Pakistani Nationalism - contradictions?

[padamchen]

Doc Keep cheering and stop whining, Abrahamic books aren't history books that you want Zarathushtra or Avesta should be mentioned by name in them. And they're called Abrahamic religions for reason.

Ok.

Ahlul Abrahamic Semitic Kitab then?

Which kind of bolsters the conclusions I've come to.

Cheers, Doc

 

[The Accountant]

It was the reason at the time of creation but its not anymore. I am ethically Pukhtoon but where ever i go people see a Pakistani, whether that is in Australia or when i was in Saudi. We are not part of Pakistan because it is a Muslim country, because even Afghanistan is a Muslim country. We are Pakistanis because that is the country where my parents were born and where i was born and thats it. My nationality is Pakistan.

Well outside Pakistan you are right but within Pakistani is ethinicity is a binding factor then most of our awam want to be named as sindhi pathan or baloch first then Pakistani ...

Do interview common people of Pakistan and they will respond that we became Pakistani few decades ago but we are sindhi from centuries ... on the contrary you will find very few that will say that islam is secondary and Pakistan is primary ...

I am not saying that name of our nationality is muslim offcourse we are Pakistani but the reason we are Pakistani because we were muslims of aub.continents ...

My grand parents left thier homes and migrated as Pakistan was to be a country for muslims of sub continent ... there is no other binding force stronger than islam otherwise based on ehtinicity a pathan is way too different from sindhi ...

Whatever happened in Karachi, balochistan and to some extent in fata is based on ethinicity ... if we remove islam then we will start fighting each other ...

 

[Imad.Khan]

Well outside Pakistan you are right but within Pakistani is ethinicity is a binding factor then most of our awam want to be named as sindhi pathan or baloch first then Pakistani ...

Bro, This is not unique to Pakistan. Here in Australia, people are Victorians or Queenslanders or Western Australians, or Aboriginals or Islanders etc etc, but when they go overseas they are all Australians. Same was the case in Saudi Arabia they are divided into multiple tribes but just Saudis when overseas. When I am in Pakistan i am called a Pathan, when i am among Pukhtoons i am a Yousafzai.

Do interview common people of Pakistan and they will respond that we became Pakistani few decades ago but we are sindhi from centuries ... on the contrary you will find very few that will say that islam is secondary and Pakistan is primary ...

This is the issue that i am discussing, why can't both be primary. When religion is the topic bring forth Islam, when nationality is the topic then state Pakistani. Because you can bleed green and be Muslim, Christian, Hundu or Sikh but not necessarily the other way round.

I am not saying that name of our nationality is muslim offcourse we are Pakistani but the reason we are Pakistani because we were muslims of aub.continents ...

My grand parents left thier homes and migrated as Pakistan was to be a country for muslims of sub continent ... there is no other binding force stronger than islam otherwise based on ehtinicity a pathan is way too different from sindhi ...

Whatever happened in Karachi, balochistan and to some extent in fata is based on ethinicity ... if we remove islam then we will start fighting each other ...

Yes we became Pakistanis in the name of Islam, but 70 years later that is not binds us together, well atleast to me thats not the case anymore. I will tell you a story, when i was still at univ, i used to work in a furniture shop on the weekends. One time this Fijian family came and when they found out that i am Pakistani, they said they are Fijian Pakistanis. I have heard of Fijian Indians but never a Fijian Pakistani, they explained the reason they call themselves Fijian Pakistanis is because they originate from the lands that are now in Pakistan.

So you see this family never went to Pakistan but they still have a connection to the land and so call themselves Fijian Pakistanis.

Another thing is that the people are also not just Muslim, they are divided into Sunnis, Shias, Sufis and then further subdivided into multiple different sects who don't like each other but we still live together.

Bro don't underestimate the love of the country among the people. Religion is not the only binding force anymore.

