Pakistan First ! The case for Pakistani Nationalism.

[Baibars_1260]

India also went through a phase for several years after independence when many North Indian leaders felt that Hindi should be the link language of India (as English was considered a colonial relic). However, that led to agitations in the South against Hindi (and through that North Indian) imposition. There are still some confused politicians who call for Hindi as the link language but now it is no longer compulsory to learn Hindi in south but it is an optional language.

It is basically your internal affair. We have learned that imposing a foreign language on a people has dire consequences.
An observation only:
You impose Sanskritized Hindi with military boots on the ground where you can. The Nagas, Mizos, Garo, Khasis, and the people of Sikkim, Manipur, Arunachal, Tamil Nadu, oppose the imposition of official Sankritized Hindi in the Devnagari script as dictated by your Rajbhasha Viibhag ( Department of official languages). Goa and Maharashtra oppose official Hindi too. Very few Indians are against common simple street Hindustani ( Hindi ) mixed with local dialects. India has given up using the Hindi language as a tool of cultural oppression only on non-Hindi speakers religious majority population. The language is linked to a religious identity: "Hindi Hindu Hindustan "

An interesting article here explains the cultural straight jacket:

https://scroll.in/article/902177/no...indutva-renaming-will-wipe-out-a-lot-of-india

The rule is different for minorities of course.
In Kashmir you just recently dumped Urdu and substituted it with Sanskritized Hindi in the Devnagari script hoping to "transform" Kashmiris into the " Indian " mold.

Curious to see Indians touting linguistic similarities with Pakistan over Urdu, when the language itself in its written form is dead in India, basically killed off under the "Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan " slogan. Urdu was native to India in the north; studied and spoken by urban elite with no religious distinctions. Urdu co-existed with Hindi in the Devnagari script until the growing communal divide since the 1920s deemed anyone speaking or writing in Urdu an anti-national in India.

For some obscure reason not clearly defined why, the western zone of Pakistan in 1947 adopted Urdu as the language of communication when it should have been Saraiki. The biggest, and in my opinion only mistake made by Mr. Jinnah (himself a Gujarati speaker) was to declare Urdu as the national language of Pakistan which had tragic consequences later with regards to the former eastern wing. That is in the past now and we in Pakistan are much wiser, which is why all signage and documentation now is in both the local language as well as Urdu. In time Urdu will fade away and a new link language most probably Saraiki will emerge. Mandarin will be the language for technical and scientific education.

In many aspects, India's diversity is more continental in nature. Hence, no surprise that we do need interpreters with the same country.

.

Keep your Parliament interpreters. Just don't envision adding Pashto, Punjabi, Baluchi, and Sindhi speaking interpreters to your interpreter pool.

An interesting story of my student days. We went on a student exchange trip to Europe where we were travelling to Hungary. While checking into a hotel there, we Indians (7 of us from various regions of India) started discussing in English among us. The receptionist asked in surprise as to why we were not talking in 'Indian' amongst us. It would have taken too long for us to explain why so we just smiled and went our way.

Ram Manohar Lohia would not have been amused.

To round up from last paragraph in the excellent article in Scroll.in
" In 1955, an Official Languages Commission was appointed by the Union government to coin modern Hindi words given that it was going to be used for the first time as an administrative language. In his autobiography, Hindi poet Harivansh Rai Bachchan describes the amazement the “incomprehensible” Sanskritic neologisms caused. A radio was “vidyut prasaran” (electrical broadcasting device) and a train “lauhpath gamini” (ferrous-path voyager)."

 

[Baibars_1260]

Religious issues were a contributing factor to the '1857 revolt' but there were no religious differences then. I agree that Gandhiji's support to the 'Khilafat movement' in 1919 was ill-advised as though it had a short term gain of rallying the Indian Muslims against British, it led to feelings among many Hindus that Muslims' sensitivities lie outside India. In fact, Mr. Jinnah strongly advised against Indian support for Khilafat, but he was not a very popular leader at that time.
How strange that his followers (Pakistanis) now talk of global Muslims (Ummah) when Jinnah only wanted Indian Muslims to care about India.

