Is secularisation of Pakistan possible?

[Saleem]

is potty training of idiots possible?

 

[Rig Vedic]

You think British raaj as a Pizza pie.

The independence act is saying.

Pizza pieces xyz will be dominion of Pakistan. The remaining pieces of the raaj will be dominion of India.


But your 3rd grade sarkari school book will insist that you are the browns who are true inheritors of British raaj. While the other browns across the border cannot be.

Strange logic on your part.


p.s. Indians says they got freedom on August 15th. But Lord Batton was still mounting Dilli. What a freedom.

In a sense I agree with you. The most appropriate place for the British Raj is the dustbin. What their Act said doesn't really matter. Our present plight is mostly our own doing.

 

[Rig Vedic]

there were times when "lord" mountbaton and Jinnah Sahib came close to exchanging punches and shoves - and here's this guy claiming Muslim League was "subservient" to the britishers

The Brits were not a monolith. Jinnah was very close to Churchill, and both of them seem to have hated Mountbatten. Churchill accused Mountbatten of "going native" and refused to meet him after he returned to England.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

The Brits were not a monolith. Jinnah was very close to Churchill, and both of them seem to have hated Mountbatten. Churchill accused Mountbatten of "going native" and refused to meet him after he returned to England.

i'm sure he maintained contacts with people in Londonistan; to say he and his party were "subservient" well i take strong exception to that

 

[Musalman]

secularism = No
Liberalism = Yes / may be

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

secularism = No
Liberalism = Yes / may be

there already is a degree of all, or none......


let's juxtapose a little bit.....



go to Washington DC or New York or Boston USA.....people are liberal, have a liberal outlook on life, progressive etc.....kind of like how many in large cities of Pakistan like Karachi or Lahore people are more liberal, progressive-minded etc.


go to Winchester Country Virginia, or rural West Virginia or somewhere in the middle of nowhere South Carolina or Texas - people are more conservative; more ultra religious.....kind of like areas in FATA or rural Punjab. Strong emphasis on family values, religion, more modesty, more defined gender roles etc.



now as far as Pakistan is concerned - lets just accept people for who they are. As long as there's religious harmony, no communalism or anything that DIVIDES the people -- then i see no problem at all.


years ago i was more vocal about the whole "secularism" thing but to be honest with you, there's no need to change the fact that Pakistan is an Islamic Republic (over 95% Muslim population).


as long as we can protect our minority groups and ensure that hate groups and bigot groups are shut down -- as long as we can stop bumbling through life one crisis after the other - and as long as all citizens of Pakistan are provided public utilities and services that are equally accessible to all then I see no problem in not being an officially "secular" country


with 190 million population roughly, not everyone can be on the same page as far as political views or other views are concerned........let's just respect Jinnah Sahib's aspiration to see Pakistan become a strong and progressive democracy where people are free to practice their religion without obligation or intimidation.



that's all there is to it really.....

 

[Joe Shearer]

there were times when "lord" mountbaton and Jinnah Sahib came close to exchanging punches and shoves - and here's this guy claiming Muslim League was "subservient" to the britishers


that's far from the truth......it angered the Brits to see this "Westernized Muslim" who smoked cigars and wore 3-piece suits and educated and polished in London would later become one of the biggest thorns in their side.


Jinnah Sahib ought to be a role model not just for Muslims of sub-continent but indians as well. He was a man of principles and virtues and we salute him for giving us a homeland for our proud people.


oh and by the way and for your kind information - britishers "common-wealthers" or whatever it is maintained their "footprint" in newly independent india as well


during the 1965 war, our pilots shot down indian aircrafts that were being piloted by anglo-brits.....curiously, both Air Forces retained british advisers and attaches during that period.

This is not a pleasant post to read; I did not understand your reference to British Commonwealthers at first, or what followed when first glancing through this post. Now that I have understood it, it is saddening, the thoroughly underhand slur cast on a gallant community is ucalled for and downright racist, and it calls into question all the positive impression I had formed about the integrity of such posts.

First things first. We are all aware of the fierce independence maintained by Jinnah. The legendary occasion when he and his wife, Ruttie, walked out of the reception given by Lord Willingdon, then Governor of Bombay, is very well known. Mountbatten and he were not on cordial terms, although any account of their nearly coming to blows is a wild exaggeration with little merit, knowing the characters and personalities of both men and the mores of the times.

