What's new

Nawaz Sharif Wins; Imran Khan fails. The end of Imran Khan is now official. Nawaz Sharif returning to his original status of ruler of Pakistan.

agreed. So wouldn’t you also logically agree that taasub ki politics, aka, jaag punjabi jaag, humara para likha Punjab party, aka N league is also a cancer to Pakistan.


Okay let’s get the facts straight. I too am curious where you found this 47% number. Can you please post a source if you have it? Not that I deny it but that this supports my argument anyways.

To reiterate, my argument is as follows:- muhajjirs and Bengalis formed the majority (more than 50%) of the new Pakistans bureacracy. To limit their influence, quotas were introduced. For muhajjirs, this quota was much lower than what their numbers were in the bureaucracy. (As in, the quotas were not to our benefit, last I checked 15% conditional and 2% final is a lot lower than the 47% you have posted).

In addition, the way the quotas were enforced disadvantaged Bengalis first and then Sindhis later. At the benefit of a Punjabis. The article I posted has evidence of this.

Nothing you have listed goes against my argument. In fact, supports it. If Ivy League universities tomorrow would say that we are going to give Jews 10% quotas in our universities, the Jews would be pissed not pleased. That is because they make up far more than that currently - even though they are 2% of the US population, they make up 30% of the population in Ivy leagues.

You are basing your entire argument on the assumption that Muhajirs and Bengalis formed the majority of the new Pakistan Bureaucracy and then you yourself admit that you have no data / stats to backup this assertion. So, You don't have an argument to begin with.

Everyone (even with a basic knowledge of our political history) knows that quota system was introduced in Pakistan on the pretext of giving Bengalis a proportionate representation in civil services as they were grossly underrepresented. Whereas it was specifically designed to benefit Muhajirs which it did untill being reversed by Ayub Khan, Bhutto and Yahya. None of them was from Punjab. So, you too are barking up the wrong tree.

For starters, read this:
In the early years of Pakistan’s creation, Mohajirs constituted a privileged community, with state policies geared towards their benefit. Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan’s quota system, for example, was introduced to increase Bengali representation in the civil services, but was designed in a manner that did not affect the Mohajir representation. Consequently, the Mohajirs dominated politics, bureaucracy and business. Despite constituting only three percent of the population, they held nearly 21 percent of the jobs. By 1950, due to the quota system, the One Unit Plan (which blocked all of western Pakistan into one province, West Pakistan, to counter the Bengali majority in the east) and a high literacy rate amongst migrants, the Mohajirs’ share in the civil service increased to around 47 percent.[4] The Gujrati-speaking migrants from Bombay controlled seven of the 12 largest industrial houses.[5] By early 1970s, Mohajirs held 33.5 percent of gazetted positions in the civilian bureaucracy, nearly half of the senior positions in public enterprises, and 11 out of the top 48 (23 percent) senior positions in the military.[6]
 
Last edited:
.
You are basing your entire argument on the assumption that Muhajirs and Bengalis formed the majority of the new Pakistan Bureaucracy and then you yourself admit that you have no data / stats to backup this assertion. So, You don't have an argument to begin with.

Everyone (even with a basic knowledge of our political history) knows that quota system was introduced in Pakistan on the pretext of giving Bengalis a proportionate representation in civil services as they were grossly underrepresented. Whereas it was specifically designed to benefit Muhajirs which it did untill being reversed by Ayub Khan, Bhutto and Yahya. None of them was from Punjab. So, you too are barking up the wrong tree.

For starters, read this:

You haven’t quoted the primary source- just an article that makes a point in passing. In legal terms, we would call this prejudicial.

Here is the original source:-
“For example, the largest Mohajirs residential area was Karachi in Sindh Province with 1.5 percent of population received two percent quota in jobs and 15 percent additional allocation was received for migrants. Whereas, the East Pakistan’s share in the total population was 56.75 percent and quota was 42 percent only (Waseem, 1997, p.227). The mentioned quota system was revised in 1949 that further reduced the Bengali share by 2 percent and increased 20 percent to the merit category. This policy made Mohajirs more beneficent because they had high literacy rate. Due to the reason by 1950, their share in civil service was around 47 percent.”
Page 203 /491 from source below-

Anyways, the point is very different here. The muhajjirs were privileged because merit was increased to 20% - why? Because of their high literacy rates. Ay, there’s the rub. Even before this 20% increase, they would have been what- 27% then? That still proves my point. 17% is a lot less than the 27%. No way to argue your point. And the article you cite, cites this source. Both of these authors clearly leftist marxists who can’t do math. And for whatever reason, the source citation, doesn’t produce the original source for 47% - that might have allowed us to settle the debate and see what the numbers were before 1948.

You also said

You are basing your entire argument on the assumption that Muhajirs and Bengalis formed the majority of the new Pakistan Bureaucracy and then you yourself admit that you have no data / stats to backup this assertion. So, You don't have an argument to begin with.

