Am sorry. I have utterly misconstrued your post then. Actually when I was replying to Genesis I put that word Muslim in inverted commas to denote the falsehood of "Muslim" bravery to fight off the foreigners. The Slavs naturally would have converted when they were serving under the Mamluk army and I can not defy it any way. Excuse me for this confusion.
Pakistan, a British problem, but a German solution?
- Thread starter Genesis
- Start date
Am sorry. I have utterly misconstrued your post then. Actually when I was replying to Genesis I put that word Muslim in inverted commas to denote the falsehood of "Muslim" bravery to fight off the foreigners. The Slavs naturally would have converted when they were serving under the Mamluk army and I can not defy it any way. Excuse me for this confusion.
jaibi
SENIOR MODERATOR
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2012
- Messages
- 3,459
- Reaction score
- 108
- Country
- Location
@Genesis there are some problems with your hypothesis:
1. The leadership of Germany in the early modern age had developed enough to understand the complexity of modern states, indeed, if you read early literature German state is called the fisrt 'modern state'.
2. There was a level of unity amongst the German people. There was a concept of being 'German', this is important because it centered German development in the nation-state trajectory. Compare that for Pakistan, self interest is often pushed back for being an 'ideological' state. An instance that I would report is that no state would ever have supported the Mujahideens to the level that Paksitan did by all calculations it was a move that would come back to haunt us. The American attitude about long conflicts was clear by their Vietnam episode. Then why did we go ahead? Ideology over realpolitik. These mistakes would be repeated again at least for the next decade or two. The only government that can be said to resist this trait was of Musharraf and even that was not done properly.
3. The German people had the infrastructure of Prussian bureaucracy, economic class, industry etc., and a 'middle class' to progress. You can see that development as being the point where the 'nation-state' begins to form from France to Britian, even Russia and China- movenments based in the urban areas were held up by the middle class. Pakistan's middle class begins at about 1975 in the middle of the Bhutto era and during the begining of the Ziaist era where they became squarely conservative rather than pragmatic unlike the trajectory of other middle classes in other societies that make states more pragmatic and realistic.
4. The German development is mirrored by the development of her neighbours moving towards a nation-state model. Pakistan sees itself existing in the part of the world where an 'ideological' model is actually the development trajectory. In fact, if you see it as a systems analysis, Pakistan sees itself a cordon against the nation-state it neighbour, India. Iran, sees itself as an ideological state, Afghanistan too has an element of ideological political power which would most likely win in elections.
These make it very unlikely that such a solution would emerge. For Pakistan an internal struggle is imminent where she needs to resolve her existential 'crises'.
1. The leadership of Germany in the early modern age had developed enough to understand the complexity of modern states, indeed, if you read early literature German state is called the fisrt 'modern state'.
2. There was a level of unity amongst the German people. There was a concept of being 'German', this is important because it centered German development in the nation-state trajectory. Compare that for Pakistan, self interest is often pushed back for being an 'ideological' state. An instance that I would report is that no state would ever have supported the Mujahideens to the level that Paksitan did by all calculations it was a move that would come back to haunt us. The American attitude about long conflicts was clear by their Vietnam episode. Then why did we go ahead? Ideology over realpolitik. These mistakes would be repeated again at least for the next decade or two. The only government that can be said to resist this trait was of Musharraf and even that was not done properly.
3. The German people had the infrastructure of Prussian bureaucracy, economic class, industry etc., and a 'middle class' to progress. You can see that development as being the point where the 'nation-state' begins to form from France to Britian, even Russia and China- movenments based in the urban areas were held up by the middle class. Pakistan's middle class begins at about 1975 in the middle of the Bhutto era and during the begining of the Ziaist era where they became squarely conservative rather than pragmatic unlike the trajectory of other middle classes in other societies that make states more pragmatic and realistic.
4. The German development is mirrored by the development of her neighbours moving towards a nation-state model. Pakistan sees itself existing in the part of the world where an 'ideological' model is actually the development trajectory. In fact, if you see it as a systems analysis, Pakistan sees itself a cordon against the nation-state it neighbour, India. Iran, sees itself as an ideological state, Afghanistan too has an element of ideological political power which would most likely win in elections.
These make it very unlikely that such a solution would emerge. For Pakistan an internal struggle is imminent where she needs to resolve her existential 'crises'.
Jzaib
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 16, 2013
- Messages
- 6,574
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
if muslim wanted to force you to islam .. we would have done it when we rule hindus for 800 years ...
Similar threads