That granted, your response was a diversion. The post spoke of the subservience of the party, not of an individual of great merit who happened to lead it. The Muslim League, under Jinnah or in the years before, NEVER mobilized against the British. There was never a hartal or a demonstration or a disobedience of the rule laid down, never any action that brought them into direct confrontation with the British. Not a single Muslim League leader paid for his (or her) resistance to British rule by suffering imprisonment. Their presence was always at conferences and meetings, and public gatherings where their leaders addressed the gathering. Perhaps the only noteworthy occasion when they took to any overt act of defiance was on Direct Action Day, on August 16, 1946, when ironically, the British stood around and watched while Muslim mobs killed Hindus in a one-sided massacre for two days before the Hindus and Sikhs retaliated. It is said that this was not Jinnah's fault, this was not his intention. It most certainly was Suhrawardy's fault. That leader of the League in Bengal made it clear to those who attended his mass meeting on the day that any action they took would not be held to account. For that day and the next, his words were tested by rioting mobs; he, breaking all precedent, parked himself in the police control room and ensured police complicity with the mobs. The retribution that followed was dreadful. The point, however, is that the Muslim League did nothing of note against the British - even Direct Action Day was against the British paying excessive attention to the Congress and insufficient attention to the wishes of the League, and it turned out to be an occasion for a murderous assault on fellow-Indians, not on the British. So how was the poster wrong? Apart from Jinnah's disdain for British social arrogance, did we see a single demonstration against the British? In the absence of any physical display of discontent, is it wrong to question the depth and extent of the League's opposition to the rulers?

Your final passage was in very questionable taste.

Recently an ex-PAF friend reminded me that Group Captain Cecil Chaudhry had passed away in hospital, full of years and honours. He was Christian, and represented a small band of Christians who have rendered yeoman service to Pakistan. Another very distinguished Pakistani citizen, not a retired British citizen but a regular Pakistani, was Mervyn Leslie Middlecoat, who died in combat in 1971. He was 31 years of age then, in the prime of his life, certainly nowhere near retirement. Middlecoat was an Anglo-Indian.

On the Indian side, we had several very gallant Indian citizens, also from the Anglo-Indian community. The Keelor brothers were legends. Denzil and Trevor Keelor were both serving IAF pilots, and both, I am proud to say, from La Martiniere Lucknow, sister school to mine at Calcutta. Both killed Sabres in 65, both won Veer Chakras, Trevor retired in 1978, Denzil went on to become Air Marshal and retired in 1991.

There were a host of Anglo-Indians in the IAF. Ten of them - Dougie King-Lee, Mally Wollen, Dennis La Fontaine, Johnny Greene, Denzil Keelor, Keith Lewis, Sherwin Tully, Mike McMahon and Norman Browne - rose to Air Marshal rank, two out of the ten became Chief, including the current incumbent, N. A. K. Browne. Dennis La Fontaine was the other. They were exemplary in their service, unmatched in their gallantry and steadfast in their loyalty.

There were no retired British officers flying planes in combat in the IAF. No foreigner fought for India. We did not enroll mercenaries, nor did we serve as mercenaries for others. For a brief period immediately after independence, British citizens served in senior ranks, as chief, for instance, in all three services. We had General Lockhart and Bucher, succeeded by General Cariappa in 1949 in the Army; we had R Adm Hall, Admiral Sir William Parry, Sir Charles Pizey, V Adm Sir Stephen Carlill, succeeded by V Adm Ramdass Katari in 1958 in the Navy, and AM Sir Thomas Elmhirst, ACM Sir Ronald Ivelaw-Chapman, AM Sir Gerald Gibbs, succeeded by Subroto Mukherjee in 1954.

None of the British officers were engaged in combat in 1948, in 1965 or in 1971. None of them were retired officers re-employed; all were in active service.

I sincerely hope that you were not referring to our Anglo-Indian officers when you made your observation. I sincerely hope that you were simply mistaken regarding the facts when you made your observation. Any other interpretation or possibility would be deleterious to your own reputation.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Oh boy, this'll be good. But it's 4 in the morning here and I have work and a final exam tomorrow.

Do expect me to reply though to your post, Joseph.


What I can say is that you are wrong to assume that Jinnah and the League did not defy the Brits and this was especially relevant when talks of the Partition saw fruition and the brits were one of the single biggest impediments to the partition - not facilitators. Maybe this doesnt apply to when the brits (and the mohatma) realized things were to a point of no return; I think as an indian, some of your emotions may also be coming into play but it would be safe not to consider that a definitive conclusion or judgement -just a possibility.


as for PAF and iAF - points well taken. I will be happy to entertain you with citations/excerpts from S. Sajad Haider's book Flight of the Falcons. As you may be aware, he's a former (retired) Air Commodore & Sqn Ldr of the PAF. A family friend as well. It's always possible I either mis-read it or the author made a mistake. Wait for my reply tomorrow and forgive me in advance if there are delays or if I'm not "100% there" --tomorrow's gonna be a shyt-busy day

 

[Joe Shearer]

Oh boy, this'll be good. But it's 4 in the morning here and I have work and a final exam tomorrow.