Jinnah's advice was not heeded, either by the Congress, or the conservative Muslim clergy that the Congress under Gandhi courted. The 600 year Ottoman Empire, was demolished by Arab Nationalism colluding with British French Imperialism, busting the myth of Ummah unity forever. The Khilafat itself was trashed by secular "Young Turks" The Hindu backlash in India was inevitable.
Pakistan got its reality check on "Ummah" unity in the 1971 Civil War, when the stark reality that linguistic and cultural identities at some point dominate over religion became evident.

No, one talks of Ummah in Pakistan save a few fringe religious fundamentalist elements. These elements have never been voted to power unlike in India where your home minister declares that Azad Kashmir, Baluchistan, Sindh, Gilgit Baltistan, will be annexed as part of the Akhand Bharat scheme.

If you do not know a freedom fighter or have no evidence of sectarian involvement, then should you not give them the benefit of doubt and not insult them as mere 'your' freedom fighters.

What "benefit of the doubt" ? Why should we appropriate your heroes such as Veer Savarkar ? Why is it insulting to term Veer Savarkar as "your hero". Do Indians acknowledge or even know about the sacrifices of our freedom fighters ?
Just one Example:
Who in India cares about the thousands of Orakzai people killed resisting British imperialism in the Khurram Valley or in the Tirah slaughter? A tiny tribe with only 28,000 fighting men, the Orakzai were the target of multiple British military expeditions, notably in 1855, 1868, 1869, 1891 and were finally subdued in 1897.
The participation of mercenary Sikh troops in these campaigns of wanton slaughter against a people defending their own land is held up as a shining example of "Sikh martial prowess" , when women were mercilessly raped and children slaughtered. The Orakzais happened to be Muslims so no one weeps for them.

From 1920s onwards, there were fringe Hindu groups such as Hindu Mahasabha that began talking exclusively for Hindus. Probably because they felt threatened of Muslim specific parties such as Muslim League. Congress movement remained by and large secular, although Gandhiji did use religious bhajans in his gatherings to attract crouds. Congress had towering Muslim leaders such as Maulana Abul Kalam Azad.
Subhas Bose left Congress not due to any religious difference but because Gandhiji did not like his way of work, as Bose wanted to use violent means to oppose British, and Gandhiji wanted only non-violent revolt. Same with 1946 Naval mutiny.

"Gandhiji did use religious bhajans in his gatherings to attract crowds"

Why was that necessary ? Gandhi also promised "Ram Rajya" ? His Bhajan "Ishwar Allah tero naam ..." was puzzling and offensive to Muslims, because Muslims don't juxtapose any other deity with their God, and neither do the Jews and Christians. ( Exodus 20.3 )

Jinnah never used Islamic incantations, Naats or Hamds during his meetings, to attract crowds. The Muslim League movement was for political, and economic independence of the Muslim majority geographical regions of British India. It was a political not religious movement. In fact the conservative clergy were against the concept of Pakistan because in their view Muslims could not be confined to a geographical region and Muslims could continue to be Muslims in a personal sense within India. The clergy overlooked the fact that in parliamentary "democracy " the majority rules, any laws can be passed to oppress and humiliate a minority ( Example: It is Ok to demolish this "structure " because it is not a mosque and does not belong to Muslims).

Ofcourse, once a crack appeared in 1920s, it kept widening instead of healing. British actively favored religious parties like Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha as they felt that the agenda of these parties is side-tracking united opposition against them. Our own faultlines were brilliantly used against us by the British.

The threat of rule by majority automatically creates fault lines, because it is in the human nature to be aggressive and some fringe elements exploit this trait. Pakistan does not blame the British for the Shia Sunni schism, or the differences that led to our Civil War. Indians blame either the British or the Muslims for the communal divide, usually Muslims, never also themselves . It is all the fault of the Muslims.
Muslim majority regions would never have remained as a minority in a united India, where a parliament by majority vote would have imposed dietary and cultural restraints on them. India is the only democracy that tells people what to eat and when. ( No meat during Navratri). The Indian political outfits ( Congress, Hindu Mahasabha) were unwilling to discuss a federation with local customary laws in force, with proportional representation in Parliament.

