What's new

How Pakistan is Like France—1792

Fact_ur_mine

BANNED
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
187
Reaction score
0
Pakistan is in crisis. Overcoming this will mean completely rethinking long-held assumptions about what the country is meant to be

Pakistani society is in crisis. But trying to understand the roots of this crisis all too often feels like a futile endeavour. After all, there’s no shortage of explanations for why the country is economically impoverished, why its government is chronically unstable, or why Islamist terrorism has permeated so many levels of its society.

Some observers believe the crisis is due to the lack of economic opportunities, while others argue that it’s a result of foreign meddling and disproportionate military power. The reality, though, is that these are all consequences rather than the cause of Pakistan’s troubles. Taken as a whole, they underscore a deeper crisis within Pakistani society that goes right to the nation’s very foundations—a crisis of identity that originates in the late 19th century, when the idea of an independent Muslim nation in South Asia first emerged.

As Pakistan was founded in truly modern terms—inspired by the principles of self-determination that were prospering during the wave of independence movements in the post-World War II era—the best place to start understanding Pakistan isn’t actually one of these former colonies, but a future colonist: post-revolutionary France.

Not only does Pakistan’s post-independence trajectory bare an uncanny similarity to that of France’s First Republic, but the critiques of its path are similar to those of the French Revolution.

Consider that both the First Republic and the Islamic Republic began with a radical social movement that ostensibly fought for the rights of impoverished and underprivileged minorities: in the case of France it was the ‘common man’ who had lived under centuries of feudal and aristocratic rule; in Pakistan it was the South Asian Muslim who had experienced Hindu-dominated rule in colonial India.

But soon, the fervour of these movements degenerated into a world of radicalism and terror. While attempting to unify the new nation through a common language and state-directed education, the nations’ leaders resorted to political repression, turning the movement’s supposed beneficiaries into victims. Ultimately, the high spirits of revolution collapsed into political disorder, ending in a coup d’état followed by military rule.

Instead of pursuing reform from within the existing structures under which they lived, the leaders of both movements attempted to radically recreate the idea of their societies (Indeed, this was the source of Edmund Burke’s critique of the French Revolution in his Reflections). No longer was France, and later Pakistan, bounded by actual history. As Lord Acton observed in 1862, in France, ‘The Revolution repudiated alike the agencies to which France owed her boundaries and those to which she owed her government. Every effaceable trace and relic of national history was carefully wiped away.’ A similar process occurred in Pakistan’s independence movement.

Indeed, in the early 20th century, a group of elite Muslim intellectuals in British India began to argue that the Muslims of South Asia weren’t simply a religious group in a pluralistic society, but instead a separate nation with their own culture, customs and history that directly descended from the Islamic empires that once ruled parts of the subcontinent.


How Pakistan is Like France?1792 | The Diplomat
 
. .
Why go back to France , Iranian revolution is a great recent example of reform in country ;)
 
.
Only someone who neither understands France, nor Pakistan, can make a comment like that. :-)
 
.
only we need to kick jagirdars and zamindars, out of the politics, restore the will of a common man, we dont want to be western stooges, that they order us to let them attack our backyard and we say yes sir, the will of pakistan should prevail, the time is now, for present govt, even UK pm has guts to speak bad for our country even knowing what we pakistanis are going through...

+.. some body has to nuke this bagliyar dam site!!!!, presently army has no guts to do it..
 
.
only we need to kick jagirdars and zamindars, out of the politics, restore the will of a common man, we dont want to be western stooges, that they order us to let them attack our backyard and we say yes sir, the will of pakistan should prevail, the time is now, for present govt, even UK pm has guts to speak bad for our country even knowing what we pakistanis are going through...

+.. some body has to nuke this bagliyar dam site!!!!, presently army has no guts to do it..

.. and Indians are accused of dragging Pakistan into everything they say or do.

The subject here is comparision with Pak & Fr.

On the highlighted part above, nukeing the dam is the surest way to spread the resultant contaimation along the entire length of Pakistan.

Get real.
 
.
.. and Indians are accused of dragging Pakistan into everything they say or do.

The subject here is comparision with Pak & Fr.

On the highlighted part above, nukeing the dam is the surest way to spread the resultant contaimation along the entire length of Pakistan.

Get real.

nuke is only possible because then again indians might want to build it, the resultant contaminent will also effect india
 
. .
only we need to kick jagirdars and zamindars, out of the politics, restore the will of a common man, we dont want to be western stooges, .................