Do expect me to reply though to your post, Joseph.


What I can say is that you are wrong to assume that Jinnah and the League did not defy the Brits and this was especially relevant when talks of the Partition saw fruition and the brits were one of the single biggest impediments to the partition - not facilitators. Maybe this doesnt apply to when the brits (and the mohatma) realized things were to a point of no return; I think as an indian, some of your emotions may also be coming into play but it would be safe not to consider that a definitive conclusion or judgement -just a possibility.


as for PAF and iAF - points well taken. I will be happy to entertain you with citations/excerpts from S. Sajad Haider's book Flight of the Falcons. As you may be aware, he's a former (retired) Air Commodore & Sqn Ldr of the PAF. A family friend as well. It's always possible I either mis-read it or the author made a mistake. Wait for my reply tomorrow and forgive me in advance if there are delays or if I'm not "100% there" --tomorrow's gonna be a shyt-busy day

I respect your existing commitments and of course I shall wait for an answer.

Your point about Jinnah and the League is a hyphenated one. Emotionally I am better able to handle the issue of the performance of the League, setting aside for the moment the role of Jinnah. My ardent admiration for the man is no secret.

However, the way you have couched your preliminary remarks considerably reduces the gap between our positions. If we consider the happenings of the years 1946 and 1947, yes, it is true that the entire team played a role, and yes, it was a time when their actions seemed 'spoilers' to others. Reading about those years six decades later does not entirely remove that distaste for the frantic last moment manoeuvres that took place. Honesty compels me to admit that it was all that was left to do.

And there lies the rub. What did the League do between 1906 and 1936? Sweet Fanny Adams! Even thereafter, with Jinnah at the helm, they were busy organizing the position of the Muslim community after the independence which all foresaw. Again, a caveat: I am well aware of the positive relations between Jinnah and Ambedkar, and the sensitivity to Tamil, broadly, Dravidian sentiment displayed by Jinnah. Subject those caveats, which were largely due to Jinnah's ability to see things in the round, what did the League do?

Please read this note along with my earlier one. I look forward to your response, and hope you will present the League's activities in a positive way, one that all of us can affirm as contributory to our common struggle.

The other matter is a very deeply felt one, and it is best handled separately. I have a considerable regard for Sajjad Haider, and have had very interesting chats with his contemporaries - well, at least one contemporary. Whatever he says must be of interest, subject to the general underwtanding that he thought well of himself, and judged others by that exacting standard!

About Anglo-Indians. The phrasing you used was deeply hurtful. Having grown up with AIs all my younger days, reading it was like a slap in the face. It would less than truthful to conceal my present state of anguish and indignation.

Incidentally, on a lighter note, I am 'Joe', not 'Joseph'. My nickname is taken from a Major General of the British Indian Army who set up the first polo club in the world, Silchar, which does not exist any more. So it stands for nothing more than 'Joe Shearer'. On PTH, I was bonobashi or Vajra, and wished to leave those 'nicks' alone, to commemorate my happiest days on line.

 

[Zarvan]

I respect your existing commitments and of course I shall wait for an answer.

Your point about Jinnah and the League is a hyphenated one. Emotionally I am better able to handle the issue of the performance of the League, setting aside for the moment the role of Jinnah. My ardent admiration for the man is no secret.

However, the way you have couched your preliminary remarks considerably reduces the gap between our positions. If we consider the happenings of the years 1946 and 1947, yes, it is true that the entire team played a role, and yes, it was a time when their actions seemed 'spoilers' to others. Reading about those years six decades later does not entirely remove that distaste for the frantic last moment manoeuvres that took place. Honesty compels me to admit that it was all that was left to do.

And there lies the rub. What did the League do between 1906 and 1936? Sweet Fanny Adams! Even thereafter, with Jinnah at the helm, they were busy organizing the position of the Muslim community after the independence which all foresaw. Again, a caveat: I am well aware of the positive relations between Jinnah and Ambedkar, and the sensitivity to Tamil, broadly, Dravidian sentiment displayed by Jinnah. Subject those caveats, which were largely due to Jinnah's ability to see things in the round, what did the League do?

Please read this note along with my earlier one. I look forward to your response, and hope you will present the League's activities in a positive way, one that all of us can affirm as contributory to our common struggle.