This is again your problem- your inability to understand what I said. I am a quantitative person. I like numbers. I can cite you a lot of sources that say that muhajjirs and Bengalis were the majority of the bureaucracy in the new state. Hell, you yourself have said so above. But what study proves that?

I don’t have the study at hand that would tell us exactly what numbers they were. And how those numbers evolved. Even this 47% number in the original source citation, appears magically from the air - no original study cited for it.

Well, Punjab too is Northern India. You have completely missed the point.
All of west Pakistan by that logic is northern India. Include Bengal and that’s all of Pakistan in beginning. Clearly when someone says that northern India and Bengal formed majority of bureaucracy, they mean Muhajjirs and Bengalis.
 
Last edited:
.
Here is the original source:-
“For example, the largest Mohajirs residential area was Karachi in Sindh Province with 1.5 percent of population received two percent quota in jobs and 15 percent additional allocation was received for migrants. Whereas, the East Pakistan’s share in the total population was 56.75 percent and quota was 42 percent only (Waseem, 1997, p.227). The mentioned quota system was revised in 1949 that further reduced the Bengali share by 2 percent and increased 20 percent to the merit category. This policy made Mohajirs more beneficent because they had high literacy rate. Due to the reason by 1950, their share in civil service was around 47 percent.”
Page 203 /491 from source below-

Anyways, the point is very different here. The muhajjirs were privileged because merit was increased to 20% - why? Because of their high literacy rates. Ay, there’s the rub. Even before this 20% increase, they would have been what- 27% then? That still proves my point. 17% is a lot less than the 27%. No way to argue your point. And the article you cite, cites this source. Both of these authors clearly leftist marxists who can’t do math. And for whatever reason, the source citation, doesn’t produce the original source for 47% - that might have allowed us to settle the debate and see what the numbers were before 1948.
And if someone’s argument rests on the idea that Muhajjirs were advantaged by increasing the merit allocation- what does it say about what their numbers would be if everything would be merit based, i.e. before 1948, before quotas were introduced and every posting was supposedly merit based?
 
.
If punjab votes for nawaz then it would be better for imran to step down and let nawaz and punjab enjoy
Which will be just fine with the powers that be AKA the generals and their support base of central Punjab. They will keep diverting all the national revenue to be spent in Lahore and rest exported to London Dubai and Brussels. And the rest of the country will remain a fourth world hell hole.
 
.
topi drama that is Pakistan politics, while pos generals run things behindthe scenes . im so sick of this BS.
 
.
You are giving yourself too much importance, Punjabis have gained relevance in the last 75 years and in the time of their Great Leader Ranjit Singh, otherwise they always have been irrelevant, nothing to show.
Ranjit Singh's nutter huggers are still alive and kicking even after getting genocided by his followers.
 
.
Read my blurb again. I am talking about historic voting patterns. A significant portion of punjabis still vote PMLN on the basis of ethnicity.
That's biraadri thing driven by inter and intra clan frictions.

Not many instances outside some constituencies in big urban scene where different ethnicities are up against each other. This is almost impossible in KPK or Balochistan.

So I would not be so unfair to the people of Punjab or the Punjabi linguistic community.
 
.
You won't find anyone in Punjab supporting Bajwa because of his ethnicity. We Punjabis, unlike some others, are above such petty things

As for you holding Punjabis responsible for breaking the country into 2,

Neither Yahya, Nor Mujib or Bhutto were Punjabis. We in fact had no Punjabi COAS before 1971. You are barking up the wrong tree
Of course not, Punjabi nationalism reared its ugly head in the 80's and now Ranjit Singh's nut huggers are dime a dozen.
 
.
agreed. So wouldn’t you also logically agree that taasub ki politics, aka, jaag punjabi jaag, humara para likha Punjab party, aka N league is also a cancer to Pakistan.
Absolutely, though is it fair to say ethnic nationalism in other ethnic groups is a reactionary response to Punjabi nationalism?
 
.
Stop lying, winner is here :lol:

D66D5964-665A-4ED0-B049-AF4D63416403.jpeg
 
.
Wait bro so then how tf did they start riding Punjabi identity then 😂 😂

Does no one question their roots when they say "Jag Punjab Jag" 😂
They have fully assimilated culturally and I guess pledge their loyalty to Punjab, I don't know

But even with those slogans it's really just low IQ donkey meat eaters that get excited lmao

Absolutely, though is it fair to say ethnic nationalism in other ethnic groups is a reactionary response to Punjabi nationalism?
Ethnic nationalism within other groups is due to reasons:

- They feel that Punjabis dominate the country and don't give them fair development

- partial racism towards Punjabis - you will notice it in their discourse it's quite common rather than any actual fair criticism apart from the few
 
. . . . .

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom