Pakistan should be named 'People's Republic of Pakistan'

[M. Sarmad]

Correction: Dictator Iskander Mirza. He abrogated the constitution under which he was considered President. The chump got paid in kind when Ayub dismissed him.

It is unfortunate that you quote that discredited fool. Why should anyone take him seriously, especially since he abrogated 1956 constitution? I laugh at anyone who thinks that quoting Iskander Mirza lends weight to their argument. I mean he did anything and everything to pull down the constitution under which he was considered president - including uttering slander that you quoted here. The fool cut his roots and was kicked out as a result. You wish people to take him (and you) seriously???

You want to find fault? Find it with people who supported Objectives Resolution.
You want to find fault? Find it with the Mullah who called Jinnah "Quaid-e-Azam"
You want to find fault? Find it with the poet Who minted "Pakistan ka Matlab Kya? La ilaha Illallah."
You want to find fault? Find it with people like my Grand Father, who worked for Pakistan movement, thinking that he was ensuring protection of his progeny's future in an Islamic country.

You need to learn to respect the views, aspirations, and wishes of those who mattered at the right time.




1. Qadianis were rabidly anti-Hindu. They had tried their best to influence some ruler out there (including Emir of Afghanistan via Da'watul Ameer) who would convert to Qadianism and provide them with a platform to exert and expand their influence. Qadianis had a fetish of sorts for Kashmir. So on and so forth.... One could understand their support for a piece of land where they might get a chance to dominate. It was their choice and if they could not foresee the result of their folly then it is nobody's fault.

Questions: How many Qadianis were members of All India Muslim League? Was there a single member in Executive council? Did a single Qadiani attend Quaid's funeral?

2. The Communist Party of India were fools to support a basically communal demand when they were "most secular and non communal institution". What explains this anamoly?

Could it be that since USSR had been knocking on Afghanistan's door it was matter of time that they would walk into Afghanistan; and Communists just wanted to be in the right place to welcome their comrades to South Asia?

3. Religious scholars were divided about Pakistan. Deobandi off-shoot Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind was in opposition, while some people from Deoband (Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi and his associates) were in support. Sufi-dominated Ulema were in favor of Pakistan.

You are willfully obfuscating the issue of Ulema and Pakistan, because it supports your particular views. If you were honest about truth, you would draw important distinctions. But then when you are driven by a particular ideology, truth is necessarily a casualty.

It is mind boggling that people like you peddle your wares starting with three steps of falsehood:
A - Mullahs were against Pakistan - ignoring the fact that Mullahs were in fact divided.
B - Mullahs should have nothing to do with Pakistan - ignoring that Pakistan was a Muslim project & Muslim scholars would eventually have some relevance.
C - Therefore Pakistan should be secular - This final twist of logic is necessary for peddling ideology which can not be explained in context of a Muslim political project.

If you can not see the absurdity of this twisted logic, let me point to Israel Shahak's observation about the absurdity of atheists / agnostics of Jewish background claiming that God gave Palestinian land to Jews for eternity!



As opposed to: The mention of word "Islam" turns off some people's brains that they choose to start making incoherent noise...




You are making a trio of unwarranted assumptions here:
1. That the person you are engaging is restricted to 'sarkari version'
2. That the 'sarkari version' is necessarily distorted, and not so any other 'non-sarkari version'.
3. That saying so would implicitly lend weight to your argument / ideology.

All three are wrong.

Moving on: Truth in independent of ideology. One might need a perspective to explain things, but an effort to impose a particular ideology must necessarily dispense with truth. You can not square your ideology with Pakistan's reality and that is why you choose to make a lot of noise.

I often see you passing off other people's opinions as facts, and that is why I consciously avoid arguing with you...

Your unwarranted attack on a trash thread could have been ignored, but... There is always a first time.

As I expected !! your answer is mere rhetoric ... Qadiyanis committed folly , Communists were fools , Iskander Mirza is a discredited fool not taken seriously and "you" laugh at him , And Mullahs were not against Pakistan !!!

And then you accuse me of passing opinions as facts !!

I can reply back to you in your style (rhetoric) better than you but that would be a waste of time .