This obstinacy has had amazing results.
What both dismembered parts of India got 73 years later, is the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation. Don't know if it is worth nuking ourselves over a slice of beef.

 

[Baibars_1260]

Politically, today's India is as defined by our official map, but culturally it covers the entire subcontinent. This is because we have many Indians who are originally from West and East Pakistan regions. We have had many prominent Sindhis (Advani, Ram Jethamalani), people from West Punjab (Manmohan Singh), people from KPK (Dilip Kumar, Raj Kapoor) and so on. Even our national anthem has following lines, "Punjab Sind Gujarat Maratha Dravida Utkala Bang ..." . See, Sindh finds a mention in our anthem too.

Hmm.. Indians from from "West and East Pakistan regions "
Read what you wrote again. Isn't that an oxymoron?
Pakistanis could make an equally oxymoronic statement about Jinnah, Liaquat Ali Khan, Abdul Qadeer Khan, being "Pakistanis from Indian Regions"but we don't.
In any case that generation in India will gone in a few years, and your only claim to house such people would be Tarek Fateh, "Major" Adnan Sami , and Tasleema Nasreen. Not much to be proud of.

Yes, Sindh finds a mention in your so called "National Anthem" written by Tagore in toadying praise of the Crown Prince of the British Raj during his visit to India in 1921. Which is why the anthem was rejected by Subhas Bose who had his officers write the anthem, "Sab Sukh Chain".
Only Sindh and Punjab find mention in anthems, Khyber Pakhtoon Khwa and Baluchistan were too "hot" to handle. For a nation that prides itself on its heritage it is surprising that even the national anthem is out of context. In Pakistan ww did better.
Our first national song broadcast from Lahore Radio on August 14, 1947 was written by the famous Urdu poet Jagan Nath Azad "Aye Sar Zameen e Pak..." . Later we got our national anthem; written by Hafeez Jullundhri, Pak Sar Zameen Shadbad, which is secular and inclusive without references to any prince or potentate ( Bharat Bhagya Vidhata ). In the last line we only have a reference to the Pre-Islamic secular Zoroastrian word for the almighty which is " Khuda" used in generic pan religious mode. A lecture on national anthems and comparisons is the last thing we need here.

"Unity in Diversity" may not be an official motto, but we have learnt it since childhood.

Let's not start on un-official mottos. Children are taught different motto s depending on the environment and the mood of the era.
"Garv se kaho hum Hindu hain " is one example.

All people are proud of their country and consider it special in some way, and so do we Indians as well. I would not call Pakistan as truly 'multi-religious' for 2 reasons. One - your minorities are very insignficant in number.
Two - you define yourself as Islamic country and not a secular one. There are many fundamental anti-minority laws in Pak (eg. constitutionally a person from minority cannot be PM, President, Army Chief etc).

What you think of Pakistan matters very little. Pakistan is not a secular state and nor is the U.K. or Israel.
We don't claim to be a secular state then violate every norm of secularism, through a partisan judiciary, partisan law enforcement and state approved lynchings and pogroms of minorities.
Our constitution explicitly states "equality before Law " .
We have an unfortunate British era legacy of blasphemy laws that were ironically intended to stem the risk of reactionary communal violence against minority Hindus in the 1920s, when provocateurs from the Arya Samaj would deliberately make insulting speeches, and publish offensive material. These blasphemy laws are now used by religious bigots and criminals to oppress Christians and need to be revoked.

Pakistan's laws explicitly state who is eligible for certain public office positions , and these laws should change. Religion should not be a determining factor in judging a person's eligibility for a position.
While our laws merit change we acknowledge them, and adhere to them. India has often manipulated appointments to religiously discriminate. Major General Habibullah's case is well known in Nehru era India when as the youngest and talented Major General he was likely to make it to Chief of Army staff. By a cabinet decision he was unceremoniously packed off to Malaysia to train their armed forces prior to that nation's independence. Since he was technically on rent to a foreign army his service period there of five years effectively discounted that service period in the Indian Army thus rendering his seniority moot.
Message : No Muslim can be Chief of India's Armed Forces regardless of how "secular " India is.

