Is secularisation of Pakistan possible?

[FaujHistorian]

While I am very sympathetic to the arguments at #116, which was nothing short of brilliant, I must regretfully disagree with the pointless coda.

Please consult the bare act of the Indian Independence Act. It makes it clear that India is the British colony that was India, except the Dominion of Pakistan which was being carved out of it.

......

Good to see that in #116 Pakistani is willing to leave the 3rd grade sarkari school history book and think at his own.
Sad to see that Joe S an Indian is totally unwilling to leave his 3rd grade sarkari school history book.

My dear Joe S.

Indians so badly wanted to be the true and asli gora-legacy and they want to throw out every brown they could.

So what! the areas under modern day India were the British colony
Same Britishers ruled areas now under Pakistan.

There is no difference whatsoever.

But on one side Indian thinkers wanted to be the "independers"
and then from other side they wanted to be the only true blue legacy of whites.
It is like a Brahmin's son can only be the Brahmin and intellectual. No one else can. What you say is Historical caste system and nothing else.

Pakistan is a diverse country. It will never be a secular country but we wont stop people from living their lives the way they want to unlike the governments in Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Pakistan is a moderate Islamic country like UAE, but it really depends where in Pakistan you go.

I agree that Pakistan is a diverse country.

This is precisely why it must be a tolerant and open country so that it can easily deal with its diversity.

Islamism as practiced today and for the last 500 years is intolerant.

So how about we all agree on something.

-- Pakistan cannot be Secular
-- Pakistan cannot be islamist


-- Pakistan should be a tolerant and humanist society where everyone is protected and respected regardless of their tribe or belief system. Where people speak truth, and where people can trust and respect each others' property.


Agreed?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Good to see that in #116 Pakistani is willing to leave the 3rd grade sarkari school history book and think at his own.
Sad to see that Joe S an Indian is totally unwilling to leave his 3rd grade sarkari school history book.

My dear Joe S.

Indians so badly wanted to be the true and asli gora-legacy and they want to throw out every brown they could.

So what! the areas under modern day India were the British colony
Same Britishers ruled areas now under Pakistan.

There is no difference whatsoever.

But on one side Indian thinkers wanted to be the "independers"
and then from other side they wanted to be the only true blue legacy of whites.
It is like a Brahmin's son can only be the Brahmin and intellectual. No one else can. What you say is Historical caste system and nothing else.



I agree that Pakistan is a diverse country.

This is precisely why it must be a tolerant and open country so that it can easily deal with its diversity.

Islamism as practiced today and for the last 500 years is intolerant.

So how about we all agree on something.

-- Pakistan cannot be Secular
-- Pakistan cannot be islamist


-- Pakistan should be a tolerant and humanist society where everyone is protected and respected regardless of their tribe or belief system. Where people speak truth, and where people can trust and respect each others' property.


Agreed?

My dear FaujHistorian,

Presumably the historian in you is a function of Fauj; that might explain an incoherent post.

My post was based on two published documents, which DO NOT form part of Indian history text books, AFAIK. They are from published data; if the Fauj part of you had not overpowered the Historian part, you might have benefited by consulting those sources. There were, and are differences, which are not important except when accuracy of facts is concerned. I am not in the least bothered to score points off some defenseless young idiot. It is just the way things were, without any Indian hand in it.

I am not able to understand your gush about independers, whatever those creatures might be, and true-blue legacy of whites. What I am concerned with is the point raised by Atanz.

It was a pleasure to read his well written and well argued piece. I wish I could use any of those words about your contribution.

 

[Ir.Tab.]

Dear friend S19, do you think it is possible to reach a conclusion? I think I failed to!

 

[DRaisinHerald]

Full Secularisation is simply not possible; and that's a fact.

Currently Pakistan has a combination of secular-oriented and Islamic-oriented laws; that's how it should be. Pakistan was never a full Islamic country despite the "Islamic" part before Republic of Pakistan; but it has been a Muslim country.

So to sum up: it can have a nice mix of both secular and Islamic, but it can't become fully secular.

 

[FaujHistorian]

.......

My post was based on two published documents, which DO NOT form part of Indian history text books, ......

Indian Independence Act of 1947 says the following:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/10-11/30/section/1


The new Dominions.

(1)As from the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, two independent Dominions shall be set up in India, to be known respectively as India and Pakistan.

(2)The said Dominions are hereafter in this Act referred to as “the new Dominions”, and the said fifteenth day of August is hereafter in this Act referred to as “the appointed day”.


However Indians would love to say "We are special" and "only true inheritors of British Raaj", and Pakistan is just a "sowtila child". Well what can I say brother. Whatever rocks your boat.


peace.

 

[Omar1984]

I agree that Pakistan is a diverse country.

This is precisely why it must be a tolerant and open country so that it can easily deal with its diversity.

Islamism as practiced today and for the last 500 years is intolerant.

So how about we all agree on something.

-- Pakistan cannot be Secular
-- Pakistan cannot be islamist

When I meant Pakistan is a diverse country I meant ethnically and conservative places like Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan compared to more liberal places like Karachi and Lahore. Pakistan has only a 3% non-muslim population so secularism won't benefit Pakistan at all. The only people who want secularism in Pakistan are those who want Pakistan to be a mirror image of the west where there are strip clubs and gay bars.