By trying to assert "Sarkari version of history is not distorted" you have already proven my point !!

I would really like if you (or some one else for that matter) could actually try to discuss these things in a academic way .

 

[Durrak]

---
we never said that .. it may reply to one of our member commentates..if that was the reality.. do u think 80% hindu allowed minoriry (mulsim, chris, parsis) to control majot position and industry..
its not in indias DNA...
we are nice to all regardless of religion ..
due to this inspite of all contradiction we still grow and dream to be superpower
madir aaye majid ..sar ibadat ke lie jhukta hai..


--
indian govt do take care of it...
with some lapses we still doing welll.
can i say same about GOP?

You have edited your post so no need to say anything. First try to stick with your words

 

[pursuit of happiness]

You have edited your post so no need to say anything. First try to stick with your words

--
editied? i did not
what ? can you tell?
i use though and words carefully ..
please reply what i edited..
then we can talk..
if i am at fault .. i am ready to accept it..

 

[Pakistanisage]

Let me say this in the language of the " Bard from Stratford upon Avon ".



" A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME WOULD SMELL JUST AS SWEET ".

 

[M. Sarmad]

Let me say this in the language of the " Bard from Stratford upon Avon ".



" A ROSE BY ANY OTHE NAME WOULD SMELL JUST AS SWEET ".

Sir its not just the name

Either we can be a theocracy i.e "Islamic(Deoband) Emirate"
or we can be a democracy i.e "Peoples Republic"

The idea of having the hybrid "Islamic Republic" or "People`s Emirate" is highly flawed .

 

[Imran Khan]

only Pakistan is enough for me

 

[syedali73]

Sir its not just the name

Either we can be a theocracy i.e "Islamic(Deoband) Emirate"
or we can be a democracy i.e "Peoples Republic"

The idea of having the hybrid "Islamic Republic" or "People`s Emirate" is highly flawed .

Neither 'Islamic' nor 'Republic' has anything to do with this country. So in my opinion, we should remove both, and stick to 'Pakistan' alone. Once we overcome (which is never going to happen anyway) our confusion of which system (theocracy or democracy) we want, we can rename the country then if needed.

Common people care least if it is Islamic or republic, they simply want a Pakistan where their rights as a citizen are protected; where their lives, honors, and belongings are safe; where they get jobs; where their kids get quality education; where they and their families get good health care etc. Rest is just academic debate, which is nothing but a joke with the common people of this country.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Where did I say it does matter? Calm down, read my post and the quoted parts, understand the connection between them, then come again.

okay

Dont blame him. Poor victim of Pakistani History. You shud pity on him rather than be offensive.

and a lot of you people are victims of hatred over 1947

 

[WAR-rior]

okay



and a lot of you people are victims of hatred over 1947

Kaunsa hatred dude?

Kashmir ka rona tum ro rahe ho. We dont want even an extra inch of Pakistan. Happy with the status quo but its u who are aiding militancy in Kashmir. Dont break the beaker on us.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

@Abu Zolfiqar

Regardless of our religious differences, the Ahmadis supported the Pakistan movement. They have slayed its enemies and paid with blood for it. In this respect i hold them in high regard.

Whoever supported the movement - they are our brothers. The religious nuances should not count, though of course Pakistan was created in the name for Muslims of sub-continent but we have to remain united regardless of sectarian (mostly man-made) differences and other crap like that. Pakistan is a nation for Muslims and non-Muslims alike. And Islam (TRUE ISLAM) not the takfiri/cultist BS type in which arms and explosives are the language -- calls on Muslims to be very fair and treat all as equals.

Lets focus on tackling the socio-economic issues and militancy - whether domestic or foreign-sponsored and do it collectively so that we can be a true People's Republic without even having to change names of PAKISTAN in order just to make cosmetic changes and get distracted from the real issues

Kaunsa hatred dude?

Kashmir ka rona tum ro rahe ho. We dont want even an extra inch of Pakistan. Happy with the status quo but its u who are aiding militancy in Kashmir. Dont break the beaker on us.

We are providing moral support to the Kashmir freedom movement. We've been doing it for decades, we'll do it again.

