Neo-Indus nationalism does not work

[Hamza913]

The most difficult thing for a Pakistani to recognise and to acknowledge is the true foundation of Pakistan. That is why we keep stumbling into these raging feuds over the nature of Pakistan. While these feuds are numerous, one of them is between the older concept of a creation for the safe haven of the Muslims of the sub-continent, intended to allow them to lead their own distinctive life-style and their religion, and the newer concept of a creation put together of an existing region distinct from the rest of India that had been distinct from time immemorial.

My relationship with neo-Indus nationalism has been an on-again-off-again sort of deal, but I think it's going to remain "off" for the foreseeable future.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

creation for the safe haven of the Muslims of the sub-continent

existing region distinct from the rest of India that had been distinct from time immemorial.

While these two strains of thinking might appear to be unconnected but the reality is, there is direct connection between both. The fact is pre-1947 there existed pre-existing conditions that allowed the idea of "Muslim haven" to take root. And that 'pre-existing conditions' were obtaining in the Indus valley region. Without those 'pre-existing conditions' it would have been interesting to see how ML would have planted their generic Pakistan in some other random region of the Raj. And even if ML had succeeded, for instance by planting their Pakistan in Bihar or Deccan would that Pakistan have been same as the Pakistan we have today? I think a Muslim citadel in Ganga Valley or Deccan would have been entirely differant Pakistan then the Pakistan we have on the Indus Valley because this one is informed by the peoples of that valley.

Going back to the point earlier the Indus region had a differant trajectory to other parts of the Raj and it's geography/history had laid the obtaining conditions for the ML project to take root - well outside from where the impulse was first born.

But. I can see why there is resistence from this very natural idea to mature and take root. The problem is double.

• The religious lobby refuses to accept such a notion as that enters secular notions into the idea of Pakistan and disturbs their rickety "Pakistan Kya Matlab" song. Furthermore it poses danger to them in making them redundant from the political space they have carved in Pakistan.
• The Mohajor community are threatened by this idea. Because it raises questions about why they migrated and reduces their role in the national narrative. Their entire existence and position within Pakistan is premised on and qualified on the idea of Muslim/Hindu being two nations, two distinct peoples. The IVC goes against this idea and endangers their ovesized role in Pakistan. Since this group is very vocal, very organised and in control of most of the media it makes sure that the Indus idea is shredded at every turn and prevented from taking root.

I don't have time to expand on these two streams that converge in their effort to prevent in the evolution of a secular, easy going, accepting of diversity idea of Pakistani nationalism develop. The schizphrenia and rabid hatred for Hindus is natural product of this.

@Joe Shearer

 

[Rafi]

The final destiny of Muslims of North-West India.
a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State
Punjab, Sindh, KP, and Balochistan
Read again

He is a notorious Troll, just ignore him.

Make no mistake Pakistan is here for eternity.

InshaAllah, well said.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Where does it mention the IVC?

I only wish that Britain had not bothered to tax tea. Then you would still be a bloody British colony and would not need to worry about "Freeeeeee-dom".

"Amrika Kya Matlab"? Fcukin untaxed tea.

 

[Yankee-stani]

Give 2-3 gen we will be free of ganga and we wuz Arab syndrome

 

[Rafi]

I only wish that Britain had not bothered to bloody tax tea. Then you would still be a bloody British colony and would not need to worry about "Freeeeeee-dom".

"Amrika Kya Matlab"? Fcukin untaxed tea.

How dare you criticise the emissary of the great white father, his excellency V Cheng. The US was created from fairy turds, and elf cum.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

1971 was a seminal event in South Asia. It in one blunderbus shot destroyed the idea of Two Nation Theory and the idea of One Nation Theory. Bangladesh's existence serves to remind us there are two Muslim majority states in South Asia and that more then religion infoms them or else there would have been no Bangladesh. Thus it undoes 2NT.

On the other hand Bangladesh did not become part of India. This undoes the idea of 1NT. Because Bangladesh today as evolved into a solid nation state distinct from India. If the Indian contention that 1947 event was artificial and a horrible aberration carried any currency Bangladesh would have integrated into India in 1971. That did not happen. This kills te idea of One Nation Theory stone dead.

What does Pakistan and Bangladesh tell us? Look at them. Both are Muslim. Yet they are differant? Why? Because one is Muslim tapestry woven over the Indus Valley canvas. The other Muslim tapestry resting on the Bengal Delta. two differant histories. Two differant geographies. Two differant ethnic amalgams.

 

[Jackdaws]

1971 was a seminal event in South Asia. It in one blunderbus shot destroyed the idea of Two Nation Theory and the idea of One Nation Theory. Bangladesh's existence serves to remind us there are two Muslim majority states in South Asia and that more then religion infoms them or else there would have been no Bangladesh. Thus it undoes 2NT.