 

[magra]

It is basically your internal affair. We have learned that imposing a foreign language on a people has dire consequences.
An observation only:
You impose Sanskritized Hindi with military boots on the ground where you can. The Nagas, Mizos, Garo, Khasis, and the people of Sikkim, Manipur, Arunachal, Tamil Nadu, oppose the imposition of official Sankritized Hindi in the Devnagari script as dictated by your Rajbhasha Viibhag ( Department of official languages). Goa and Maharashtra oppose official Hindi too. Very few Indians are against common simple street Hindustani ( Hindi ) mixed with local dialects. India has given up using the Hindi language as a tool of cultural oppression only on non-Hindi speakers religious majority population. The language is linked to a religious identity: "Hindi Hindu Hindustan "

An interesting article here explains the cultural straight jacket:

https://scroll.in/article/902177/no...indutva-renaming-will-wipe-out-a-lot-of-india

The rule is different for minorities of course.
In Kashmir you just recently dumped Urdu and substituted it with Sanskritized Hindi in the Devnagari script hoping to "transform" Kashmiris into the " Indian " mold.

Curious to see Indians touting linguistic similarities with Pakistan over Urdu, when the language itself in its written form is dead in India, basically killed off under the "Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan " slogan. Urdu was native to India in the north; studied and spoken by urban elite with no religious distinctions. Urdu co-existed with Hindi in the Devnagari script until the growing communal divide since the 1920s deemed anyone speaking or writing in Urdu an anti-national in India.

For some obscure reason not clearly defined why, the western zone of Pakistan in 1947 adopted Urdu as the language of communication when it should have been Saraiki. The biggest, and in my opinion only mistake made by Mr. Jinnah (himself a Gujarati speaker) was to declare Urdu as the national language of Pakistan which had tragic consequences later with regards to the former eastern wing. That is in the past now and we in Pakistan are much wiser, which is why all signage and documentation now is in both the local language as well as Urdu. In time Urdu will fade away and a new link language most probably Saraiki will emerge. Mandarin will be the language for technical and scientific education.

.

Keep your Parliament interpreters. Just don't envision adding Pashto, Punjabi, Baluchi, and Sindhi speaking interpreters to your interpreter pool.



Ram Manohar Lohia would not have been amused.

To round up from last paragraph in the excellent article in Scroll.in
" In 1955, an Official Languages Commission was appointed by the Union government to coin modern Hindi words given that it was going to be used for the first time as an administrative language. In his autobiography, Hindi poet Harivansh Rai Bachchan describes the amazement the “incomprehensible” Sanskritic neologisms caused. A radio was “vidyut prasaran” (electrical broadcasting device) and a train “lauhpath gamini” (ferrous-path voyager)."

What are you doing here? You should use your vast knowledge in helping Pakistani MEA. Please take this as a compliment.
Imposition of language is never good. I do not know much about its effect on NE India, but I have not heard any resentment of Hindu usage in Maharashtra and Goa. Marathi / Konkani is also taught there. They just want migrants to learn local language too.

I agree with you that Persian script has mostly died in India, especially among non-Muslims. It should be an optional subject in schools, so if someone wants to study, then can.

What you do with Urdu / Saraika / Mandarin / English in your country is your business. So would not comment on that.

Regarding interpretors in our parliament, if there are members who are Pashto speakers and want interpretation, we can have that too. What is the harm? It is not like you can have a GI tag on language and we need to pay you any royalty for using it. Entire world uses English and UK has no issues with that.

I dont agree with 'Hindi-Hindu-Hindustan'. This will weaken our unity. Hope this concept remains in fringe only.

Jinnah's advice was not heeded, either by the Congress, or the conservative Muslim clergy that the Congress under Gandhi courted. The 600 year Ottoman Empire, was demolished by Arab Nationalism colluding with British French Imperialism, busting the myth of Ummah unity forever. The Khilafat itself was trashed by secular "Young Turks" The Hindu backlash in India was inevitable.
Pakistan got its reality check on "Ummah" unity in the 1971 Civil War, when the stark reality that linguistic and cultural identities at some point dominate over religion became evident.