 

[Kambojaric]

Time @Indus Pakistan . That's all that is needed. Portugal, Spain emerged as independent political entities by juxtaposing themselves against their neighbors of a different faith. Catholocism lay at the foundation of their identity. Fast forward and today although still important, Catholocism plays a supporting role to Portuguese and Spanish identities, but definitely does not solely define it. The point is Pakistan (Indus) in its current shape is new and religion is most certainly required to juxtapose ourselves from our neighbors, just like the Castillans did. However overdosage of religion can ultimately undo the entity as well meaning a fine balance is required. I have no fear that a strong Pakistani identity will not develop amongst the coming generations. Most Pakistanis today have parents or grandparents who lived when our provinces and regions were part of another political entity (whether that be British India or Oman or even Iran). However the permanence that time brings will ensure that by the time my grandchildren enter this world, Pakistanis and their indentity will be much stronger, and less reliant on religion.

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

Problem today is what it always that West Pakistan has never been an independent government in history. Even India has thousands of years of experience as an empire. Iran to the east and Afghanistan to the north ruled today's Pakistan for hundreds of years. When generational slaves suddenly become independent, they can't be expected to form a national identity overnight! Pakistan was ideologically a very risky political experiment of history. And it failed spectacularly.

That's not true at all, ancient Pakistan was dotted with independent Kingdoms that achieved marvels and thrived for centuries; it's just that we are ignorant to our history and have allowed it to be eroded, while the Indians desperately try to claim whatever is left.

We do know that the people of the Indus region shared a similar culture and religion, however, we were never able to unite due to our social structure which emphasized loyalty to the tribe and family, not any King or nation - this can still be seen in our Baradari system. They would have rather had a completely foreign nation rule over them than someone from another tribe - as evident during Alexander's invasion of the Indus when many tribes joined him to take advantage against their enemies (Taxiles vs Porus).

I also disagree with your opinion of Pakistan being a failed political experiment.

We have managed to bind a nation of unimaginable diversity. There was a time where we were at each other's throats and now we have a country that is united and strong, loved by it's inhabitants who would be willing to die for it.

 

[Sugarcane]

Ok.

Ahlul Abrahamic Semitic Kitab then?

Which kind of bolsters the conclusions I've come to.

Cheers, Doc

I don't know why approval & recognition from Abrahamic religions for your religion is so important for you that you bring the topic every now and then. Only couple of hundred thousands belonging to your religion are left in world, with current birth & death rates you will be found only in Wikipedia by next century. Not my wish though, because I am allied with people who believe that God is one, and Man was perfect creation from start not fish or monkey.

 

[padamchen]

I don't know why approval & recognition from Abrahamic religions for your religion is so important for you that you bring the topic every now and then. Only couple of hundred thousands belonging to your religion are left in world, with current birth & death rates you will be found only in Wikipedia by next century. Not my wish though, because I am allied with people who believe that God is one, and Man was perfect creation from start not fish or monkey.

Lol

You're clearly deluded if you think what I'm doing with this probing line is seeking the baby's approval.

Cheers, Doc

 

[The Accountant]

Bro, This is not unique to Pakistan. Here in Australia, people are Victorians or Queenslanders or Western Australians, or Aboriginals or Islanders etc etc, but when they go overseas they are all Australians. Same was the case in Saudi Arabia they are divided into multiple tribes but just Saudis when overseas. When I am in Pakistan i am called a Pathan, when i am among Pukhtoons i am a Yousafzai.



This is the issue that i am discussing, why can't both be primary. When religion is the topic bring forth Islam, when nationality is the topic then state Pakistani. Because you can bleed green and be Muslim, Christian, Hundu or Sikh but not necessarily the other way round.



Yes we became Pakistanis in the name of Islam, but 70 years later that is not binds us together, well atleast to me thats not the case anymore. I will tell you a story, when i was still at univ, i used to work in a furniture shop on the weekends. One time this Fijian family came and when they found out that i am Pakistani, they said they are Fijian Pakistanis. I have heard of Fijian Indians but never a Fijian Pakistani, they explained the reason they call themselves Fijian Pakistanis is because they originate from the lands that are now in Pakistan.

So you see this family never went to Pakistan but they still have a connection to the land and so call themselves Fijian Pakistanis.

Another thing is that the people are also not just Muslim, they are divided into Sunnis, Shias, Sufis and then further subdivided into multiple different sects who don't like each other but we still live together.