On the other hand Bangladesh did not become part of India. This undoes the idea of 1NT. Because Bangladesh today as evolved into a solid nation state distinct from India. If the Indian contention that 1947 event was artificial and a horrible aberration carried any currency Bangladesh would have integrated into India in 1971. That did not happen. This kills te idea of One Nation Theory stone dead.

What does Pakistan and Bangladesh tell us? Look at them. Both are Muslim. Yet they are differant? Why? Because one is Muslim tapestry woven over the Indus Valley canvas. The other Muslim tapestry resting on the Bengal Delta. two differant histories. Two differant geographies. Two differant ethnic amalgams.

Am integration of erstwhile East Pak would have been seen as an act of hostility. It's liberation was seen as a benevolent act. Also, Pak wouldn't have disintegrated at all if there had been equitable distribution of power. Whether the 2 Nation Theory is real or not can't be gauged by the acts of opportunistic politicians.

I am of the opinion that if Partition had to happen, that's fine. It should have happened in a phased, sane manner without bloodshed and Mountbatten had time till July 1948 to carry it out. What was the hurry? Should have let the ethnic minorities remain present in both regions - why drive them out?

 

[Rafi]

Am integration of erstwhile East Pak would have been seen as an act of hostility. It's liberation was seen as a benevolent act. Also, Pak wouldn't have disintegrated at all if there had been equitable distribution of power. Whether the 2 Nation Theory is real or not can't be gauged by the acts of opportunistic politicians.

I am of the opinion that if Partition had to happen, that's fine. It should have happened in a phased, sane manner without bloodshed and Mountbatten had time till July 1948 to carry it out. What was the hurry? Should have let the ethnic minorities remain present in both regions - why drive them out?

In total agreement, if it had evolved peacefully, who knows the relationship could have been as the Quaid had wanted.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

I think the title is fairly self-explanatory. But you may be asking, what do I mean by neo-Indus nationalism?

By neo-Indus nationalism, I am referring to the (relatively) modern sub-ideology of Pakistani nationalism, which postulates that rather than Pakistan being made as a homeland for the Muslims of British India, Pakistan was in fact made for the people of the Indus. As a result, the individuals who subscribe to this school of thought (i.e many of the members on this forum) tend to view history in the prism of "the Indus vs everyone else".

I consider this thought-process to be problematic for the following reasons, which I will elaborate on:

1. Pakistan was not founded as a nation for the people of the Indus

This is by far the biggest contradiction to neo-Indus nationalism. Pakistan itself was always envisioned as a nation for the Muslims of British India, rather than as a distinct nation for the people of the Indus. Muhammad Ali Jinnah and others always spoke about how Muslims from British India were a different community to the rest, but never did Pakistan's founding fathers mention that the people of the Indus were different to the rest of British India on the sole basis of them being from the Indus. If Pakistan were founded as a nation for the people of the Indus first and foremost, then why does the two-nation theory speak about Muslims vis a vis the rest of British India rather than the people of the Indus? Why did so many Muslims from beyond the Indus migrate to Pakistan during partition? Why was Bangladesh made a part of Pakistan? Why was the Punjab divided? Why is it that Muhammad Bin Qasim, and not the Indus Priest King is viewed as the metaphorical first Pakistani?

I will leave you with this speech from Muhammad Ali Jinnah:

"It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, litterateurs. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspect on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state."

2. The Muslims of the Indus region are, broadly speaking, similar to those inhabiting the rest of the north of the sub-continent

I think the point itself is fairly self-explanatory. The reason why I say this is because I find it pretty undeniable. Most Muslims from both the Indus and the rest of the north of the sub-continent speak Urdu (and used to speak Farsi), have minor amounts of ancestry from people who came to the region during the Islamic rule over it, wear topis, wear headscarves, grow long beards, pray in Arabic, identify primarily with their religion, follow similar social rules (i.e doing what is halal and avoiding what is haram), keep many of the same tribes/clans, share similar heroes, look fairly similar, keep similar names, etc. Again, this is proven by the fact that many Muslims from the north of the sub-continent that came from beyond the Indus migrated to it during the partition of British India. Not only that, but throughout most of history, the Indus region has been considered no more distinct from the rest of the north of the sub-continent than any other part of it (other than the fact that it was considered the gateway to the rest of it).

3. Neo-Indus nationalism reeks of ethnic pride

My problem with ethnic pride is the fact that it is just plain silly. Why would you take pride in something you had no choice in being? Just because it's inherited doesn't make it any less ridiculous, can you imagine people saying they're proud to be blue-eyed? Or proud to be a ginger? Or proud to be 5'10? It's silly, and even more silly when one considers that all of humanity shares a common origin and that we are all almost identical on a biological level.

Conclusion:

I think this attempt to try and form a cohesive Pakistani identity without involving Islam has utterly failed. I will soon make a follow-up thread justifying my position that being a proud Pakistani must entail one's appreciation for Islamic principles and values as well as Muslim history (especially from what was once British India).

