Pakistan: The ‘birth’ of a problem

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

No offence Am,

But if Pakistani Citizens expect Indians to respect their life and sentiments... the feeling has to be mutual.

I think common man on both sides gets exposed to news and views based on countries leadership.....and at times leadership on both sides has made us believe that the other side is bad....and here again...its both sides who think that the other one is bad......I have never been taught to hate a Pakistani...and I think no one in India is ever taught to hate a Pakistani... but when I get exposed to hatred towards India on Internet...I am sometimes bound to react.......

What does any of this have to do with the topic or the post you were responding to?

The subject of discussion is an Indian author - the author chose to blame the communal tensions on the creation of Pakistan, and abiab had a retort along those lines of anything 'bad' in India being blamed on Pakistan.

I fail to see what exactly showing insensitivity to terrorism in Pakistan had to do with either abiabs post or the thread topic.

Please refrain from flaming and hijacking the thread next time.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Thread moved here since I think it is a mature discussion on a serious issue, so far, that does not belong in Members club.

 

[vsdoc]

That is human nature, not something isolated to Pakistan.

Agree .... and I hope you realise it holds good for India too .... without necessarily putting a religious persecution spin on to everything.

But have you not read anything that has been posted here so far? The Muhajir community is also one of the most successful economically and educated communities in Pakistan. Karachi accounts for the lions share of revenue for the Pakistani State - food for thought.

I have read everything posted here my friend ..... and must admit I came to know of this "muhajir" concept here itself. They may be wealthy and well settled now ..... on the dint of their own effort and toil to restart life afresh ..... in spite of the reception given to them early on ..... have you thought of it that way? Further food for thought .....

Lets not get self righteous here - the concept of Pakistan is not abhorrent to Indians for any noble reasons such as the ones you mention, but because of irredentist and expansionist desires.

I am sorry but I must disagree. We have no interest in your land and/or the human issues it would bring with it piggy-back ..... now.

I am talking about the Indians and the sentiment prevailing at the time of Partition, coming on the back of Freedom won with blood and tears ..... only to be rewarded by further blood and tears ..... by your own people who have been living alongside you for centuries. This is the Indian point of view my friend and i do not expect you to understand.

In fact, finding another people and nation 'abhorrent' because of the path they chose for their destiny is in itself an attitude that smacks of disrespect and a superiority complex. It is none of India's business what system of government we choose and what laws we have in place - those are the business of Pakistanis and Pakistan.

You are taking my words out of context here. No one found "Pakistanis" abhorrent ..... but the concept of Pakistan ..... before and at the time of Pakistan's creation ..... while you guys were still Indian. Yes, now that the deed is done and sitting in front of our respective keyboards 6 decades hence, it is easy to say "we are different from you, we are a sovereign country, we decide."

My point AM is that at that time 60 years ago, when the decision was made to tear the country apart, "we deciding" meant both you and us deciding together. It was not your decision or your insecurities and needs alone my friend ...... it was everyone's freedom ..... fought for and won together ..... and you guys had NO grounds till then of feeling whatsoever insecure from a "Hindu majority." It was a power game pure and simple, and we and you are paying the price till today. So please do not get on your own high horse and imply that either I or other Indians are either suffering from a superiority complex or are being disrespectful ..... cause we have a totally different view about where the disrespect originated from in the first place.

Cheers, Doc

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If there was no partition, the hate between two nations would have been seized to exist, muslims in india would have been a formidable force, and there wouldnt have been any REASONS to hate our doubt indian muslims. Yes ofcourse the religious fanatics available in our countries would have been enought to create some problems, but at the same time, the moderate secular people would have been far outnumbered this stuipds.

That is debatable. India for the longest time suffered from very low economic growth and poor agricultural yields - this was a time when the Pakistani economy, especially under Ayub Khan, was galloping along and in many ways studied by other developing nations.

