOR MODERATOR
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2012
- Messages
- 3,459
- Reaction score
- 108
- Country
- Location
If by secularism people mean peace and tolerance between religion than it is welcomed.
if it means removing Objective resolution then you people should consider migrating back to India.
Secularism, essentially here entails a true live and let live in terms of our political ideology. I disagree that it suggests the latter but every Pakistani has a say.
One of the best posts I have ever read -
Thank you for reading Sarthak, appreciate your words.
jaibi
SENIOR MODERATOR
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2012
- Messages
- 3,459
- Reaction score
- 108
- Country
- Location
Thank you for such a comprehensive post, I appreciate the work you have put in this.
Now for my answer.
I would answer that by saying that Quiad-e-Azam's philosophy is relevant to us, yes, but as every nation state, we have to interpret our foundation to fit us in the world we are living in. If we are to live as a nation. For example, if the life of Quiad-e-Azam is to be taken as our guidance then it should be remembered that we are talking about a man who's daughter married out of faith, who was an Ismali-Shia by faith, and do I need to elaborate what we are doing with Shia? So, a Quiad as presented by Z. Hamid and some other illuminaries such as the JUI and other religious parties as being a pan-Islamic statesman is a historic myth.
Yes, the Quiad did accentuate on the common Islamic heritage, however, that was due to our nation building process. Imagine how in just a few years you are told that you are a new nation. For that gluing together of people, yes, it is good. I would suggest a parallel that the Israeli state faced: constructed of people from various cultures, denoinations, interpretations and political leanings they were glued toegther by their common heritage. However, do notice that Israeli state has civics that are the best in the middle east, it is a secular nation, in the sense that being Jewish is the precedence however, which Jew is not. Secondly, the scriptures do not guide the law-making and governance.
It was a State for Jews not a Jewish State. There is a difference. We have been trying to be an Islamic State and not a State for the Indian Muslims which we were intended to be. Israeli legislation provides de jure recognition of any Jew anywhere in the world, that was their function, that should be ours, that we are a state for the people who wanted a separate state and we got it.
Is that not exactly what I have said? I have however told you the difference. We were intended to be a State for Indian Muslims and do recall that originally in the minds of the Congress and the Muslim League India and Pakistan would have been like America and Canada, that is their wording, by the way, not mine. So India and Pakistan were not set to be warring rivals: it caused Gandhi and Jinnah great distress to see them at such cross roads. So our design was very different from what we became.
I would disagree, the major power in the religious parties were different chapters of the Jamiat and they opposed it. The conservative religious class did not want a Pakistan and our national poet, Allama Iqbal, was an irk for them. The modernist Muslim who birthed Pakistan was not regarded well by the religious conservative class. That is history.
Now for my answer.
I would answer that by saying that Quiad-e-Azam's philosophy is relevant to us, yes, but as every nation state, we have to interpret our foundation to fit us in the world we are living in. If we are to live as a nation. For example, if the life of Quiad-e-Azam is to be taken as our guidance then it should be remembered that we are talking about a man who's daughter married out of faith, who was an Ismali-Shia by faith, and do I need to elaborate what we are doing with Shia? So, a Quiad as presented by Z. Hamid and some other illuminaries such as the JUI and other religious parties as being a pan-Islamic statesman is a historic myth.
Yes, the Quiad did accentuate on the common Islamic heritage, however, that was due to our nation building process. Imagine how in just a few years you are told that you are a new nation. For that gluing together of people, yes, it is good. I would suggest a parallel that the Israeli state faced: constructed of people from various cultures, denoinations, interpretations and political leanings they were glued toegther by their common heritage. However, do notice that Israeli state has civics that are the best in the middle east, it is a secular nation, in the sense that being Jewish is the precedence however, which Jew is not. Secondly, the scriptures do not guide the law-making and governance.
It was a State for Jews not a Jewish State. There is a difference. We have been trying to be an Islamic State and not a State for the Indian Muslims which we were intended to be. Israeli legislation provides de jure recognition of any Jew anywhere in the world, that was their function, that should be ours, that we are a state for the people who wanted a separate state and we got it.