@Indus Pakistan @Indus Priest King @Samlee @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan @war&peace @Ahmad Sajjad Paracha @Ahmet Pasha @iqbal Ali @newb3e @AfrazulMandal @M.R.9 @Kambojaric @Army research @Champion_Usmani @Clutch @Areesh @Zibago @django @Horus @Mentee @maximuswarrior @Imran Khan @Reichsmarschall @Talwar e Pakistan @RiazHaq @WebMaster @TMA @DESERT FIGHTER @Desert Fox @waz @Mugwop @Albatross @RealNapster @Dalit @Ocean @Starlord @hussain0216 @AZADPAKISTAN2009 @Azadkashmir @Taimoor Khan @Hassan Guy @UnitedPak @WAJsal @JohnWick

Pakistan is not merely a concept of Muslim self-rule and independence. Pakistan's identity is much older, the geographical element cannot be totally ruled out. Pakistan has been destined for greatness and the lifeblood of this nation's love for truth and justice lies at our origins (thousands of years before Islamic Madina.)

While India will exhaust itself to no end trying to convince Pakistanis and Kashmiris of our supposed same-ness, we have consistently rejected it. Pakistanis have resisted even the Bangali element, when we were one nation, which was forcing us to normalize with India and Indian-ness.

The ethnic groups inhabiting Pakistan are melding together into one national race and culture, fully infused with Islam, similar to what happened to the Turks of Anatolia and Rumelia. It is the Qudrat of Allah swt and the inheritance of our pious ancestors.

 

[Hamza913]

And even if ML had succeeded, for instance by planting their Pakistan in Bihar or Deccan would that Pakistan have been same as the Pakistan we have today?

It would be pretty similar, but obviously not identical.

Going back to the point earlier the Indus region had a differant trajectory to other parts of the Raj and it's geography/history had laid the obtaining conditions for the ML project to take root

Right, and the pre-existing conditions were that the Indus was (and is) predominantly Muslim.

• The Mohajor community are threatened by this idea. Because it raises questions about why they migrated and reduces their role in the national narrative. Their entire existence and position within Pakistan is premised on and qualified on the idea of Muslim/Hindu being two nations, two distinct peoples. The IVC goes against this idea and endangers their ovesized role in Pakistan. Since this group is very vocal, very organised and in control of most of the media it makes sure that the Indus idea is shredded at every turn and prevented from taking root.

Well, their objection is a valid one. Their very existence shatters your idea of Pakistan being a country for the people of the Indus.

InshaAllah

Allah (the most gracious and the most merciful) doesn't will for Pakistan to exist forever, sorry. It's quite clear in Islam that at one point, everything in the dunya, even Pakistan, will cease to exist.

Give 2-3 gen we will be free of ganga and we wuz Arab syndrome

Rofl whenever neo-Indus nationalists get lazy, they just call someone a Gangadeshi or wannabe-Arab.

It in one blunderbus shot destroyed the idea of Two Nation Theory

No it didn't. It just showed that ethno-nationalists don't identify as Muslim.

Both are Muslim. Yet they are differant? Why? Because one is Muslim tapestry woven over the Indus Valley canvas. The other Muslim tapestry resting on the Bengal Delta.

No, because one is mostly Muslim first, and the other is a mix of Muslim-first and Bengali-first.

Pakistan is not merely a concept of Muslim self-rule and independence.

Prove to me that the Pakistan movement has it's origins elsewhere.

the geographical element cannot be totally ruled out.

Yes it can, Muhajirs disprove this very concept.

 

[Rafi]

It would be pretty similar, but obviously not identical.


Right, and the pre-existing conditions were that the Indus was (and is) predominantly Muslim.



Well, their objection is a valid one. Their very existence shatters your idea of Pakistan being a country for the people of the Indus.



Allah (the most gracious and the most merciful) doesn't will for Pakistan to exist forever, sorry. It's quite clear in Islam that at one point, everything in the dunya, even Pakistan, will cease to exist.



Rofl whenever neo-Indus nationalists get lazy, they just call someone a Gangadeshi or wannabe-Arab.



No it didn't. It just showed that ethno-nationalists don't identify as Muslim.



No, because one is mostly Muslim first, and the other is a mix of Muslim-first and Bengali-first.



Prove to me that the Pakistan movement has it's origins elsewhere.



Yes it can, Muhajirs disprove this very concept.

You are just an ignorant HizT fan, and trolling so fck off.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Yes it can, Muhajirs disprove this very concept.

All nations have migrants. Some of them join extreme anti-national groups [MQM], while others become fiercely loyal [PTI]. Look at Turkey and the Greeks, Armenians, Arabs, Kurds, and others who absorbed the Turkish identity.

 

[Hamza913]

You are just an ignorant HizT fan, and trolling so fck off.

All nations have migrants.

But ours has had a staggering number of them since it's inception. Not only that, but they're not really migrants in the first place since they helped found Pakistan (e.g Jinnah's family came from Gujarat).

 

[gangsta_rap]

Agee with OP