No, one talks of Ummah in Pakistan save a few fringe religious fundamentalist elements. These elements have never been voted to power unlike in India where your home minister declares that Azad Kashmir, Baluchistan, Sindh, Gilgit Baltistan, will be annexed as part of the Akhand Bharat scheme.

Agree with you on first para. On hindsight, Gandhiji should have heeded Jinnah's advice.
Do not completely agree on 2nd para. Your leaders constantly make statements regarding Indian muslims. They even interfere in French and Sri lankan internal matters because they consider themselves the global thakur for muslims. If this is not caring about Ummah at the highest level, then what is?

Talk of Akhand Bharat is just for leverage purpose. Once you settle the border (agree on converting LOC to IB), these calls would die down.

 

[magra]

What "benefit of the doubt" ? Why should we appropriate your heroes such as Veer Savarkar ? Why is it insulting to term Veer Savarkar as "your hero". Do Indians acknowledge or even know about the sacrifices of our freedom fighters ?
Just one Example:
Who in India cares about the thousands of Orakzai people killed resisting British imperialism in the Khurram Valley or in the Tirah slaughter? A tiny tribe with only 28,000 fighting men, the Orakzai were the target of multiple British military expeditions, notably in 1855, 1868, 1869, 1891 and were finally subdued in 1897.
The participation of mercenary Sikh troops in these campaigns of wanton slaughter against a people defending their own land is held up as a shining example of "Sikh martial prowess" , when women were mercilessly raped and children slaughtered. The Orakzais happened to be Muslims so no one weeps for them.

I said giving benefit of doubt for freedom fighters who were not sectarian. Veer Savarkar had Hindu leanings so I am not asking that for him. But people like Bose, Bhagat Singh, Maulana Azad were as much your freedom fighters as ours. Do you have any doubt?

We do not know much about Orakzai people since they were in Afghanistan (outside British India). However, I do sympathize with them. I am not sure how much choice Sikhs had since they were under British rule. Sikhs even helped British crush the 1857 war of Independence. So I do regret the lack of unity against British at that time.

 

[magra]

"Gandhiji did use religious bhajans in his gatherings to attract crowds"

Why was that necessary ? Gandhi also promised "Ram Rajya" ? His Bhajan "Ishwar Allah tero naam ..." was puzzling and offensive to Muslims, because Muslims don't juxtapose any other deity with their God, and neither do the Jews and Christians. ( Exodus 20.3 )

Jinnah never used Islamic incantations, Naats or Hamds during his meetings, to attract crowds. The Muslim League movement was for political, and economic independence of the Muslim majority geographical regions of British India. It was a political not religious movement. In fact the conservative clergy were against the concept of Pakistan because in their view Muslims could not be confined to a geographical region and Muslims could continue to be Muslims in a personal sense within India. The clergy overlooked the fact that in parliamentary "democracy " the majority rules, any laws can be passed to oppress and humiliate a minority ( Example: It is Ok to demolish this "structure " because it is not a mosque and does not belong to Muslims).

Before Gandhiji came on the national scene, Congress was limited to few lawyers in major cities. Gandhiji used all the means above to include common folk in the national movement. Ofcourse, this may have had the unintended consequence of alienating Muslims. No one is perfect and Gandhiji had his flaws. People say that he was a good human but not necessarily a good politician.

Jinnah was never a devout Muslim. He drank alcohol, dressed in western clothes, had no beard etc. So his positioning never allowed him to use Islamic incantations anyway. And I agree with you that he wanted a secular but Muslim majority Pakistan. Hence, I lament his early death which allowed the 2nd string of your leaders to forsake his ideals and turn your country into Islamic republic. Jinnah would have wanted Pakistan to be something like Indonesia rather than Saudi Arabia.

In a united India, Muslims would have been atleast 33%. I dont see how such a significant minority can be oppressed. Hindus are anyways not as homogenous, we easily get divided in terms of caste by vote bank astute leaders. Plus, in a united India, there would not have been any major hostility for Muslims which we see now (as Hindus blame Muslims for the partition).