Is that not exactly what I have said? I have however told you the difference. We were intended to be a State for Indian Muslims and do recall that originally in the minds of the Congress and the Muslim League India and Pakistan would have been like America and Canada, that is their wording, by the way, not mine. So India and Pakistan were not set to be warring rivals: it caused Gandhi and Jinnah great distress to see them at such cross roads. So our design was very different from what we became.
I would disagree, the major power in the religious parties were different chapters of the Jamiat and they opposed it. The conservative religious class did not want a Pakistan and our national poet, Allama Iqbal, was an irk for them. The modernist Muslim who birthed Pakistan was not regarded well by the religious conservative class. That is history.
Your Example of India does not fit well as India is not like Pakistan[/QUOTE}
The example of India fits well because we were nations birthed into the same age, by the same parent, faced the same issues and we came out differently. That is the essential feature of most sociology, political science and historic based studies of the nation-state. If you do not believe in the epistemology of the social sciences then that's another debate that I would welcome elsewhere where it is appropriate, not here.
Yes, I know, that is because of the trajectories we went into and in fact the point of much investigation by scholars all over the world.
Actually no, we have a diverse linguistic distribution, the Saraki, Hindko and other dialects that we clump with northern Punjabi assert their language's independence from the Punjabi we know today, which evolved from the belt of Lahore-Amratsar and got promoted due to the Sikh scriptures and the Sufi Saints, like BullehShah, using her as the vehicle of promotion. It was the British administration that clumbed us together. India as about 14 national languages and about 23 regional ones. Punjabi is recongnised in India as an official language and a medium of educational instruction it is not so in Pakistan. If we were intelligent enough to accept the different languages of the region that are spoken we will easily have 10 regional and 5-8 official languages of the nation. However, our attempts to stump out all other identies except what we want is the reason why we see ourselves as hegemonic, we are not so at least according to our political, social, psychological and even ancient history.
As I said this is because our own identities are not allowed to flourish. I mean as a Punjabi who is suppose to dominate the politics of Pakistan, I cannot write a single official document in my language neither can I have my children enrolled in a school where Punjabi is the medium of instruction. So what do you expect? It is becuase we have robbed people of their rightful dignity of their ancestory and culture for a perceived threat to our national self-esteem and identity.
As I suggested, sir, we need to think about it as a nation. My prespective based on the actual rather than the polluted history we read in our text books states that we were a nation-state created for the Muslims of India, that does not mean an Islamic State. Our original architects, if they are to be taken as a compass, did not name us an Islamic Republic rather as State. I mean the first generation of ML members who actually fought for Pakistan.
Actually that is a perspective, not the perspective. For example, there was no Hindu oppression in Lahore, none in NWFP, which was actually very pro-Congress. So what Hindu oppression? Secondly, nearly 8.6% of Sindh is Hindu, if Hindus are enemies, are they as well? Are we not, based on this tailored political leanings, doing the same things to them that we feared the Hindus would do to us? Let me give you an example, according to the State law: for any degree it is compulsory to have Islamiat passed if one is Muslim or Ethics if they are non-Muslim. Why cannot a Christian child have Bible studies? Why cannot a Hindu child have Hindu Studies in school or college? Maybe because we are treating them as the second class citizens doing to them what we thought the Hindus in India would do to us/
The Cabinet Mission plan had three denominations, the basic division of India was based on ethnic not political grounds. I would recommend you also read the Dr. Ambedikar career's in India, it would enlighten what I am talking about. Secondly, the British Raj was our true enemy, during WWI and afterwards they appeased the modernist class of Muslim India because they were to be the fodder of the British army against the Muslim Turks. Then in WWII when the Indian nationalist movements were very strong they appeased the pro-Separatists because that would successfully divide the political opposition. It would also be a point to note that the rise of the Japenese power against Western powers (defeating Russia and then challenging USA) was noted amongst Asians, they sentiments that Europeans were not infallible was being well catered. It is a tragedy that Indians see this as the Raj fooling the Muslims and the Muslims as the Raj giving them an oppertunity to their advantage. However, in truth perhaps it is that the Raj divided and maintained us divided, not in terms of nations but people: even now it is not written in stone that India-Pakistan-China must be enemies. Europe faced exactly the same dilemmas we do and their synthesis was the EU. They will not allow that model to come up in Asia ever because we are fooled over and over again.