What became West Pakistan was significantly behind the rest of India in terms of infrastructure, industry and economy. Economic disparities, poverty and corruption would have in fact exacerbated the tensions between communities (it would be a lie to suggest that they did not exist before the idea of Pakistan was floated), especially in the states/provinces that were Muslim majority.

The blame would have inevitably coalesced around the idea that a 'Hindu India' was responsible for the backwardness of the Muslims, especially in the Muslim majority states and that only independence to run their affairs as they saw fit could provide advancement and equality for Muslims.

The resulting outcome would likely have been far bloodier than the partition.

 

[vsdoc]

That is debatable. India for the longest time suffered from very low economic growth and poor agricultural yields - this was a time when the Pakistani economy, especially under Ayub Khan, was galloping along and in many ways studied by other developing nations.

What does that have to do with what we are discussing? Have you heard about inertia ..... it takes a lot more to get a huge India moving than a smaller Pakistan ..... but once moving, its also that much more difficult to either derail or stop India from moving than it is to Pakistan ..... our respective current situations bearing testimony to that.

What became West Pakistan was significantly behind the rest of India in terms of infrastructure, industry and economy. Economic disparities, poverty and corruption would have in fact exacerbated the tensions between communities (it would be a lie to suggest that they did not exist before the idea of Pakistan was floated), especially in the states/provinces that were Muslim majority.

So should Bihar, Orissa, and Uttar Pradesh ask for separate countries now? Should be perfect as per your reasoning, coz they even have sizeable Muslim populations.

My friend, I am sure you realise that to change the system it is necessary to first continue to be a part of the system. Change from within being easier and more sustainable that that forced from without.

Would it not have made more sense (in terms of representation - both political and socioeconomic) for the muslims to remain together, rather than half of you moving off to try your hand at a separae life, while half decided to stay with India? Where was the collective leadership, vision, and basic common sense for the community then?

The blame would have inevitably coalesced around the idea that a 'Hindu India' was responsible for the backwardness of the Muslims, especially in the Muslim majority states and that only independence to run their affairs as they saw fit could provide advancement and equality for Muslims.

The resulting outcome would likely have been far bloodier than the partition.

That is what you say. But ask yourself, is what you say above so very different from what we find here today? You got your country, BUT you are still blaming "Hindu India" for the backwardness of its Muslims. While the irony would no doubt not escape you that you are not so very much more forward yourself.

Instead would things not have been more different had you chosen to remain with India and fight for a peaceful, equal, well represented, mainstream, and participative united role in India's growth post Independence?

Is what I have said above so difficult for you or other pakistanis to understand ..... at least intellectually ..... for starters?

Cheers, Doc

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Agree .... and I hope you realise it holds good for India too .... without necessarily putting a religious persecution spin on to everything.

In the context of this article, the 'spin' is one of placing the blame for the communal tension in India on Pakistan - very few Indians on this thread have actually come out to refute the authors premise and acknowledge the problem lies in the prejudice and discrimination within Indian society, and not in the existence of Pakistan.

It is Indians choosing to use Pakistan as a scapegoat for their issues, and essentially dragging Pakistan into the debate.

I have read everything posted here my friend ..... and must admit I came to know of this "muhajir" concept here itself. They may be wealthy and well settled now ..... on the dint of their own effort and toil to restart life afresh ..... in spite of the reception given to them early on ..... have you thought of it that way? Further food for thought .....

What reception? Many of them found shelter with families in Pakistan, lived in whatever makeshift accommodation could be arranged by a GoP that itself barely had accommodation to run its affairs out of.

And out of that the community has grown into one of the most successful communities in Pakistan.

I am sorry but I must disagree. We have no interest in your land and/or the human issues it would bring with it piggy-back ..... now.

Then direct your sentiment of 'abhorrence' towards the prejudice and discrimination within India and Indians that causes Indian authors to scapegoat Pakistan for India's communal ills.