Afterall it is one of the lingering issues. Left unresolved, naturally there wont be end to militancy b/c the indian occupation forces stab themselves in the foot everytime by occupying land that is not theirs; using iron-fisted tactics and psy-ops on Kashmiri peoples. As Pakistanis we don't accept this at all.

 

[WAR-rior]

Whoever supported the movement - they are our brothers. The religious nuances should not count, though of course Pakistan was created in the name for Muslims of sub-continent but we have to remain united regardless of sectarian (mostly man-made) differences and other crap like that. Pakistan is a nation for Muslims and non-Muslims alike. And Islam (TRUE ISLAM) not the takfiri/cultist BS type in which arms and explosives are the language -- calls on Muslims to be very fair and treat all as equals.

Lets focus on tackling the socio-economic issues and militancy - whether domestic or foreign-sponsored and do it collectively so that we can be a true People's Republic without even having to change names of PAKISTAN in order just to make cosmetic changes and get distracted from the real issues



We are providing moral support to the Kashmir freedom movement. We've been doing it for decades, we'll do it again.

Then Why blame us for Hatred when u urself are inviting it. Ab body pe sugar lagake so jaaoge to cheeti to kategi hi.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Then Why blame us for Hatred when u urself are inviting it. Ab body pe sugar lagake so jaaoge to cheeti to kategi hi.

india creates hatred when they murder 1 lakh Kashmiri men women and children and throw them in mass graves; when they rape Kashmiri women, break into the homes of Kashmiris - beat the youth in front of their families and take them away

they dont want you in their land....Pakistanis/Kashmiris are the ones who insist it is india that creates that hatred, but of course when you occupy lands some will resist through armed struggle. JKLF did it (and not against civilians - just occupation forces) - though now they are non-violent movement.

 

[WAR-rior]

india creates hatred when they murder 1 lakh Kashmiri men women and children and throw them in mass graves; when they rape Kashmiri women, break into the homes of Kashmiris - beat the youth in front of their families and take them away

they dont want you in their land....Pakistanis/Kashmiris are the ones who insist it is india that creates that hatred, but of course when you occupy lands some will resist through armed struggle. JKLF did it (and not against civilians - just occupation forces) - though now they are non-violent movement.

U talked all bout the Symptoms. Temme bout the cause.

 

[Chak Bamu]

As I expected !! your answer is mere rhetoric ... Qadiyanis committed folly , Communists were fools , Iskander Mirza is a discredited fool not taken seriously and "you" laugh at him , And Mullahs were not against Pakistan !!!

And then you accuse me of passing opinions as facts !!

I can reply back to you in your style (rhetoric) better than you but that would be a waste of time .

By trying to assert "Sarkari version of history is not distorted" you have already proven my point !!

I would really like if you (or some one else for that matter) could actually try to discuss these things in a academic way .

You can make unfounded claims, quote black characters of our history, employ logical fallacies, use half truths and expect to be taken serious enough for an 'academic' discussion? Are you for real????

Rhetoric is great for exposing logical inconsistencies, and I did that. But ignoring information, analysis, and conclusions is dishonest of you. Your POV is not some holy cow that may not be touched. Your POV is just opinions based upon opinions of others, not facts.

I am going to list your claims, asking you to prove them. I will then watch with satisfaction as you run around trying to grab at straws to substantiate them. You may like to cut and run like you did above. But here we are in any case:

1. How can anyone in their right minds quote a person like Iskandar Mirza, who is well known as a discredited and ambitious fool who tore up Pakistan's first constitution and set the stage for a string of dictatorships that culminated in break up of Pakistan? How can any such person be taken seriously?

2. Islam was used as a tool against Bengalis? Well this is rather novel especially since you are placing this in context of criticism of Muslim League, 1954 provincial elections, & 1956 constitution. Care to explain the mechanics of the process? Before you point to 1956 constitution, be sure to read up on Objectives resolution (1949, much earlier than 1954 provincial election of East Pakistan). Also do attempt to answer as to how anyone would presume to counter Nationalists and Socialists with such a move.