Actually those same arguments are put on us, Sunni majority, Muslim majority, Punjabi majority and so on. This is politics, brother, nothing else. Religion has been interpreted differently so has been culture expressed differently and nation states who oppress that feature face problems.
By your own argument their unity was just as good as our unity which was rudimentry and political not actual.
That, sir, is a myth. I am surprised you are asserting that.
No, they were bad before and worse off later if any change has happened it's been in the wrong direction.
Actually, India, the USA, Lebnon have had 'minorities' hold high offices. India made a Muslim their president and it is not unbelievable to have a Muslim as India's PM/HM or something though it would take time. Yet, this is a possibility there, not here, sir. Secondly, the greatest political campaign on Barak Hussain Obama started during his two election bids yet, the USA elected him. There seems to be a misinterpretation that secularism means that political parties who promote religion based ideologies do not get representation. They do, such parties exist in every nation in the world. It is just that they need the people's mandate to direct the nation. Something like that has happened in Turkey, yet again, the mandate is promoted by the people not enforeced on them like we have been doing.
Actually social-liberalism that basically promotes that there is no such thing as minorities or second class citizen and everyone has a share of the social contract of the society bases itself on secularism, the closest egalitarian system exists in Norway, Finland, Sweden and Denmark. People there have the highest standards of living and these nations are secular. I'm not saying that that's what we want or should have just giving you empirical proof of secularism working out good.
Again, sir, this is a misconception, that's not what secularism entails that's what autocracy entails and that's what we have seen in the third world. Just as we ask people not to blame Islam on what Muslims do we should do the same for philosophies.
The problem of the Arab world is not that simple there are wide arrays of factors that center their condition today and I don't think this is the perfect thread to answer their conditions.
Actually culture has over 10,000 years of human history behind it as well, faith is just a part of it. A Pakistani Christian has just as much culture as we do and a right on it.
Future rests on our choices more that anything else.
Constitution depends on our state as a society we can have the best laws and be the worse country. It's not about making laws, it is about following them.
There were millions of 'martyrs' from the Hindu and Sikh community as well. They were killed in retaliation and our faith, humanity and every moral states that genocide is wrong no matter where it happens or who does it. Islam does not work on an eye for an eye. It did not matter to an unborn child in a mother's womb who was the bearer of the sword that killed them, Sikh, Hindu or Muslim. It was a human loss and every murderer and plunderer is guilty of it: Sikh, Hindu or Muslim.
That was our fault, the 'Muslims' of Pakistan oppressing the other 'Muslims' of Pakistan. A historical event, a great tragic loss of life but not just for us Pakistanis. It has nothing to do with Islam.
I would also see our generation survive but the man who is coming to kill us is wearing a turban and screaming 'AllahuAkbar' not 'Jai Mata di'. I have lost friends in this war, they were killed by so-called custodians of faith, sir, not a Hindu, not an American.
You are mistaking paternistic imperialism for moderation, moderation is of the mind. Moderate Musharaf and Mullah Zia were same creatures, so called fathers for our orphaned nation and they did exactly the same thing I have been telling you: imposing an ideology, not letting it synthesis. Whether that be in the name of Islam or moderation that is wrong, it is the tool not the philosophy that is flawed.
I elaborated this process above, imposition of ideologies, that is what I am talking about. Imposition of ideologies has lead to the '71 tragedy, the current loss of 50,000 we have suffered. It will continue to do the same once you and I are gone and our children our here. The Pakistan Army had to fill in the gaps left by various sources so the blame is not entirely on them.
Then brother, I have a choice not to be Pakistani to take immigration now in the zenith of my youth and serve a white man in Canada or UK or somewhere and have a comfortable house if I work for it. I choose to be here, with my people, who I want to live and die for (though more living) do I not represent the same thing you want in essence just in a different package?
Thanks Aero!
Thank you, MarshaI tried to write for papers but they said they don't publish the style I have
Last edited by a moderator:
niaz
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 5,164
- Reaction score
- 211
- Country
- Location
Being over 65 and having witnessed Pakistan which was a heaven compared to the current hell-hole, I would beg to disagree with your observation.
ML was created in 1906. At that time Quaid was associated with Congress and in 1906 he was Private Secretary to Congress President, the erstwhile Dadabhai Nauroji. Quaid did not join Muslim League until 1913. He was member of both the Congress as well of Muslim League. Quaid resigned from the Indian National Congress in 1920 after Gandhiji took control of the Congress in 1920 Nagpur session.
