Pakistan was created on the basis of group nationalism and not religion

[53fd]

Actually that's probably the reason why the maximum proponents for an Islamic Caliphate are Pakistanis (ironically the country was never under one for an extended period). You won't find many Turks, Iranians asking for it. IMHO Putting Islam as a binding force removes nationalism, people will see themselves as Muslims first and Pakistanis later

False, the identity of Islam is tied into/intertwined with the national identity of Pakistan ('Islamic Republic of Pakistan'), so it's not even possible for Pakistanis to deal with these two things as two separate, distinct things. I don't know where you came up with that. Pakistan today is not against the vision of Jinnah, as has been explained by my Post # 289. Read it, & then get back.

 

[Vinod2070]

This has already been answered by me. Please read Post # 289, & then get back to me.

That doesn't have anything to do with what I asked here.

How does Islam hold Pushtun tribals to Pakistan rather than Afghanistan?

They are Muslims as well and they share the ethnicity and civilization.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

But you still seem to forget that the brother is still "biologically" part of that family, whether he leaves it or not. Indians cannot claim that India's history is thousands of years old, whereas Pakistan's is 63 years only. The "family" that the brother left equals the "Indian Subcontinent" in this case, & the existence of the family is no more once the brother left in 1947. One member of this family "India" cannot claim to have full & sole ownership of the family "The Indian Subcontinent".

When did i ever say that ancient Indian history belongs only to the the modern republic of India ?

its mostly Pakistanis who keep saying that they were never Indians and they are descendents of rabs , turks , uzbeks , persians etc .

Indus civilization is a Part of Pakistani history as it is of Indian history .

all I am saying is that the land of Pakistan as a part of india and its people as indians ( punjabis , sindhis , seraikis and mohajirs) have had an ancient existence but the idea of pakistan as a separate nation from India is a very recent phenomenon .

Porus is as much a pakistani as he is Indian because were all people of Indian race then. You too can take pride in the mughal emporors like akbar like we do as well as somebody like asoka .

These figures are part of paksitani history as well because we were all indians then .

It is not an Indians' fault if your education system seeks to teach you about taking pride in bin qasim who was arab but completely ignores historically great figures like asoka and chandragupta maurya ( who btw was a bihari too ).

Us indians wont mind if you are taught about them in you history books as long as you dont try to steal them from indian identity .



Whenever somebody uses the word India in ancient and medieval context it includes pakistani punjab and sindh and its people like punjabis ,seraikis , sidhis and mohajirs.

our history is our common heritage , we should not try to steal it from each other.

 

[TheStrantrunCurve]

Myths don't become the truth if you keep repeating it. The idea of two nation theory was nowhere on the radar of the Muslim League agenda until the 1940s. Sarvarkar in his book Hindutva was the first person who actually explicitly wrote about the two nation theory intially in the 1920s.

What? Pakistan movement started soon after 1857 mutiny, Sir syed ahmed khan in 1800's was the one of the first to ask for separation

Chaudary Rehmat Ali, who spent almost his entire life and also died in England came up with the name and Pakistan scheme in Cambridge in 1933.

And he wasn't happy at the position that Allama Iqbal took at having autonomous muslim majority states within India. Hence why Allma Iqbal mentions about Rehamt Ali and his Cambridge group as


You will be right in saying that Chaudary Rehmat Ali did not consider himself as Indian (although he had Indian ethnicity). This was unlike how Jinnah and Iqbal felt about themselves. For Jinnah atleast till the 1940s

You are obviously anti-pakistani and you know nothing about pakistani founding father and you keep insulting our founding fathers indirectly.

Choudhry Rahmat Ali spent his whole life in England?
Sir, He spent his whole life in pakistan, he went to Cambrige in 1930 to read law at the age of 33, he spent more than half of his life in present day pakistan region.

The indian identity was given to south asians by the brits not by you bhartis so why take pride in calling yourself a slave, you people are obviously under mental slavery by retaining the name of India.

I will tell about the name India, Brits used to equate indians with dogs, signs of “dogs and Indians not allowed” were often posted at private clubs and even some public spaces, like waiting rooms at railway
stations.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Indias and Islamicans share a common cause it's clear - on the one hand Islamicans try to discredit Jinnah, and on the other hand, Indians hope to discredit the Pakistan that Jinnah built --

Yet again you dodged my questions and resorted to usual childish remarks.

BTW it was Non-Muslim Indians who actually influenced, motivated to start his political career notably freemasons Dadabhai Naoroji and Sir Pherozeshah Mehta. Later he also joined Indian Congress which was full of Freemasons and its funny he quite the congress because it was "TOO PRO BRITISH" and when he himself left for Britain the next day lol. Thats like a member from PMLN quiets with a excuse that its too pro PPP and later he himself joins PPP.
If Jinnah was indeed a great leader of Muslims, Britian would have chased him away but instead pampered him because he was their great asset.
Now this statement makes me sound like "islamican" right?

 

[Vinod2070]

What? Pakistan movement started soon after 1857 mutiny, Sir syed ahmed khan in 1800's was the one of the first to ask for separation

I think all he did was to try and reassure the British that Muslims were faithful to the British. It was mainly to try and get some favors for the Muslim community.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

LOL. My ancestors were always in Pak Sarzameen. And yes I am very glad most Bharati Muslims stayed back in Bharat. Do whatever you want with them, it makes no difference to us Pakistanis. We are just glad we have an international border separating Bharat from Pakistan. Long Live the international border between bharat and Pakistan.

So those Muslims in India are sub-humans?

