When Hasan Nisar talks about the Pakistani "Ma'ashra", he talks about the lack of identity. He supports the Indian point of view which states that people on both sides of the border are of the same stock and race.Primarily, no one is Arabic, or Turkish or Uzbek. Most of the muslims, living in either India or Pakistan or Bangladesh have a common ancestry which is either Hinduism or the other cults(Buddhism etc
originating from it.
I don't fathom why it is difficult for Pakistanis to understand this. Cheemas live in India,Cheemas live in Pakistan.Gakkhars live in India, Gakkhars live in Pakistan.
We are basically the same people!
This view is extremely flawed. This is the main point of contention between me and Hassan Nisar. Otherwise, he is a very sensible person.
Indians love him when he bashes Pakistanis, but when he invites a few pro-Khalistan Sikhs to his show, he becomes the incarnation of satan.
Moving on to the extremely flawed idea that ''Pakistan has a lack of identity'', and that ''Pakistanis and Indians are the same people''.
First of all, Pakistan does not need a 'pure racial identity' to be a nation. That mentality was rejected by the advent of Islam in the 7th Century, and more recently by the West - they had enough of that experience with the American Confederacy and Nazi Germany.
Trying to ''return to our roots'' is idiocy, pure and simple. For one, we'll be alienating the few dozen million Pakistanis with Afghan, Mughal, Turkic and Persian lineage. And secondly, there is no such thing as ''Indian race''. India is itself comprised of dozens of ethnicties and races. Do you honestly believe today's South Indians and North Indians belong to the same race or lineage?
Primarily, no one is Arabic, or Turkish or Uzbek.
Oh really?
Go and tell that to the millions of Pakistanis from the Mughal zaat, or the 27 million Pakistani Pushtuns, or to the 7 million Balochi Pakistanis,
Pashtuns - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mughal tribe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Baloch people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Plenty of Indians with those origins too - do you reject them as Indians because of that?
Most of the muslims, living in either India or Pakistan or Bangladesh have a common ancestry which is either Hinduism or the other cults(
Ah, here comes the classic Hindu Nationalist argument that 'all Muslims are Hindus because their ancestors were ''converts''. The sheer illogicality of this is very simply demonstrated when you apply the same ''logic'' to, say, European Christians.
Their ancestors worshiping Zeus a few milennia ago has nothing to do with their ethnicity or their ''roots'' or their faith.
Then why is it that the Muslims of the subcontinent have to be worried about their ''Hindu roots''?
The first thing you need to understand is that Religion and Race are two very different things. Unless your religion is race-restrictive, you can be a member of a religion regardless of what your ethnicity is.
Cheemas live in India,Cheemas live in Pakistan.Gakkhars live in India, Gakkhars live in Pakistan.
Chughtais live in Pakistan, Chughtais come from... wait, the Turkic Chagatai Khanate.
Farooqi is a fairly common surname in Pakistan, let's look at its glorious Hindu roots - wait, no. It originates in Arabia. It's also popular among Turks. By that logic Pakistanis and Turks are the same people.
What about Pirzadas? They originate from Tajik/Kyrgyz lineage.
Plenty of Bukharis and Ansaris in Pakistan- Bukhara is in Uzbekistan, that's where the former originate from. The latter originate from the Ansars of Madina - in Saudi Arabia.
Need I go on?
I am unaware of this that he is negating Ideology of Pakistan. If you could provide link that would be helpful.
He isn't. He criticizes a few extremists and Indians jump in their seats because they think he's telling them what they want to hear.
Despite his slight inferiority complex regarding ''barresaghir ka musulman'', he isn't ignorant of the reality.