These jagirdars and zamindars were in the forefront of creation of Pakistan, for the sole purpose of preserving their powers and wealth. They knew that they would loose that, in a secular democratic united India, they would loose the source of power & wealth i.e. land. Post independence history proves this. Land reforms took place in India and a strong educated middle class emerged as a result of that.
 
.
contaminated water flows down in pakistan

no need to worry, the martial race cannot be affected by nuclear contamination. only those pesky hindoos will suffer

on topic: Pakistan and its problems are unique and I personally don't see the benefit of comparing it to another country. It is up to Pakistanis to decide which way their country will go, and I for one do not doubt your capability to pull your country out of this mess.
 
. .
These jagirdars and zamindars were in the forefront of creation of Pakistan, for the sole purpose of preserving their powers and wealth. They knew that they would loose that, in a secular democratic united India, they would loose the source of power & wealth i.e. land. Post independence history proves this. Land reforms took place in India and a strong educated middle class emerged as a result of that.

typical indian thinking, i think, to co exist together indians like you will have to respect us to gain their share of respect..

the reality is land lords and zameen dars did indeed support the creation for their own purpose, but it was regarded as the loose change by our quaid, he knew that those people are working for their interests too, but 99% it was the voice of a common muslim, just like me and other muslims across the continent...

the question is not these landlords make the pak creation possible, the question is, which factors enabled these landlords to kill liaquat ali khan and sit on the throne and make themselves powerful enough not to be touched by commoners
 
. .
Not a convincing essay, regrettably.

Why go back to France , Iranian revolution is a great recent example of reform in country ;)

Honestly, the smiley is confusing. One doesn't know whether or not to take the comment seriously. In any other case, it would be easy to assume irony and go on. In this case, one hesitates.

As it may have been an ironic remark, perhaps any response should be held in abeyance, pending a clarification, but for some very preliminary remarks.

The French Revolution was emphatically a secular revolution; in fact, the secular revolution, to the extent that the secularism of the French is a model and an exemplar. It makes the neighbouring British multiculturalism quite clearly a failure, and went on to inspire the hero Ataturk, and his policy of laicism. Comparing it to the Iranian Revolution can either be a statement redolent with irony, or it could be an incredibly naive confusion of the term Revolution in each case. Perhaps AzadPakistan2000 would make matters clearer in a future post.

Only someone who neither understands France, nor Pakistan, can make a comment like that. :-)

I cannot account for this comment except to hope that TechLahore has completely misunderstood the situation. Otherwise it would imply that we are in agreement, and that would sour the rest of the year for me.

only we need to kick jagirdars and zamindars, out of the politics, restore the will of a common man, we dont want to be western stooges, that they order us to let them attack our backyard and we say yes sir, the will of pakistan should prevail, the time is now, for present govt, even UK pm has guts to speak bad for our country even knowing what we pakistanis are going through...

+.. some body has to nuke this bagliyar dam site!!!!, presently army has no guts to do it..

A bit late in the day, two generations late, in fact, but land reforms might still do some good. The only thing is that it needs to be all-inclusive, and not concentrate on independent land-owners alone. Other stake-holders have started gaining equivalent concentrations of land.

i recommend a forum policy of banning indians from posting articles on pakistan..there is not a tad similarity between france back then and pakistan of today.

Santro doesn't seem to think so. Maybe you need to build a consensus; better still, call in the military.

typical indian thinking, i think, to co exist together indians like you will have to respect us to gain their share of respect..

the reality is land lords and zameen dars did indeed support the creation for their own purpose, but it was regarded as the loose change by our quaid, he knew that those people are working for their interests too, but 99% it was the voice of a common muslim, just like me and other muslims across the continent...

the question is not these landlords make the pak creation possible, the question is, which factors enabled these landlords to kill liaquat ali khan and sit on the throne and make themselves powerful enough not to be touched by commoners

This does not seem to be historically accurate, certainly not accurate enough to get the respect of anyone, even those scum, the Indians.

The AIML won most of its seats in elections held before 47 in Bombay and the UP. It lost the elections in the Punjab (to the Unionists), in NWFP (to Bacha Khan's Khudai Khidmatgars) and in Sind (to G M Syed's party), and as far as I know, the tribal tracts of Balochistan under the rule of different princes were not covered.

When in 46, it became clear that partition was on the way, and if Ayesha Jalal's views are correct, and partition was never the real plan but only the dire threat which would get the INC to agree to the CMP plan, then it is also clear that the AIML had to scramble to get things sorted out. First, the Unionist Party had to be brought to heel; otherwise the promise to partition Punjab would have had no meaning for the AIML. Second, on the other side of the sub-continent, the beloved Fazlul Haque had to be persuaded to throw his lot in with the AIML, and not just he, but Suhrawardy as well. This with some lack of clarity as to what was the best solution: one was a partitioned Bengal, the east to go to Pakistan; another was a unified Bengal, which along with Assam was to stay aloof of both india and Pakistan. It was a confused situation which only resolved itself gradually.