The other matter is a very deeply felt one, and it is best handled separately. I have a considerable regard for Sajjad Haider, and have had very interesting chats with his contemporaries - well, at least one contemporary. Whatever he says must be of interest, subject to the general underwtanding that he thought well of himself, and judged others by that exacting standard!

About Anglo-Indians. The phrasing you used was deeply hurtful. Having grown up with AIs all my younger days, reading it was like a slap in the face. It would less than truthful to conceal my present state of anguish and indignation.

Incidentally, on a lighter note, I am 'Joe', not 'Joseph'. My nickname is taken from a Major General of the British Indian Army who set up the first polo club in the world, Silchar, which does not exist any more. So it stands for nothing more than 'Joe Shearer'. On PTH, I was bonobashi or Vajra, and wished to leave those 'nicks' alone, to commemorate my happiest days on line.

Secularisation of any Muslim country is impossible because Islam is a complete code of life it has whole economic Social political system which ALLAH told us and ordered us to implement yes by force for sometime you may be able to implement so called secularism but not for long eventually it will fail in Muslim lands and latest example is Turkey which is again coming back to Islam

 

[Joe Shearer]

Secularisation of any Muslim country is impossible because Islam is a complete code of life it has whole economic Social political system which ALLAH told us and ordered us to implement yes by force for sometime you may be able to implement so called secularism but not for long eventually it will fail in Muslim lands and latest example is Turkey which is again coming back to Islam

I understand that you have a point of view. I also understand that other people - good Pakistanis, patriots - have posted views that are dramatically different. All are valid, as far as the discussion goes.

The post you answered has nothing to do with your answer. Just thought you'd like to know.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

The 2NT theory in no way precludes the possibility of a secular state. I think I addressed that point in my previous post. Besides anything else even if 2NT did preclude that possibility we are now in 2012. It really does not matter what ( other than academics ) of what happened in 1947. Pakistan is a reality today. Its does not follow that every generation in Pakistan is going to be hostage to the events of 1947.

I am sure we all have heard of evolution. When USA came about, its founding fathers talked about 'government of the people'. Clearly they overlooked the black people of USA. Over time changes have been made, those changes did not reduce or take away the gloss from the founding fathers. Let me stress it again, there is nothing intrinsic to Pakistan that prevents it from evolving into a secular state. The choice is ours. I think we need to debate this and win people to our side and then let time takes its course.

Now I will advocate why I think Pakistan needs to become a secular state but first we need to understand what a secular state is. I believe the Urdu translation of secular is La-din which I believe does the word secular injustice. The Urdu word suggests no religion or lack of religion. Now that gets the ignorent people ( of whom we have plenty ) all hot and ready to burn spare tyres and wreck the local bazaar.

A secular state to my understanding is a state which keeps it nose out of religion. It does not favour any particular religion and remains a neutral stance. This does not prevent the individuel from following his or her own faith. It is not per se against religion.

Now I want those who oppose a secular state to consider the following:-

1. Islam is split into many sects. Those sects are split into many schools of thought. Those schools of thought are split in many local mutations. The Justice Munir Report of 1953 mentions how 'No two scholars of Islam could agree on a single defintion of what Islam is'.

2. Faith is opposite of reason. Those who believe in it need no reason. Its absolute. Now thats fine as long as you keep that as private belief unto yourself but its not so great if you try to extend it to others. That will create conflict because others will not be prepared to be bound by your beliefs.

3. Once the state gets involved in religion the first question is which strand is the state going to uphold? Whichever strand it does uphold, its going to inevitably get involved in enforcing on others who don't agree. Conflict will follow.

4. By allowing religion to enter the business of the state you are opening the door to Mullahs. After all religion is their domain. The gross effect is that the Mulahs will make inroads into everything and will start pronouncing fatwas on anything and everything.

5. Now this is the rub: Because Mullahs preach faith, they don't worry about reasion and logic. Because they have absolute belief they do not brook any debate or questioning and as a corrolary to this reason and logic are banished. This finally leads to a oppressive society where nobody dare question anything lest they be accused of being heretics. This is nothing less than a nightmare.

6. Eventually each sect/religious school of thought will end up going to war against each other. Because each believes the absolute nature of their belief system as gods word and will they will be ready to kill in gods name. I believe thats happening in Pakistan already. Shia against the Sunni. The Suni against the Shia. The Wahabi against the Ismaeli and and on and on like sharks on a feeding frenzy.

7. I find it pathetic how so many Pakistani's chilling out in the secular West are some of the most ardent voices against secular Pakistan. So its quite acceptable for millions of Pakistani's to live in the secular West but all hell breaks out if you mention secular Pakistan. Why? Can they not see how absurd their argumentt is?