Muslim League leadership under the Quad had agreed to the 1946 Cabinet Mission plan which was:
1.A united Dominion of India would be given independence.
2.Muslim-majority provinces would be grouped - Sind, Punjab and North-West Frontier Province would form one group, and Bengal and Assam would form another.
3.Hindu-majority provinces in central and southern India would form another group.
4.The Central government would be empowered to run foreign affairs, defence and communications, while the rest of powers and responsibility would belong to the provinces, coordinated by groups.
Understand Gandhiji was neutral and it was Pundit Nehru’s intransigence that resulted in partition.
Therefore your contention that it was Jinnah who broke way in 1947 is in correct.
Coming to the sectarian & communal killings. Shia/Sunni strife has always existed but in Pakistan until 1977 actual incidences were negligible and attacks on minorities has virtually ceased after the 1947 holocaust.
Religious parties especially of Deobandi maslak have always had the pipe dream of creating a pan Islamic Khilafat. Therefore Deobandi leaders such Sheikh Hasan Madani d were always anti Pakistani. Jamaat Islami leader even called the Quaid “Kafir Azam”.
These anti Pakistan and anti Quaid e Azam parties would never win a majority in free elections to impose their nefarious designs. Their campaign (Nizame Mustafa) forced ZA Bhutto to enforce Islamic Laws. These partied joined hands with the bigot Zia ul Haq (May he rot in hell for ever) and at once started to work on destabilisation of Pakistan thru imposition of an extreme version of Islam on a largely moderate Sufi loving population.
1979 Islamic revolution in Iran provided them with funds from the Wahhabi Saudi Arabia as a counter to Shia militancy. Afghan jihad and CIA provided weapons and training to the extremist groups.
Current TTP insurgency is difficult to control mainly because pro fundamentalist parties have been voted in power primarily because of incompetency of the PPP & ANP.
Nawaz Sharif himself was a protégé of the bigot Zia and has many extremist lovers such Rana Sana Ullah in his party. JI & JUI will never accept any action against the Taliban because there is little difference between their & TTP beliefs.
Main disappointment is the Imran Khan's PTI. Just listen to the confusion in his speech after the massacre of Christians in Peshawar. He says that this is the 210th terrorist attack but goes on the say that each time there is a talk of dialogue, these are sabotaged by such incidents. Surely dialogues were not scheduled 210 times before.
Imran also said that this is not work of the humans. Agreed Taliban are not worthy of belonging to human race. Pray tell me does Imran want to have dialogue with the animals?
Taliban know what they want; that is, to change Pakistan into a Sunni Wahhabi Pakistan where persons of any other belief such Shias, Christains, Hindus, Sikhs etc. are not wanted. These people should be killed or forced to emigrate to a third country. .
Leaders of JUI & JI welcome it. PML-N is undecided and Imran Khan is either a hypocrite, or naïve or a coward or possibly all three. In short there is complete lack of political will to face the extremist threat. Pak Army is in a boxing match with both hands tied and is forced to accept causalities without being allowed to fight back. What is the use of having Nukes when you can’t even safeguard your Divisional Commanders?
I have no words to describe how ashamed I feel at the massacre of defenceless Pakistanis who were engaged in praying to their Lord. Only thing I can say is that Pakistanis (including myself) don’t deserve Pakistan. We deserve being blown up because we elected leaders such as Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan.
If Pakistan does break up, it will be because her sons such as Imran Khan & Nawaz Sharif are happy to bend over backwards and let TTP do what they will.
Anotherangle
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2012
- Messages
- 196
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Thanks for such a long reply; I would not answer in detail for several reasons including that we are already rather off topic! but a very brief statement in points:
1) You mix things a lot; you are mixing time frame; your arguments have anachronism and thus they are invalid;
2) you have also mixed linguistic and Religious argument- linguistic and Religious divisions are two different things: when you compare ethnic/linguistic diversity keep it to ethnic/linguistic and when you discuss religious aspect keep it religious; this is the basic rule which you fell short of observing.