It would be in Pakistan's national interest to not be secular. Conservative areas of Pakistan will never accept secularism.

 

[King Solomon]

Dear friend S19, do you think it is possible to reach a conclusion? I think I failed to!

Hello friend Ir.Tab. My conclusion is:

Most natives here are too much engrossed by religion. Too much, to see what is good and bad for them. They do not consider the practical need for Pakistan to be a secular, democratic state now. Even after their "islamic" state model has not worked for the last half century, they still do not understand the need to be a secular state. They take religion as a cover for everything and to hide behind their failures.

And in other topics, I see the vitriol being thrown at Ahmedi sect followers and Hindus by the natives here. My overall conclusion is that unless a radical change in the mentality of the natives take place, a secular state is not possible. Pakistan will continue to be plagued by extremism and poverty if this mindset continues. Surely, God does not change the status of people who does not change themselves.

My intention was not to insult the natives, i have respect for them. But just what I think.

 

[FaujHistorian]

When I meant Pakistan is a diverse country I meant ethnically and conservative places like Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan compared to more liberal places like Karachi and Lahore. Pakistan has only a 3% non-muslim population so secularism won't benefit Pakistan at all. The only people who want secularism in Pakistan are those who want Pakistan to be a mirror image of the west where there are strip clubs and gay bars.


It would be in Pakistan's national interest to not be secular. Conservative areas of Pakistan will never accept secularism.

Pakistan's national interest is not linked to one or the other term.

Instead our country will prosper if (as I stated earlier) Pakistan is a tolerant and humanist society where everyone is protected and respected regardless of their tribe or belief system. Where people speak truth, and where people can trust and respect each others' property.

As long we can have tolerance, respect, truth, and trust, we can call it secularism, Islamism, or fauj-ism. Doesn't matter.

I am not attached to one term or the other.


peace,

 

[Donatello]

Impossible, their Two-Nation theory and Secularism are incompatible.

The two nation theory was put forth to save muslims of 'THAT' time from the wrath of hindus of 'THAT' time.

And it very much did that. How the muslims would have lived, like my forefathers under hindu majority rule, had Pakistan not been created, no body knows.

Last time we tried to to find out, you got 2006 Gujarat.

 

[SHAMK9]

as much as i want that, i m afraid its not possible.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Indian Independence Act of 1947 says the following:
Indian Independence Act 1947


The new Dominions.

(1)As from the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, two independent Dominions shall be set up in India, to be known respectively as India and Pakistan.

(2)The said Dominions are hereafter in this Act referred to as “the new Dominions”, and the said fifteenth day of August is hereafter in this Act referred to as “the appointed day”.


However Indians would love to say "We are special" and "only true inheritors of British Raaj", and Pakistan is just a "sowtila child". Well what can I say brother. Whatever rocks your boat.


peace.

Since you insist on a public humiliation, this is the original statute, in PDF.


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1947/30/pdfs/ukpga_19470030_en.pdf


The clause just below the head you have quoted, by some remarkable coincidence, contains section 2(1). It reads as follows

2.—(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (3) (4) of this section, the territories of India shall be the territories under the sovereignty of His Majesty which, immediately before the appointed day, were included in British India except the territories which, under subsection (2) of this section, are to be the territories of Pakistan.

If you have to lie, just remember:

Do not lie about public documents in print;
Do not lie about an area about which you know little or nothing.

 

[VCheng]

S.........

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1947/30/pdfs/ukpga_19470030_en.pdf


......................

Link not working for me, can you please double check.

 

[MilSpec]

Full Secularisation is simply not possible; and that's a fact.

Currently Pakistan has a combination of secular-oriented and Islamic-oriented laws; that's how it should be. Pakistan was never a full Islamic country despite the "Islamic" part before Republic of Pakistan; but it has been a Muslim country.

So to sum up: it can have a nice mix of both secular and Islamic, but it can't become fully secular.

What happened to Jinnah's confederacy of states with strong federations and regulating center, how did it change into a country whose powers lies in the hands of COAS?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Link not working for me, can you please double check.

Oops!

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1947/30/pdfs/ukpga_19470030_en.pdf

 

[Joe Shearer]

What happened to Jinnah's confederacy of states with strong federations and regulating center, how did it change into a country whose powers lies in the hands of COAS?

Jinnah died within months of independence. His successors were pygmies next to him; they could not help bickering among themselves and cutting each other down to size. They were also faced with a different dynamic - two blocs instead of one. What Jinnah had feared, the majoritarian domination of the nation, actually happened. It would have broken his heart if he had lived to see what happened. Instead of the Hindus dominating the others, in his Pakistan, it was the west that dominated the east.

This, too, happened because his successors centralized the country instead of Jinnah's notion of decentralizing the centre, and treated the central, "national" government and the western bloc as the same! I believe that he himself would have worked for autonomous west Pakistan, autonomous Bangla bloc, and a central government handling only three things, defence, foreign relations and communications. Further, because of the scandalous way the leadership treated each other, a fear of democracy arose which never went away.

A preliminary response; very early in the day.