3. I have no opinion about Nazriya-e-Pakistan. It is not important as far as I am concerned. But you claim that it has been used against minorities like Qadianis. You also claim that Shias (not a religious minority as you cleverly suggest) are a victim of this concept. How can you make such assertions? I can not understand as to how that could have happened. Pray do tell...

4. You claim that Communists in India supported Pakistan movement. But you provide no explanation as to why a non-communal organization would support a faith-based demand. You have also dismissed my suggested explanation as rhetorical. Why? Did it make you uncomfortable to address a logical inconsistency that seems to be important to you?

5. The mother of all half truths "Mullahs opposed creation of Pakistan" is a favorite one of yours. Why? What do you hope to accomplish by parroting an oft repeated but wrong opinion? Can your POV not stand of merit? Must you prop it via circuitous and selective BS?

Suppose you point to JUH's stance against Pakistan by quoting Molana Ahmad Hassan Madni. Would that prove your point? What about the fact that JUH was an off-shoot of Darul-Uloom Deoband, and can in no way be assumed to represent 'Mullahs'? I do not know if you are well-versed with theological underpinnings of their arguments or their shrewed political stance. But can you spare a thought for highly influential Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi and his associates, also connected with Deoband, and suggesting religious reasons for supporting Pakistan movement? See the Deobandis were DIVIDED. Moreover, Deobandis were only one school of thought. Brelvi-aligned JUP proudly claim that their elders were all supporters of Pakistan movement.

Now that I have provided context in which to place your ill-intentioned assertion about Mullahs opposing Pakistan, can you begin to offer some sort of explanation as to how this counter-factual opinion be correct? I know a number of people say this, but other people's opinions are not facts. Either offer a defense or admit that you parrot other people's opinions as facts.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I shall address your assertions about my last post:

Qadianis did commit folly. Look at their situation since many decades. While they consider Muslims as kafirs, they can not expect to be considered Muslims themselves. I am not getting into their ideas about Nabuwwat etc... just pointing out that they were wrong in participating in a Muslim political project when they did not believe in it to begin with. Perhaps they were over-ambitious. Perhaps they could not contemplate living with Hindus due to their own history - specifically rise of Mirza of Qadian as an anti-Hinduism preacher and campaigner. But whatever it may be, they did commit folly. Their history proves it. You can not argue against historical facts.

Communists (according to your words) did something illogical when they (being non-communal) supported demand for Pakistan. You can not wrap them in Pakistani flag and present them as nationalists today. I suggested an explanation, you are free to reject it. But do make an effort to explain why a non-communal political movement supported a call for Pakistan. You can not get away from this. You can not laugh it off. You can not make jests and think that you have explained a contradiction. You must explain why you adopt an illogical stance.

I have already written about your assertion that Mullahs were anti-Pakistan. Clearly this is a convenient falsehood and useful for those who wish to declare Pakistan as a secular project. This simplistic idea is part of a revisionist campaign used by some in service of their views. While you are dismissive of my last post, you offer no explanation as to how you can support this view. You merely dismiss it in jest. As though it is some how a self-evident truth. This is what happens when you take opinions as facts and spread the same. You are more like a missionary than a scholar.

And you talk about 'academic' discussion!
What academic discussion can exist in absence of facts?
What academic discussion employs jest as a proper device?
What academic discussion begins by calling a well explained position as being merely rhetorical?

Your want more? Here we go:

You say that I have asserted that 'sarkari version is not distorted'. When and where did I say that? Do quote me.... I merely questioned your rhetorical device. There is nothing wrong with doing so. If you call a version of history as distorted, does that mean that your version is any less distorted? Sarkari version supports a POV, do you not have a very partial one yourself? Or is it that you consider yourself to be the paragon of truth and all those who disagree with you as beneath the level of your academic discussions?

Please go ahead and do your best. Employ rhetoric, facts, references, and whatever else that you can think of... You shall not find me wanting.

The fact that we are having this exchange on a trash thread started by a non-Pakistani (who has no clue about most things Pakistani) and based on views of an attention seeking bimbo says a lot... Good place to start with combative assertions of superiority over a dissenter like myself. Good going bud.

 

[Rashid Mahmood]

"Islamic Republic of Pakistan" forever.....