3) With time we develop the habit of hearing and seeing what we like; your write-up shows this symptom a great deal. e.g.
you remember Obama was blamed for being Muslim, but You forget that he cleared his name after asserting he was christian
You remember Lebanon has two different religions symbolized, but you forget they have almost 50% non-Muslim population
I do not want to continue as I do not think that your arguments stand anywhere in academic world (which is the world of my sort);
Lately, there are people out who have been trying to re-write the history and give it a color of their liking; They have no standing in this field;These are their mere wishes; if you ever find an authentic book- a sort of PhD- thesis supporting your views, I would be more than interested.
For the time being, I would quote somebody's words from across the border written for the similar version of history you propose, he said " You are indulging in your own wish world"- but, people are not literate to understand this comment!
Anyway thank you for nice dialogue.
To the relevant point: we can achieve peace with firm stance on militancy without changing any other thing- if there is any change required it is in the military mindset itself nothing else.
P.S. The Military has (and had) to do nothing- things will/would get OK if they just follow the civil leadership and surrender their some interests at least. (yahya and musharaf were more than disappointments; zia and ayub had their own short comings)
And yes one more thing: I think Pakistani Army also shouts ALLAH-HO_AKBAR at the time of attack( or someone has banned it too in order to avoid mistaken identity?)
Thanks
K-Xeroid
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2011
- Messages
- 2,186
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
We actually still dont learnt to write things according to their actual perspective, first this idea of creating a secular state after broking a secular state itself sounds a wrong beat, May be you could prove it right in front of some die hard nationalists but not in front of world. Then the 2nd point is that we still dont understand, what we really have lost in war on terror, Its the status of QOM, Now even If you use the term QOMI MUFAD itself sounds and empty terminology at current scenario of our state , There is no common interest left among us , Just took an example of APC , Do you believe that the parties taking part in APC are the complete or Half representator of Pakistan even? And If they are then are they seems unite? I agreed with @Anotherangle from all prespective specially the point where he mentioned the complete dominance of Punjab in our establishment throughout the history , Just have a Poll here that Are other provinces have equivalent authority in making decision in national interest or not , and majority of non-punjabi Pakistani members will click on Not , as majority is not satisfied with the center , and political parties and national institutions have came too far in internal conflicts that they couldnt even think as QOM . So the term QOMI MUFAD and QOMI FAISLA is no more exist in reality. Its just authorities are tossing it as where they need to apply this terminology for personal cause.
Last edited by a moderator:
jaibi
SENIOR MODERATOR
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2012
- Messages
- 3,459
- Reaction score
- 108
- Country
- Location
Sir, I am new here and it is my first time interacting with with you. I must say, sir, a wonderful and comprehensive post, I am honored you read my thread. Thank you, sir, I shall look forward to reading more material from you.
Regards.
Informant
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2013
- Messages
- 4,436
- Reaction score
- -5
- Country
- Location
Stop pulling numbers or probabilities out of your behind and provide proof. Dont go off on tangents on Punjabi this and Punjabi that. I have noticed your posts of being on the extremist end to the point of being an Islamo-Fascist. Punjab has the largest population, they have always been the most educated and the richest province. So obviously you are going to see their dominance in the affairs of the country. This slowly has decentralized for the better as time passes other provinces are getting their fair share.
Punjabi nahin milega to shia sunni. Woh nahin to kafir munafiq. You guys are one and the same.
In the end i know these talks will fail, kab tak Islam ke naam par karenge yeh hame majboor. That day isnt far that these antics by extremists will lead to a genocidal tendency amongst the helpless and will bring on the wrath of the silent majority. The peshawar blasts should be a wake up, we stand with Pakistanis be they Christians, Shias, Sunnis, Jews, Pastafarians, Believe in Zeus, juicce or whatever. Sab se pahle Pakistan.
Last edited by a moderator:
Peaceful Civilian
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2011
- Messages
- 12,098
- Reaction score
- 8
- Country
- Location
Sometimes you have to pick the gun up to put the Gun down 
K-Xeroid
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2011
- Messages
- 2,186
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Ulti Ganga bahane walay , Just calm yourself first , I speak what I listen in opinions , don't try to bring a different topic to justify your current status , A person could speak in multiple topics If he\she lives in such a diverse society . As far as share is concerned then the major portion of share always goes to elites of these provinces , while a common person dies in waiting that when a help from federation will come to it. You know What, I personally have enough land and resources that I don’t need care about myself or my Generations. I try to avoid public matters but I can’t . What a die hard nationalist thinks is no more the opinion of folks , They are struggling for even basic needs . Some of them are real technicians but have nothing to invest so could start their own business , If they were in thousands then ok that could be fixed , but they are in millions and each and every time our city’s population are expanding so quick that it cannot be able to feed everyone at a time.