 

[magra]

The threat of rule by majority automatically creates fault lines, because it is in the human nature to be aggressive and some fringe elements exploit this trait. Pakistan does not blame the British for the Shia Sunni schism, or the differences that led to our Civil War. Indians blame either the British or the Muslims for the communal divide, usually Muslims, never also themselves . It is all the fault of the Muslims.
Muslim majority regions would never have remained as a minority in a united India, where a parliament by majority vote would have imposed dietary and cultural restraints on them. India is the only democracy that tells people what to eat and when. ( No meat during Navratri). The Indian political outfits ( Congress, Hindu Mahasabha) were unwilling to discuss a federation with local customary laws in force, with proportional representation in Parliament.

This obstinacy has had amazing results.
What both dismembered parts of India got 73 years later, is the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation. Don't know if it is worth nuking ourselves over a slice of beef.

I have not heard of any official restriction on diet during Navrati. Observant Hindus voluntary eat vegetarian food during those days. But everyone is free to eat non-veg food. Govt does not impose any guidelines.

The problem was Congress considered itself a secular party which represents all communities. Muslim League wanted that all parties to consider it as the sole representative for Muslims.

I dont think that 'beef' is that big an issue. I do not agree on an official ban on beef (many states - Goa, Kerala, North East etc - do allow beef). However, just to consider whether beef eating is so important for Muslims. Is it written in your religious texts that you SHOULD eat beef? It is common sense to be considerate of the sentiments of the majority around you. The same reason why it would be very troubling to eat pork or drink liquor in Pakistan during Ramzan in public, or roam around in bikinis in rural India or rural Pakistan. It is common sense to refrain from such behavior, although not legally wrong.

Hmm.. Indians from from "West and East Pakistan regions "
Read what you wrote again. Isn't that an oxymoron?
Pakistanis could make an equally oxymoronic statement about Jinnah, Liaquat Ali Khan, Abdul Qadeer Khan, being "Pakistanis from Indian Regions"but we don't.
In any case that generation in India will gone in a few years, and your only claim to house such people would be Tarek Fateh, "Major" Adnan Sami , and Tasleema Nasreen. Not much to be proud of.

It may sound an oxymoron to you but not to me. May be I should have said Indians from West Punjab, Sindh, KPK, East Bengal etc. I just used "West and East Pakistan region" for simplicity.
The generation may be gone, but their descendants will be there. They will still remember their ancentral lands through the stories they heard from their parents. We do not encourage them to forget that past. As per your logic, 2nd or 3rd generation British Pakistani or American Pakistani should have little to do with Pakistan. Whereas we are proud of our diaspora which adds to our strength.

 

[magra]

Yes, Sindh finds a mention in your so called "National Anthem" written by Tagore in toadying praise of the Crown Prince of the British Raj during his visit to India in 1921. Which is why the anthem was rejected by Subhas Bose who had his officers write the anthem, "Sab Sukh Chain".
Only Sindh and Punjab find mention in anthems, Khyber Pakhtoon Khwa and Baluchistan were too "hot" to handle. For a nation that prides itself on its heritage it is surprising that even the national anthem is out of context. In Pakistan ww did better.
Our first national song broadcast from Lahore Radio on August 14, 1947 was written by the famous Urdu poet Jagan Nath Azad "Aye Sar Zameen e Pak..." . Later we got our national anthem; written by Hafeez Jullundhri, Pak Sar Zameen Shadbad, which is secular and inclusive without references to any prince or potentate ( Bharat Bhagya Vidhata ). In the last line we only have a reference to the Pre-Islamic secular Zoroastrian word for the almighty which is " Khuda" used in generic pan religious mode. A lecture on national anthems and comparisons is the last thing we need here.

Whatever may be the reason for writing the anthem by Tagore, it is very beautiful and praises the motherland. So we readily adopted it and proudly sing it. There are too many states to name in a poetry, the sense was to convey that all those diverse lands are part of our culture.
I am not lecturing you on national anthem. You be happy with yours and I have no issues. We are happy with ours.