I am talking about the Indians and the sentiment prevailing at the time of Partition, coming on the back of Freedom won with blood and tears ..... only to be rewarded by further blood and tears ..... by your own people who have been living alongside you for centuries. This is the Indian point of view my friend and i do not expect you to understand.

All of humanity has been living alongside for longer than the people of South Asia - to only focus on a subset of that shared existence to focus on lands and people you consider part of some mythical larger nation is irredentism and expansionism.

In fact, why didn't Indians just remain part of the United Kingdom? The Punjabis, Bengalis, Tamils like Scots, Irish and the English. What happened to the 'shared existence' there?

Like I said, Indians like you focus on only a subset of humanity's 'shared existence' because it supports your expansionist narrative.

The sentiment at partition was of a people choosing their own destiny as an independent nation on their own land that their ancestors had inhabited for thousands of years. It is none of the business of other people in the region to claim that land or whine about 'one nation' when none existed. Had one nation ever existed there would have been no desire to form two nations.

You are taking my words out of context here. No one found "Pakistanis" abhorrent ..... but the concept of Pakistan ..... before and at the time of Pakistan's creation ..... while you guys were still Indian. Yes, now that the deed is done and sitting in front of our respective keyboards 6 decades hence, it is easy to say "we are different from you, we are a sovereign country, we decide."

The concept of Pakistan is Pakistan - and for Indians to call our nation abhorrent is a refusal to accept it, belittle it and interfere in it. Once again, it is none of your business what ideology our nation is based on and what laws we have. Save your abhorrence for prejudice and social ills in your own nation.

Its rather ironic really, at the start of this post you were complaining about Pakistanis seeking to fight for the 'rights of Indian Muslims', yet here you are blithely talking about how Pakistanis should find it perfectly acceptable for Indians to pass judgment on their nation.

My point AM is that at that time 60 years ago, when the decision was made to tear the country apart, "we deciding" meant both you and us deciding together. It was not your decision or your insecurities and needs alone my friend ...... it was everyone's freedom ..... fought for and won together ..... and you guys had NO grounds till then of feeling whatsoever insecure from a "Hindu majority." It was a power game pure and simple, and we and you are paying the price till today. So please do not get on your own high horse and imply that either I or other Indians are either suffering from a superiority complex or are being disrespectful ..... cause we have a totally different view about where the disrespect originated from in the first place.

Cheers, Doc

There was no country or nation to tear apart - South Asia had never been one nation. The British essentially brought a myriad Kingdoms, States and people under one banner in a colony. The partition was of that colony and the region, not a nation and not a people, since there was no singular nation and no singular people in South Asia.

I am not the one questioning the existence of your nation as an abhorrent regional bully with expansionist and hegemonic ambitions right now - you are the one hurling abuse at my nation, so drop the disingenuous attempt to turn the 'high horse and disrespect' comment onto me - you have repeated your disrespectful comments about Pakistan several times now.

 

[TaimiKhan]

..................................

 

[vsdoc]

Ok man I give up ..... your post clearly demonstrates the gulf that exists in midsets and different perceptions of shared experiences between our countries today. I am trying to debate in a civil tone, but I do not find reciprocation from your side, as you choose to take offense and crack the whip which you wield here.

I am out of this.

Cheers, Doc

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

What does that have to do with what we are discussing? Have you heard about inertia ..... it takes a lot more to get a huge India moving than a smaller Pakistan ..... but once moving, its also that much more difficult to either derail or stop India from moving than it is to Pakistan ..... our respective current situations bearing testimony to that.

Just backgrounder to the rest of my post. It was not meant to be a separate issue.

So should Bihar, Orissa, and Uttar Pradesh ask for separate countries now? Should be perfect as per your reasoning, coz they even have sizeable Muslim populations.

I didn't say they should, I said that the economic stagnation and deprivation that existed in India till recently would have likely exacerbated the communal tensions, specifically between the Muslim majority states and provinces living in a Hindu majority nation.

My friend, I am sure you realise that to change the system it is necessary to first continue to be a part of the system. Change from within being easier and more sustainable that that forced from without.

Would it not have made more sense (in terms of representation - both political and socioeconomic) for the muslims to remain together, rather than half of you moving off to try your hand at a separae life, while half decided to stay with India? Where was the collective leadership, vision, and basic common sense for the community then?

No. Because Muslims would still have been a minority. Whatever the arguments in favor of a larger minority having better collective bargaining power than a smaller minority, they do not hold against the fact that being in a majority in ones own nation has no substitute on terms of trying to ensure the communities demands are accepted.

That is what you say. But ask yourself, is what you say above so very different from what we find here today? You got your country, BUT you are still blaming "Hindu India" for the backwardness of its Muslims. While the irony would no doubt not escape you that you are not so very much more forward yourself.

I am not blaming 'Hindu India' for the backwardness of its Muslims - I am saying that the communal tensions, social ills, and poverty in India is the sole responsibility of Indians, not Pakistanis and not the concept of Pakistan.

If Indian Muslims are distrusted or ill treated, then that is the fault of Indian Hindus and the attitudes in India, not Pakistan.

That is an issue that seems to have escaped most Indians commenting on this thread, who have continued to indulge in tirades against Pakistan and the idea of Pakistan, instead of criticizing the author and Indians for communal tensions and issues and scapegoating Pakistan for them.

Instead would things not have been more different had you chosen to remain with India and fight for a peaceful, equal, well represented, mainstream, and participative united role in India's growth post Independence?

Is what I have said above so difficult for you or other pakistanis to understand ..... at least intellectually ..... for starters?

As explained above - a larger minority argument pales in front of an independent majority argument.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I am trying to debate in a civil tone, but I do not find reciprocation from your side, as you choose to take offense and crack the whip which you wield here.

I am out of this.

Do what you wish, but calling the idea of Pakistan 'abhorrent' is no example of debating in a 'civil tone'.

And no whip has been cracked on my side, you merely choose to view my comments in that light since I called you out on the disrespect you showed my nation.

 

[vsdoc]

My exact statement was "That is also why the very concept of Pakistan was so abhorrent to the collective sensibility of the people of the land ..... from all faiths including Islam ..... and why they chose India over Pakistan."

Please note the past tense.

In retrospect, based on the history we share these past 62 years, we are more than comfortable with the concept of Pakistan now as something that was for the best.

However, that does not change the sentiments prevalent in the people of our land in 1947.

If "abhorrent" has caused you such displeasure, I will happily modify it to a word of your choosing ..... provided it properly and accurately describes the sentiment at the time.

Cheers, Doc

 

[humblehobbes]

In the context of this article, the 'spin' is one of placing the blame for the communal tension in India on Pakistan - very few Indians on this thread have actually come out to refute the authors premise and acknowledge the problem lies in the prejudice and discrimination within Indian society, and not in the existence of Pakistan.

It is Indians choosing to use Pakistan as a scapegoat for their issues, and essentially dragging Pakistan into the debate.


What reception? Many of them found shelter with families in Pakistan, lived in whatever makeshift accommodation could be arranged by a GoP that itself barely had accommodation to run its affairs out of.

And out of that the community has grown into one of the most successful communities in Pakistan.


Then direct your sentiment of 'abhorrence' towards the prejudice and discrimination within India and Indians that causes Indian authors to scapegoat Pakistan for India's communal ills.


All of humanity has been living alongside for longer than the people of South Asia - to only focus on a subset of that shared existence to focus on lands and people you consider part of some mythical larger nation is irredentism and expansionism.

In fact, why didn't Indians just remain part of the United Kingdom? The Punjabis, Bengalis, Tamils like Scots, Irish and the English. What happened to the 'shared existence' there?

Like I said, Indians like you focus on only a subset of humanity's 'shared existence' because it supports your expansionist narrative.