 

[TheStrantrunCurve]

Be careful because what you are talking includes Allama Iqbal and Jinnah as well

Again you people think the indians of british raj are the same as present day indians,

During british raj we were slaves, our country was occupied and we were given the identity of indian by brits, we indus people have more right over the name india given the fact it came out of our river indus.

I'd be ashmed of calling myself a name which comes from a river which lies in my enemy country

 

[EjazR]

Sir,
I wasn’t expecting this kind of question from someone like you; If Allama Iqbal didn’t want the formation of Muslim majority state in North West of British India then who wanted. Iqbal was the one who persuaded Jinnah to come back from England and change his Indian nationalism thinking. He was the one who gave hope to Muslim through his poems that soon there would be a state in North West which would lead the Muslim world.


You can call Pakistan an accident or whatever you want if it relieves your Hindu psyche, but to me there would be no Pakistan without Allama Iqbal, he was the real founder of Pakistan.

.
.

If islam was only reason for pakistan independence then 20 pakistan should have been created because muslims were scattered all over india and not in just one specific geographic region.
.
.

Chaudhry Rehmat Ali wanted 7 independent muslim countries called commonwealth of pak nations to be created all over india but Jinnah did'nt support him

Sir Syed Ahmed also indirectly asked for separation muslim and hindu nation

You refer to me as "sir and then make an Ad Hominem attack with a "Hindu psyche" statement. In any case, if you meant Hindu as a geographical and not religious entity I guess there is no harm in that as Zakir Naik would say but I digress.

Sir Syed Ahmed referred to the Hindu and Muslim community as two eyes of the beautiful bride India. The first graduate of AMU was the son of a close Hindu friend of his.

And I am in no way questioning the existence of Pakistan. I have repeatedly said that there is no sane person who would call for unification of Pakistan or anything of that sort. Pakistan is a reality and there is no reason for that to change any time soon. So please keep that misconception out of your mind.

I am just correcting historical inaccuracies with direct quotes from the source.I have posted Iqbal's own letters and speeches about what he thought about being an Indian Muslim. If you want to read up more you can even refer to a scholarly book "The Idea of Pakistan and Iqbal - A Disclaimer" which quotes a lot of his work on this.

His idea was of muslim majority provinces within India and that residual powers of the federation should rest with the provinces. Something that even Jinnah was negotiating on till the 1940s. There was no calls of even independance from the British Crown although it was implied that self government should be granted to India.

You personally might agree that Islam was not the reason for Pakistan's creation and I would agree with you too but there are many other's who believe that was its Raison d'être. By moving from Two Nation theory as the basis of Pakistan's creation to something towards combined nationalism of various ethnicities of Pakistan.

Please do read up on Allama Iqbal's vision particulalry his 1930 speech. If Pakistan would actually implement, like I said earlier, its policy including in foreign policy would be drastically different from what it is today.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

jinnah never said the word 'secular', now start finding that word in jinnah's speech, i hope you will not find it

if the word can be found so easily, why u r copy pastin those articles which frequently appear in dawn news paper...

if jinnah envisioned a secular pakistan then why he never used the word??

Speeches dont matter. What matters is his actions. He said many things regarding Islam but failed to deliver.
Btw His early Political career started as liberal and he even joined Fabian Society.

 

[KS]

I will tell about the name India, Brits used to equate indians with dogs, signs of “dogs and Indians not allowed” were often posted at private clubs and even some public spaces, like waiting rooms at railway
stations.

Before independence even 'modern-day' Pakistanis were referred to as Indians.

Participants from the Indian subcontinent in the First World War

One and a half million volunteers came forward from the estimated population of 315 million in the Indian subcontinent (present-day India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka - henceforth referred to, for convenience, as ‘India’).
,,,,,,

Khudadad Khan was born in the Punjab (now in Pakistan) in 1887. His family were Pathans who had moved to the Punjab from the North-West Frontier between India and Afghanistan. He joined the army as a sepoy or private soldier for the sake of regular pay and a chance of honour and glory.

In October 1914, almost immediately after arriving in France, the 129th Baluchis were among 20,000 Indian soldiers sent to the front line.

 

[TheStrantrunCurve]

Even the people of Mecca believed in a polythiestic belief like hindusim before Islam. In Islam, it doesnt matter what your ancestors believed in, it matters what you believe in.

And JInnah was born in Karachi and died in Karachi. Karachi was always part of Sindh. All of Sindh is in Pakistan. There are also some people who believe he had Persian ancestry.

Jinnah was not gujrati, no where from india, read his biography from ghazanfar ali khan to find out

 

[EjazR]

Again you people think the indians of british raj are the same as present day indians,

During british raj we were slaves, our country was occupied and we were given the identity of indian by brits, we indus people have more right over the name india given the fact it came out of our river indus.

I'd be ashmed of calling myself a name which comes from a river which lies in my enemy country

The identity of India or Hind, Hindustan or other variations has been there for many thousands of years. The greeks, persians and Arabs referred to people living east of the Indus river as Hindi or Hindus. That includes present day Pakistan.

Allama Iqbal and Jinnah had no shame in calling themselves Indian and were infact proud of being one. So its upto you really.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

Again you people think the indians of british raj are the same as present day indians,

During british raj we were slaves, our country was occupied and we were given the identity of indian by brits, we indus people have more right over the name india given the fact it came out of our river indus.

I'd be ashmed of calling myself a name which comes from a river which lies in my enemy country

indus passes through india as well check the map .

And the name india was used much before the brits came , chech unbiased history books from non pakistani authors .

Indus river was a part of ancient india of which pakistan is a modern part today , again check unbiased history book form non pakistani authors .

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

Jinnah was not gujrati, no where from india, read his biography from ghazanfar ali khan to find out

find an unbiased non pakistani source , again .