It is this attitude from the "educated class" in Pakistan that is indicative of the problems Pakistan faces. The people in Pakistan for the most part reject extremism, which is evident in the fact that "religious" parties do not win more than 2-3% of the votes in Pakistan. The fault is in posts like these, indicative of people who would rather give up than fight for their rights, & not make themselves count that is the bigger problem in Pakistan. One thing I have noticed in many "liberal" posters here is that many have not had adequate "external exposures". It is very easy to crib & cry about your conditions in your home country, but when you get adequate "external exposures", you realize that everything has its pros & cons, & you appreciate what you don't have more. It is people that would rather give up on Pakistan than fight for their rights, & struggle to make a difference that are the biggest problems Pakistan faces, & this post is a good indication of that. I belong to a Bihari family that has sacrificed their everything for this country, that has struggled to get their rights, gone through many rough times. But we are as Pakistani as everyone else, we have our stakes in this country, we don't need anyone's reassurances to make us feel good about ourselves, we believe in taking responsibility for our actions & how this country is run, & if this country is having problems, we are just as responsible as everyone for it.
And on the extremism, Pakistan was pretty much free of extremism till the early-end 70s, & the Afghan Soviet war changed Pakistan a lot.
The identity problem in Pakistan is overrated. It was a much bigger problem pre-1971, & while the problem still exists, it is not as big as it used to be. India is about to face the same identity problems as Pakistan has right now, there is already a tussle going on between the Hindu right wing & the "secular forces" in India.
Pakistan the land itself is just as old as any other part of India or anywhere else.
The problem arose when the Deobandi influence from India started creeping into Pakistan, the same people that had opposed the creation of Pakistan. They were influential in Pakistani society, even though most of the Muslims in Pakistan were Sunni Barelvis, who had supported the Pakistan movement. They argued that if Pakistan was made along secular lines, then there was no need for partition in the first place.
You are completely wrong here, & you have taken the events out of sequence. Even though Pakistan was the Islamic Republic of Pakistan early, it was largely secular till the 70s, when Bangladesh split off from Pakistan. 1971 really changed Pakistan, & it was only after that that Islam was used as a 'tool to unite'. But the Afghan-Soviet war in 1979, & the events that transpired was what really changed Pakistan. 1971 was a clear case of ethnic identity taking precedence of the national one, & Pakistan wanted to make sure there was no repeat of that in the future. Hence, they wanted to create a national identity that would take precedence over the ethnic one, & this is where Islam started getting associated with the national identity.
And mind you, there were ethnic tensions between the "Mohajirs" & Sindhis as well during this period, along with Bengalis & other refugees flowing into Pakistan. Today, Pakistan is relatively free of serious ethnic tensions that it faced in the past, & that is because of people valuing their national identity over their ethnic one. Many Punjabis in Pakistan started adopting Urdu as their first language, & today, Urdu is spoken & understood by almost everyone in Pakistan. A recent Gallop poll showed that 90% of the Pakistani people value their national identity over their ethnic one.
Sindhudesh is dead, & while Sindhi people still have some dislike for "Mohajirs" in interior Sindh, & would prefer to speak in Sindhi than Urdu, the situation is very stable: Sindhis are proud Pakistanis. Sindh is one of the most stable regions of Pakistan, contributing 27% of Pakistan's GDP.
Balochistan is a different matter, it has been ignored by the state, which has not paid any attention towards it. The result is that the people feel cheated & exploited. These people felt that Balochistan was where all of Pakistan's got its gas from (Sui), but they didn't think anything else of them. The sardars exploited the common grievances of the people for their own benefit, & kept them backward & uneducated.
Your post is indicative of the mindset of the liberals that talk the 'popular notions', but have many loopholes & inconsistencies in their arguments.
Bilal.. one expects more than just the usual "liberal" stamp in a reply to a post..
But ill accommodate you even though I am far from the "liberal" branch and usually end up in arguments with them.
As for the rest of the personal rather than statement critique, Its not my style to get into this basement of argumentative style.
First.. I ask you a counter question to the claim of the land of Pakistan being as old as India..etc.
India/Hindustan has been in the history books since the time of Alexander.
Was there any mention of Pakistan till the Pamphlet of Ch rehmet Ali?
If there has been no mention of the world Pakistan before that, or even the people of the exact areas of Pakistan(no more, no less) uniting under a single banner. If yes.. I gladly accept correction with proof.
If not.. then the land that is Pakistan today is not a historical concept.. A wholly Muslims state, A Muslim identity is.. not Islami Jamhuriya e Pakistan.
Your first paragraph is still concentrating on your exp.
Extremism never needed votes in Pakistan, it needed a fan to the fire.
Its not "extremism" running riot throughout the population of Pakistan, its extremism being the most vocal and active.
Yes, Pakistan was "free" from extremism.. but not quite. I agree with you that the very people who cried "Paleedsitan" came and spread their "Paleed" idealism here. Back in the early 50's.. Shariah was being declared in parts of Lahore and riots broke out over anti-Qadiani movements. So the evil has been there from the start.
Its not my sequence that is off, you have missed entire events.
When the bengali's demanded their just rights they were dismissed as Hindu puppets..
Ayub Khan's bigotry is plain seen in his diaries, his delusions of Racial superiority and ownership of religion to his perception of Martial races. I intentionally ignored the "Mohajir" and Sindhi tensions.. not to mention the "Pathanization" attempt by Gohar Ayub of Karachi as they are a pandora's box for this topic.
71 was a case of the state suppressing ethnic identity and inherent rights for its own profit.
It was a case of usurping just demands for the profit of a select few.
Urdu was becoming common throughout the west before 71 as well, due to similar script and dialectical similarities.
If your point is valid then why isnt urdu all that common in the KP and Balochistan.. even in interior sindh.
Ive traveled 70% of this country from Quetta to Gilgit to Badin and still find people who would have had trouble understanding urdu if not for common terms. What external/internal exposure have I missed?
Sindhudesh or Sinhustra may be dead, but the Sindhi nationalism isnt, please look closely at the 2013 elections and how the current ruling party will play the "Sindh under siege" card successfully.
Karachi is one place where you see forging of both national and ethnic identities, Other Urban centers have followed suit but not with that success. The result of trying to forge a national identity with an Islamic one has alienated minorities and left sectarian divides as we are still to decide on a common Islamic identity. It starts out all fine till rifts erupt in the nitty gritty, what you are toeing is the establishment line. What applies to forging the character of a Pakistan Military officer or trooper does not apply to the nation.
79 only added fuel to the fire, if bought in militancy to the extremists. Previously where sections of Islamic party wings had metal knuckles and bamboo sticks they received AK-47's. The rest then just followed suit.
I could possible replicate your entire paragraph on Balochistan with Bangladesh and it would sound like history is being repeated.
The Sardar's may be exploitative, but the way they were tackled was not kosher either.
After all, people would not follow them unless there was something to build on, and its not just the Sardars..intellectuals, social activists..all joined in. Thankfully this is changing in the current approach where for the first time where Balochis are being involved more and more into the efforts by the PA to fix things. the fruits of which will be seen very soon and the insurgency will die out.
Again.. the last sentence is nothing more than a canard to "propagate" the argument which I find too pithy to entertain.
... getting Bored this Days
...& Dont Compare me with Banglore the Congressi 
...even i dont buy all this Aryan Sh8t... I am a INDIAN & a Hindu & i am proud of it...