The Unionist Party was brought to heel, but only gradually, and its politicians continued to be powerful in their own right for some years more. There was never any challenge to them from any political quarter other than the leftists, who were too weak to make an impact in Pakistan, and who got wiped out soon after independence.

So who, according to you, was to have stopped the landlords as they sought to sit on the throne and make themselves powerful enough not to be touched by commoners? They never had any opposition.
 
.
Not a terribly impressive essay, I'm afraid.

Why go back to France , Iranian revolution is a great recent example of reform in country ;)

Honestly, the smiley is confusing. One doesn't know whether or not to take the comment seriously. In any other case, it would be easy to assume irony and go on. In this case, one hesitates.

As it may have been an ironic remark, perhaps any response should be held in abeyance, pending a clarification, but for some very preliminary remarks.

The French Revolution was emphatically a secular revolution; in fact, the secular revolution, to the extent that the secularism of the French is a model and an exemplar. It makes the neighbouring British multiculturalism quite clearly a failure, and went on to inspire the hero Ataturk, and his policy of laicism. Comparing it to the Iranian Revolution can either be a statement redolent with irony, or it could be an incredibly naive confusion of the term Revolution in each case. Perhaps AzadPakistan2000 would make matters clearer in a future post.

Only someone who neither understands France, nor Pakistan, can make a comment like that. :-)

I cannot account for this comment except to hope that TechLahore has completely misunderstood the situation. Otherwise it would imply that we are in agreement, and that would sour the rest of the year for me.

only we need to kick jagirdars and zamindars, out of the politics, restore the will of a common man, we dont want to be western stooges, that they order us to let them attack our backyard and we say yes sir, the will of pakistan should prevail, the time is now, for present govt, even UK pm has guts to speak bad for our country even knowing what we pakistanis are going through...

+.. some body has to nuke this bagliyar dam site!!!!, presently army has no guts to do it..

A bit late in the day, two generations late, in fact, but land reforms might still do some good. The only thing is that it needs to be all-inclusive, and not concentrate on independent land-owners alone. Other stake-holders have started gaining equivalent concentrations of land.

i recommend a forum policy of banning indians from posting articles on pakistan..there is not a tad similarity between france back then and pakistan of today.

Santro doesn't seem to think so. Maybe you need to build a consensus; better still, call in the Big Boys with Boots.

typical indian thinking, i think, to co exist together indians like you will have to respect us to gain their share of respect..

the reality is land lords and zameen dars did indeed support the creation for their own purpose, but it was regarded as the loose change by our quaid, he knew that those people are working for their interests too, but 99% it was the voice of a common muslim, just like me and other muslims across the continent...

the question is not these landlords make the pak creation possible, the question is, which factors enabled these landlords to kill liaquat ali khan and sit on the throne and make themselves powerful enough not to be touched by commoners

This does not seem to be historically accurate, certainly not accurate enough to get the respect of anyone, even those scum, the Indians.

The AIML won most of its seats in elections held before 47 in Bombay and the UP. It lost the elections in the Punjab (to the Unionists), in NWFP (to Bacha Khan's Khudai Khidmatgars) and in Sind (to G M Syed's party), and as far as I know, the tribal tracts of Balochistan under the rule of different princes were not covered.

When in 46, it became clear that partition was on the way, and if Ayesha Jalal's views are correct, and partition was never the real plan but only the dire threat which would get the INC to agree to the CMP plan, then it is also clear that the AIML had to scramble to get things sorted out. First, the Unionist Party had to be brought to heel; otherwise the promise to partition Punjab would have had no meaning for the AIML. Second, on the other side of the sub-continent, the beloved Fazlul Haque had to be persuaded to throw his lot in with the AIML, and not just he, but Suhrawardy as well. This with some lack of clarity as to what was the best solution: one was a partitioned Bengal, the east to go to Pakistan; another was a unified Bengal, which along with Assam was to stay aloof of both india and Pakistan. It was a confused situation which only resolved itself gradually.

The Unionist Party was brought to heel, but only gradually, and its politicians continued to be powerful in their own right for some years more. There was never any challenge to them from any political quarter other than the leftists, who were too weak to make an impact in Pakistan, and who got wiped out soon after independence.

So who, according to you, was to have stopped the landlords as they sought to sit on the throne and make themselves powerful enough not to be touched by commoners? They never had any opposition.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom