Do I have the right to remain Ahmadi?

[araz]

The whole beginning was flawed, one cannot have both - an exclusive state for the Muslims of the sub continent, and one that wants to be secular at the same time.

Hurrah. Sir if I could have garlanded you I would have. In my 20 odd posts on the subject over half as many yrs, I have tried to make people understand the dichotomy of the beginnings of the state. You have nailed it in one sentence.

 

[INDIC]

I guess we just need to discuss the plight of the Ahmedi's of Pakistan - I don't buy your ideological difference bit though.

What do you mean by "liberal" when one cannot accommodate ideological differences?,,,,beats me. I guess you have a different definition for "liberal when it comes to "West" Pakistan. But then we will leave it for someplace else.

liberal in the sense of lack of sectarianism among different Muslim sects. Rest I agree with you.

 

[illusion8]

Hurrah. Sir if I could have garlanded you I would have. In my 20 odd posts on the subject over half as many yrs, I have tried to make people understand the dichotomy of the beginnings of the state. You have nailed it in one sentence.

it's not going down well though so I can understand where you are coming from.

liberal in the sense of lack of sectarianism among different Muslim sects. Rest I agree with you.

So now we have narrowed down to religious intolerance in 47, linguistic intolerance in the same religious group in the 60's to what has now percolated into sectarian intolerance, should I be surprised that Ahmedi's are being victimized too? - they have huge differences in ideology with the general population. So is the intolerance surprising?

 

[Sugarcane]

Bhartiis as usual......

 

[illusion8]

Bhartiis as usual......

Don't worry I am out of it.

I had a point that I had to make.

 

[VCheng]

The whole beginning was flawed, one cannot have both - an exclusive state for the Muslims of the sub continent, and one that wants to be secular at the same time.

The idea was robust but the execution was deeply flawed.

While the Objectives Resolution mixed Religion and State, people were wise enough not to allow it to derail the system. The trouble started after the fall of East Pakistan when Bhutto used the Ahmadi card to shore up his ulcerating government. Then of course came the disastrous era of that mardood Gen Zia ul Haq that irreversibly let the poison from Bhutto's ulcer soak deep into the body. Gangrene was not far behind.

The rest, as they, is history. Now septicemic shock is setting in.

 

[illusion8]

The idea was robust but the execution was deeply flawed.

While the Objectives Resolution mixed Religion and State, people were wise enough not to allow it to derail the system. The trouble started after the fall of East Pakistan when Bhutto used the Ahmadi card to shore up his ulcerating government. Then of course came the disastrous era of that mardood Gen Zia ul Haq that irreversibly let the poison from Bhutto's ulcer soak deep into the body. Gangrene was not far behind.

The rest, as they, is history. Now septicemic shock is setting in.

it was bound to happen - it was a natural transition of things. It would have been a miracle if it was otherwise.

You are merely quoting the events that led to it, if it wasn't one set of individuals - it would have been some other set of individuals.

 

[VCheng]

it was bound to happen - it was a natural transition of things. It would have been a miracle if it was otherwise.

You are merely quoting the events that led to it, if it wasn't one set of individuals - it would have been some other set of individuals.

Pakistan could have been the modern and progressive state that it set out to be, to give Muslims a homeland to be free. But it did not have to mean oppression of all minorities. That was the wrong turn we took, and now we are paying for it.

 

[illusion8]

Pakistan could have been the modern and progressive state that it set out to be, to give Muslims a homeland to be free. But it did not have to mean oppression of all minorities. That was the wrong turn we took, and now we are paying for it.

How does anything for minorities figure in a state that was meant for a single religious group to begin with? that's the flaw factor which I am indicating towards.

BTW, ahmedi's aren't considered Muslims in Pakistan - so technicallythey don't belong in the "to give Muslims a homeland to be free" scheme of things,

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

I left and i am not planning on returning back to Pakistan. Maybe if a miracle happens and Pakistan changes then i would happily move back to my Country.

Screw the people.. im still gonna buy shezan.. n screw with the religious,bigot/nutjobs... its fun pissing em off..

 

[jaunty]

I would disagree. What Jinnah set out to do was eminently achievable, and indeed Pakistan did come close to that ideal in many ways. But then the unnecessary mix of Islam and State created the fatal flaw that is now drowning it all.

It had to take the natural course at some point.

 

[Rafi]

It will take time, but we will get there eventually.

 

[jaunty]

The idea was robust but the execution was deeply flawed.

With all due respect, I beg to disagree. Would you support creating separate homelands for various minority groups within Pakistan if they demanded it? Let's say the Ahmadis who are genuinely facing institutionalized discrimination in Pakistan asked for a separate country, would you give them one? Where does one draw the line? FYI I am not blaming Jinnah here, I am sure he had the best interests of the Muslims in mind and I am positive that he only wished the very best for the minorities within Pakistan but imho the basic idea was flawed to begin with.

 

[VCheng]

With all due respect, I beg to disagree. Would you support creating separate homelands for various minority groups within Pakistan if they demanded it? Let's say the Ahmadis who are genuinely facing institutionalized discrimination in Pakistan asked for a separate country, would you give them one? Where does one draw the line? FYI I am not blaming Jinnah here, I am sure he had the best interests of the Muslims in mind and I am positive that he only wished the very best for the minorities within Pakistan but imho the basic idea was flawed to begin with.

Look at it this way. If the Hindus, who were in a majority, did not create such a sense of deprivation and foreboding with the impending departure of the British from United India, Jinnah and Iqbal would never have found such a reception within the majority of the Muslims.

Given that, one can say that Pakistan hoped to be a better mini-India, where the majority did not make its minorities feel what the Muslims felt under the Hindu majority in a United India.

What a pity it did not turn out that way.

To answer your point about discriminated and oppressed minorities demanding independence, then that is an age old concept. Forget minorities like Ahmadis, look at what is happening in Baluchistan. There is your answer.

It had to take the natural course at some point.

Natural course? I don't think so. Small minded men who put selves before country? Yes.

How does anything for minorities figure in a state that was meant for a single religious group to begin with? that's the flaw factor which I am indicating towards.

BTW, ahmedi's aren't considered Muslims in Pakistan - so technicallythey don't belong in the "to give Muslims a homeland to be free" scheme of things,

Please see my reply above.

 

[Chronos]

If you refer to women as bitches then it pretty much explains the mentality of your kind.

@Jaanbaz

May be this is a huge generalisation. But the Ahmadis that I have interacted with so far seems to have far less hatred of India nad Hindus.

Again a generalisation.

unfortunate but true. same is the case with Gandhi he is fantasized but in reality its the ideology of safronis which is at work in India.

And thank god Gandhi's vision is not implemented in India.

His was a backward looking ideology as well.