The sentiment at partition was of a people choosing their own destiny as an independent nation on their own land that their ancestors had inhabited for thousands of years. It is none of the business of other people in the region to claim that land or whine about 'one nation' when none existed. Had one nation ever existed there would have been no desire to form two nations.

The concept of Pakistan is Pakistan - and for Indians to call our nation abhorrent is a refusal to accept it, belittle it and interfere in it. Once again, it is none of your business what ideology our nation is based on and what laws we have. Save your abhorrence for prejudice and social ills in your own nation.

Its rather ironic really, at the start of this post you were complaining about Pakistanis seeking to fight for the 'rights of Indian Muslims', yet here you are blithely talking about how Pakistanis should find it perfectly acceptable for Indians to pass judgment on their nation.


There was no country or nation to tear apart - South Asia had never been one nation. The British essentially brought a myriad Kingdoms, States and people under one banner in a colony. The partition was of that colony and the region, not a nation and not a people, since there was no singular nation and no singular people in South Asia.

I am not the one questioning the existence of your nation as an abhorrent regional bully with expansionist and hegemonic ambitions right now - you are the one hurling abuse at my nation, so drop the disingenuous attempt to turn the 'high horse and disrespect' comment onto me - you have repeated your disrespectful comments about Pakistan several times now.

I have seen a lot of posts like this and it begs an explanation. I want you to go back a mere 150 - 200 years and I want you to list out names of all the countries. I want to cross verify with the list of countries that are are in the world map now. Nationalism is a sense which developed quite recently, I would say that the first region to develop this would be France after the French Revolution. Prior to it, most of the places were kingdoms with borders being flexible based on the most recent war.

Regarding your concept of Nationalism , I would like to point out how your (our) national leaders were addressed prior to 1947. They were called as Indians, not out of the region where they were from , but out of a collective identity that the people of the region had brought on to themselves. There was no "Quit Pakistan" movement, but only a "Quit India" movement. Pakistan was created due to the fear of muslims that they would be ill treated in the new country that would be the ex-colony of Britain. A reasonable fear, owing to the plenty of communal clashes, that had occurred between the 2 communities. Had there been no clashes like that , there would have been no need for Pakistan to have been created and hence we use the term Partition. If you dont agree to this, I would like to know why the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire into a number of different countries was not termed as Partition. Or the dismemberment of Yugoslavia.

Tendency of Most Indians (barring the RSS types) to focus on the shared heritage of the 2 countries is due to a genuine sorrow for the splitting of a region, which if united would have been a real show stopper for the current imperialists. No one has a Hindu Pad padshahi mindset. Most of your arguments are based on the flawed premise that Indians and Hindus in general detest the presence of Muslims. Take a look at India which South of Narmada and ask any muslim coming from there about how he feels about his existence in "hindu India".

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

My exact statement was "That is also why the very concept of Pakistan was so abhorrent to the collective sensibility of the people of the land ..... from all faiths including Islam ..... and why they chose India over Pakistan."

Please note the past tense.

In retrospect, based on the history we share these past 62 years, we are more than comfortable with the concept of Pakistan now as something that was for the best.

However, that does not change the sentiments prevalent in the people of our land in 1947.

If "abhorrent" has caused you such displeasure, I will happily modify it to a word of your choosing ..... provided it properly and accurately describes the sentiment at the time.

Cheers, Doc

No need to change the word - clarification of the context in its usage is enough and appreciated.

I would argue though whether the 'abhorrence', in the sense that it was abhorrence to the idea of a separate nation being formed, existed very far beyond the intellectuals and political activists that were pro-United India.

I think beyond that extremely small group, the sentiment on display was nothing so noble as 'nationalism', but simple communal tension and hatred. It was directed at Pakistan and the idea of Pakistan because Pakistan represented on community.

 

[vsdoc]

Thank you for understanding.