Your civilians actually care to survive whether it takes anything but your economy and national interests are so fcked up they are not even in your priorities. So when QOM is not in your priorities Anari , Then where the QOM exist? Your central establishment and bureaucrats distributes everything to elites then why not a common civilian should have lick the balls of their thakurs and sardars even to get their basic rights? And If the civilians left their tribal lands and came to the cities to gain more chances to survive then again your establishment made political parties use them for their purposes and the civilian group termed burgers again compliments that Hail wars , hail army , but yeh Awam , yeh keray makoray hi buray hn. Now tell me What I said wrong here Anari?
Informant
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2013
- Messages
- 4,436
- Reaction score
- -5
- Country
- Location
You may have enough money for generations, but not nearly as much as you think. Khair point being, i am not going against the topic. What QOM? What bs is this. There is only Pakistan? My country first. Religion is personal. Until you learn to distinguish what is needed and what is desired it wont make a dent. Now queue your Punjabi diatribe, i gave you a very valid reasoning. Most educated province, prosperous, wealthy, and influential in the Independence of this country. Do you really think they wont have a majority. It's basic.
We saw what PPP did to Punjab during its tenure, this provice paid the highest percentages of the bill, least defaulters, yet was hit the hardest by black outs. Yet i have yet to see people say anything regarding Sindhis this, pakhtoons that, balochis this. The Punjabis are very patient by nature, I'm from KHI and i have yet to see anyone treat me different or even complain.
Now you come on the matter of common folks, we are a 70% illiterate country. Basic necessities are not available to us, do you really think a common folk cares about what we people from a higher background care. Unke pass din guzarna azaab hai. Their opinions are of a better economy. Plus the rest of them are so gullible label anything with Islam and they will not question it. Such is the state of our religion, no one questions it.
Until and unless you doubt your religion, research about it yourself you arent a complete Muslim. But we'd rather listen to a maulvi with zero interpretational skill of religion but rather who would call his mufti and **** out a fatwa.
You can call me Anari when infact i am closer to a lot of the mess this country produces. The amount of hate filled people i interact would amaze you. Ready to kill just because some one is Shia, or Ahmedi. When asked for a reason none of them had an answer, if they did it would be along the lines that USA gives them aid BS or kafir, when they had zero grasp over their religion. Jab deen ke sawaal ka jawab nahin to hum kafir. Such is my job, i sleep happy at nights knowing i make a difference however minute.
Sab se Pahle Pakistan.
We saw what PPP did to Punjab during its tenure, this provice paid the highest percentages of the bill, least defaulters, yet was hit the hardest by black outs. Yet i have yet to see people say anything regarding Sindhis this, pakhtoons that, balochis this. The Punjabis are very patient by nature, I'm from KHI and i have yet to see anyone treat me different or even complain.
Now you come on the matter of common folks, we are a 70% illiterate country. Basic necessities are not available to us, do you really think a common folk cares about what we people from a higher background care. Unke pass din guzarna azaab hai. Their opinions are of a better economy. Plus the rest of them are so gullible label anything with Islam and they will not question it. Such is the state of our religion, no one questions it.
Until and unless you doubt your religion, research about it yourself you arent a complete Muslim. But we'd rather listen to a maulvi with zero interpretational skill of religion but rather who would call his mufti and **** out a fatwa.
You can call me Anari when infact i am closer to a lot of the mess this country produces. The amount of hate filled people i interact would amaze you. Ready to kill just because some one is Shia, or Ahmedi. When asked for a reason none of them had an answer, if they did it would be along the lines that USA gives them aid BS or kafir, when they had zero grasp over their religion. Jab deen ke sawaal ka jawab nahin to hum kafir. Such is my job, i sleep happy at nights knowing i make a difference however minute.
Sab se Pahle Pakistan.
Similar threads