 

[magra]

Let's not start on un-official mottos. Children are taught different motto s depending on the environment and the mood of the era.
"Garv se kaho hum Hindu hain " is one example.

What you think of Pakistan matters very little. Pakistan is not a secular state and nor is the U.K. or Israel.
We don't claim to be a secular state then violate every norm of secularism, through a partisan judiciary, partisan law enforcement and state approved lynchings and pogroms of minorities.
Our constitution explicitly states "equality before Law " .
We have an unfortunate British era legacy of blasphemy laws that were ironically intended to stem the risk of reactionary communal violence against minority Hindus in the 1920s, when provocateurs from the Arya Samaj would deliberately make insulting speeches, and publish offensive material. These blasphemy laws are now used by religious bigots and criminals to oppress Christians and need to be revoked.

Pakistan's laws explicitly state who is eligible for certain public office positions , and these laws should change. Religion should not be a determining factor in judging a person's eligibility for a position.
While our laws merit change we acknowledge them, and adhere to them. India has often manipulated appointments to religiously discriminate. Major General Habibullah's case is well known in Nehru era India when as the youngest and talented Major General he was likely to make it to Chief of Army staff. By a cabinet decision he was unceremoniously packed off to Malaysia to train their armed forces prior to that nation's independence. Since he was technically on rent to a foreign army his service period there of five years effectively discounted that service period in the Indian Army thus rendering his seniority moot.
Message : No Muslim can be Chief of India's Armed Forces regardless of how "secular " India is.

'Garv se kaho hum Hindu hain' is not a motto. It is a slogan used by fringe elements.

India is a secular country. I agree that it is not perfect, but atleast the aim is secularism. If we abandon that and declare ourselves as a 'Hindu' state, then we will be dragged down further.
I am happy to hear that you want blasphemy laws to be abolished.

I am not aware of General Habibullah's case. The percentage of Muslims in Indian Army is very less and that may be one reason why no Muslim rose to become Army Chief. They have risen to very high ranks though. Muslims have also been Intelligence Bureau Chief, our chief diplomat at UN etc. No law stops them in reaching to any position.

 

[Baibars_1260]

India is a secular country. I agree that it is not perfect, but atleast the aim is secularism. If we abandon that and declare ourselves as a 'Hindu' state, then we will be dragged down further.
I am happy to hear that you want blasphemy laws to be abolished.

Well your last statement says it all.
I do not have much more to say,
and thank you for the compliments. I would much rather work to
change the mind set of the common people of Pakistan rather than with FSP ( equivalent of your IFS I think ? ) bureaucrats.
My apologies for my cynicism and sarcasm. I feel deeply about my nation and it's people as undoubtedly you do for yours .
I am closing the interaction on the topic of the LoC ceasefire from where this thread started.
I would invite you to read the opening post on this thread and subsequent discussions .
You will see the trends in our way of thinking.
. Moving away from the Ummah concept while proudly acknowledging our religious identity. Ironically this is something we learned from our now estranged eastern wing.
.
- Acknowledging with pride our pre-Islamic heritage, with the ancient Indus valley civilization.

- Acknowledging with pride our ethnic diversity and the unique culture of our peoples.

Feel free to comment on the OP and the recent discussions on different political trends in Pakistan.

If at all interested I have this request to you and all other Indians.
Accept us as a separate people different from Indian Muslims of today. Prior to 1947 we were all Indian Muslims. Times have changed.

It is not certain if both our countries will survive the next 50 years. We are very likely to stumble into a horrible nuclear conflict. But even if we are not around, the internet cloud will hopefully retain what we write here for future cyber-historians to research. So write as carefully as you do because you will be judged.