But I do not agree to your view that only a small elite group wanted a united India, and I feel you saying so in a way is disrespectful of the efforts of our collective forefathers ...... not just in ousting the British, but in coexisting on the same land, side by side, for centuries.

Your doubts about the sentiments being noble versus simply religously motivated are also unnecessarily simplistic, blinkered, and dare I say, cynical. That said, neither of us was alive then, and our way of looking at things is of course influenced by what we have been taught at home and in school and later by the society we live in.

I put it to you that the idea of two nations did not go down well with a majority of Indians at the time ...... Hindus and nearly half of the Muslim population too. Also if it were only the elite who were pro-united-India, how then do you explain mainly the elite migrating to Pakistan? If it were only based on means, then they had much more at stake to lose, and for the poor, it made no difference either way, being poor in india or poor in pakistan.

I feel you need to give the huge multitude of an impoverished newly independent people more credit than that.

Cheers, Doc

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I have seen a lot of posts like this and it begs an explanation. I want you to go back a mere 150 - 200 years and I want you to list out names of all the countries. I want to cross verify with the list of countries that are are in the world map now. Nationalism is a sense which developed quite recently, I would say that the first region to develop this would be France after the French Revolution. Prior to it, most of the places were kingdoms with borders being flexible based on the most recent war.

I am not sure where you disagree with me then?

As I said, there was no Indian nation, state or collective national identity (Shared by the people of the region) until the formation of the two states of India and Pakistan in 1947.

Regarding your concept of Nationalism , I would like to point out how your (our) national leaders were addressed prior to 1947. They were called as Indians, not out of the region where they were from , but out of a collective identity that the people of the region had brought on to themselves. There was no "Quit Pakistan" movement, but only a "Quit India" movement. Pakistan was created due to the fear of muslims that they would be ill treated in the new country that would be the ex-colony of Britain. A reasonable fear, owing to the plenty of communal clashes, that had occurred between the 2 communities. Had there been no clashes like that , there would have been no need for Pakistan to have been created and hence we use the term Partition. If you dont agree to this, I would like to know why the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire into a number of different countries was not termed as Partition. Or the dismemberment of Yugoslavia.

I see that as a regional identity, imposed by outsiders. I do agree that before the idea of Pakistan, there were attempts to coalesce the myriad people into a nation by the political elite and intellectuals in South Asia, and there was movement towards the idea of a 'single nation', but it never quite got to fruition, with a competing 'Muslim nationalism' (which I would argue also existed at the time amongst some Muslims and Muslim intellectuals because of the history of Muslim rule) rising up and cementing in the demand for Pakistan.

I don't see why the dismemberment of the Ottoman empire should not be looked at in the same way as the division of British India.

Perhaps one reason it is not is because victors write history and to present the division of the Ottoman 'empire' as such, instead of as the division of a nation, is more favorable to the historical narrative of the victor. It is more palatable to talk of the division of a 'corrupt empire', instead of 'partition of a nation'.

Tendency of Most Indians (barring the RSS types) to focus on the shared heritage of the 2 countries is due to a genuine sorrow for the splitting of a region, which if united would have been a real show stopper for the current imperialists. No one has a Hindu Pad padshahi mindset. Most of your arguments are based on the flawed premise that Indians and Hindus in general detest the presence of Muslims. Take a look at India which South of Narmada and ask any muslim coming from there about how he feels about his existence in "hindu India".

Do point out where I have said that 'Indians and Hindus in general detest the presence of Muslims' - what I have said is that communal issues such as the one raised by the author are the fault of Indians, not Pakistan or the idea of Pakistan. And that the animosity or distrust towards Indian Muslims, to the extent that it exists (I have made no comment on the prevalence or degree of existence of such sentiment in India) is the fault of Indian Hindus, not Pakistan.

Similarly, any distrust and animosity towards Indian Hindus by Indian Muslims is an issue for Indian Muslims to consider, not blame Pakistan over.