8. If indeed secular state contradicts and degrades Islam then why has no Mullah put out a fatwa telling Pakistani's 'do not go abroad to live for that is akin to being a kaffir'? I would love for those who oppose a secular Pakistan to explain this dichotomy to me.

9. What they are saying is 'I can live in the secular West and be a good Muslim' but we can't have a 'secular Pakistan because those 180 million Muslims will be in danger'. How absurd.

Of course I expect all those who are against a secular Pakistan but live in the West to suddenly declare' we are students, did Prophet mohammed ( PBUH ) not say go China for sake of knowledge'.

It would also help if those who oppose my view to give a constructed reply as opposed to one liners. Try to inform your opinion with some facts or reasons.

I would like to add some more points but I fear this thread is getting too long. I would highly recommend people read the Justice Munir report 1954. It makes excellant observations that sadly have come true today in Pakistan. It warns against what might happen if mullahs are let lose. I believe it makes the stronger case for a secular Pakistan than I could ever make. The nightmare it forecasts has come about in Pakistan today.

I have ran out of time but could somebody please put a link here to the Justice munir report 1954.

I think people we need to focus on the title of thread, I have given numbered list of why I think we have no choice but to extricate the state out of religion. At present the Pakistani state is mired in religion. If people take the time to read the Justice MunirReport then you can see the nightmare faced today was forecast all those years ago.

Again I can't understand why people make absolute statements, like 'No' or 'Yes' without giving the rationale behind these absolutes. The only conclusion I can make is some people are frankly challanged by the subject in hand. To test out my proposition I am prepared to face critical enquiry on the points I raised in support of a secular state.

Let me reiterate again, my understanding of a secular state is that it should remain neutral in referance to religion. I am not saying the state ought expunge Islam. It should remain neutral like a umpire in game of cricket or referee in football.

Again I am going to ask those who oppose a secular state to consider that millions of Muslims live in the West. are you saying there is something wrong with them? Have they lost their faith? Even Turkey which adopted a very harsh model of secularism has not seen Islam weaken. Islam has been around for a long time and does not need the Pakistani state to protect it or preserve it. I will quote from the Qur'an 2256 "There is no compulsion in religion."

As some posters noted here, Pakistan is a diverse country unlike Iran where one branch of Shias are almost 96% of the population or the Wahabi dominated Saudi Arabia. My understanding is there are at least 10% Shia in Pakistan that would mean almost 18 million Shia. When the state gets involved in religion it is involving itself in the age old rivalry between differant sects of Islam and that is recipe for disaster.

I have no idea which pipe some posters have been smoking in fooling themselves into thinking the Amercan WOT is the cause of the interncine warfare. Have people forgotten about the Sunni- Shia bloodletting prior to 9/11 going back to at least 1980s? I have not seen any real friction betwen the differant religious sects in UK. Shia and Sunni live door to door without any issues. Thats because the state is not partial to one or the other.

Pakistan reminds me of those Sharks that start feeding on themselves, every day one religious group is killing the members of another. The vile, ignorent, chauvinist Mullah preaches hate on TV, in the Mosques and at rallies. In fact I think Pakistan has no option in the long run but to move toward a secular state or run the real risk of imploding.

Some observers would argue that we are well on the way to a mighty implosion already.

Again I will say people please read the Justice Munir Report. Reading it feels like doing a 'back to the future' experiance.

PS. I have avoided the issue about what came first, the chicken or the egg business with India/Pakistan/British India. I think that needs another thread and such discussion will entail deviating from the subject in hand. Same applies to Rig Vedic, again I will invite you to another thread where we can lock horns. We were talking about a nation state, Rig Vedic. Don't mix a civilization with a nation state. Civilizations tend to overrlap borders and are rarely exclusive to and found within one state.The same applies to language groups, be they Slav, Romance, Etc.

 

[truthseer]

Forget about secularization...Pakistan will be the most radicalized,Polarized Islamic state in the world by 2014....it is heading towards anarchy

Islam is not anarchy. When Islam reigns supreme, all ills shall vanish

The best solution to all of Pakistan's problems is to exterminate all traitor secularists like SAFMA

 

[humanfirst]

Islam is not anarchy. When Islam reigns supreme, all ills shall vanish

The best solution to all of Pakistan's problems is to exterminate all traitor secularists like SAFMA

Does the no-ills islamic reign require atleast its muslim citizens to be good non-corrupt muslims?

 

[truthseer]

Does the no-ills islamic reign require atleast its muslim citizens to be good non-corrupt muslims?

They will automatically become good, then we should start by banning all western sites like FB