 

[magra]

Well your last statement says it all.
I do not have much more to say,
and thank you for the compliments. I would much rather work to
change the mind set of the common people of Pakistan rather than with FSP ( equivalent of your IFS I think ? ) bureaucrats.
My apologies for my cynicism and sarcasm. I feel deeply about my nation and it's people as undoubtedly you do for yours .
I am closing the interaction on the topic of the LoC ceasefire from where this thread started.
I would invite you to read the opening post on this thread and subsequent discussions .
You will see the trends in our way of thinking.
. Moving away from the Ummah concept while proudly acknowledging our religious identity. Ironically this is something we learned from our now estranged eastern wing.
.
- Acknowledging with pride our pre-Islamic heritage, with the ancient Indus valley civilization.

- Acknowledging with pride our ethnic diversity and the unique culture of our peoples.

Feel free to comment on the OP and the recent discussions on different political trends in Pakistan.

If at all interested I have this request to you and all other Indians.
Accept us as a separate people different from Indian Muslims of today. Prior to 1947 we were all Indian Muslims. Times have changed.

It is not certain if both our countries will survive the next 50 years. We are very likely to stumble into a horrible nuclear conflict. But even if we are not around, the internet cloud will hopefully retain what we write here for future cyber-historians to research. So write as carefully as you do because you will be judged.

Thank you for your kind words. I read through the OP and will opine where I feel I can contribute in any way. We obviously consider you different from Indian Muslims and hence I requested you not to interfere in matters related to Indians.
I feel that our countries are more threatened by other issues such as pollution, water scarcity, climate change. I am more hopeful that the leaders will atleast care for their own lives and never push the nuclear button. If somehow nuclear devices fall into the hands of suicidal terrorists, then its a different matter.

 

[Varunastra]

Well your last statement says it all.
I do not have much more to say,
and thank you for the compliments. I would much rather work to
change the mind set of the common people of Pakistan rather than with FSP ( equivalent of your IFS I think ? ) bureaucrats.
My apologies for my cynicism and sarcasm. I feel deeply about my nation and it's people as undoubtedly you do for yours .
I am closing the interaction on the topic of the LoC ceasefire from where this thread started.
I would invite you to read the opening post on this thread and subsequent discussions .
You will see the trends in our way of thinking.
. Moving away from the Ummah concept while proudly acknowledging our religious identity. Ironically this is something we learned from our now estranged eastern wing.
.
- Acknowledging with pride our pre-Islamic heritage, with the ancient Indus valley civilization.

- Acknowledging with pride our ethnic diversity and the unique culture of our peoples.

Feel free to comment on the OP and the recent discussions on different political trends in Pakistan.

If at all interested I have this request to you and all other Indians.
Accept us as a separate people different from Indian Muslims of today. Prior to 1947 we were all Indian Muslims. Times have changed.

It is not certain if both our countries will survive the next 50 years. We are very likely to stumble into a horrible nuclear conflict. But even if we are not around, the internet cloud will hopefully retain what we write here for future cyber-historians to research. So write as carefully as you do because you will be judged.

We accept you as different people from us definitely but to accomplish that fully you guys have to let go of your pre islamic heritage in your land area completely as if you claim that we'll have commonality, argument about who actually the heritage belongs to.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Whatever may be the reason for writing the anthem by Tagore, it is very beautiful and praises the motherland. So we readily adopted it and proudly sing it. There are too many states to name in a poetry, the sense was to convey that all those diverse lands are part of our culture.
I am not lecturing you on national anthem. You be happy with yours and I have no issues. We are happy with ours.

I take it you also include Nepal, Bali etc in your anthem or do you just worship the British Raj?

 

[magra]

I take it you also include Nepal, Bali etc in your anthem or do you just worship the British Raj?

View attachment 721298

As your friend explained, the anthem was written by Tagore. At that time, we were part of British India. So he only included regions under it. We have significant number of Gorkhas from Nepal serving in Indian Army. May be we should include that too

 

[Indus Pakistan]

As your friend explained, the anthem was written by Tagore. At that time, we were part of British India. So he only included regions under it. We have significant number of Gorkhas from Nepal serving in Indian Army. May be we should include that too

So if the British had invaded Uzbekistan that would have been included? Seems to me the anthem was shaped by the tips of British bayonets. Whoever got conquerd got to be included in the anthem.

And please tell me you included the dharmic Burmans? Or did Tagore discriminate against them?