Bro don't underestimate the love of the country among the people. Religion is not the only binding force anymore.

Let me summarize all this discussion in words of Allama Iqbal the real inventor of Pakistan ...

In taaza khudaoon mn bara sab sy watan hai
Jo pairhan is ka hai wo millat ka kafan hai

You are more worried about sentiments of 3% awam on the cost of feelings of 95% awam ... (2% is candle mafia i.e. muslim by name only) ...

We got the country for practicing Islam otherwise as a secular country we were not doing bad in India we were almost 50% of the population in combined sub-continent ...

As per muslim belief system religion is always a priority and government and state are secondary so if 95% or on the safe side 90% or even in worst case scenario 75% of the people want their state to be a muslim state than even by rules of democracy Pakistan should be a muslim state applying Islamic rules on the nation and there should be no debate about it ... Offcourse in individual life people are free to continue their life as per their wishes but in the life of the nation I bet even in worst case scenario 75% of Pakistani put religion at higher place then Pakistani nationality and to increase the patriotism and to keep us united we should focus on this belief system of People of Pakistan ...

Regarding the example of Australia and USA ... What were Australia and USA 300 years ago ? All those people are outsider in Australia and USA ... They have no association with the land in comparision to people of Pakistan who are living here for centuries or millenials ... Didn't we witnessed that our Pathan people out of their innocence and simplicity supported the terrorist of Afghanistan just based on ethnicity ... If we put ethinicity on top then Pakistani nationality is not priority for people dont we have parties like ANP, MQM, BLA and Jiy Sindh? Based on ethinicity they will become more and more powerful .. Our only strength is unity through religion ... Muslims of sub-continent ...

In any case Muslims are in majority therefore this debate is useless

 

[Avicenna]

Watch what you wish for folks. It’s shaping up to be the 1930’s all over again.

 

[Proudpakistaniguy]

You cannot create feelings of oneness, unity and common ground in a country overnight because its generated as a result of long process which political leadership of Pakistan was failed to achieve after its creation. Yes two nation theory (tactic of dragging religion in politics to win masses support) was useful to mobilize the masses for creation of Pakistan but main factors behind creation of Pakistan were political ,economic and social factors rather than just saying that Hindu and Muslim cannot live together because they are alien for each others

Secondly If only Islam has to be the basis of creation of Pakistan then whose Islam should be followed in Pakistan and how ? We have so many different versions of Islam out there depend on whom interpretation (and implementation) of Islam you personally agree with. When Pakistan was created not all of the new country’s leaders were in favour of constructing a national identity on the basis of Islamic ideology as majority of its new leaders were relatively secular and politically moderate people like Mr Jinnah and Mr Liaquat Ali Khan. Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy also advocated a territorial based national identity which was all about accepting ethno-linguistic-religious differences domestically as well as the common history and enduring affinities that Pakistan shares with its south asian neighbours.

 

[Winchester]

Doesn't virtually every country or the idea behind every country has had contradictions?

Take the most powerful....the U.S.A

"All men created equal" yet it exluded millions of African Americans who were still held as slaves more than 80 years after the American revolution.

Take India.....why is Assam part of India but not Nepal?

Take China.....the modern Chinese state was built upon the ideas of virtually one man that is Mao. But to Mao, modern China would be unrecognisable. It took the Chinese state to virtually take a U-TURN from the ideology of its founding father to turn around the fortunes of the country. Yet its still officially very much Mao's country.

The fact is Pakistan needs the cloak of religion to stay together at least for the time being. Does this mean this will provide certain contradictions?

The answer is yes.

Does this mean Pakistan will forever be defined by this central ideology?

The answer is not necessarily.

 

[nahtanbob]

Okay people. Have a look at this map below. It shows the 50 odd Muslim majority countries in the world. That is about quarter of the globe and over 1.8 billion Muslims.There are huge number of Muslim minorities in most countries of the world but for simplicity let us just stick with the Muslim majority countries which number about fifty.

As you can see the 50 Muslim majority countries are coloured green and cover almost every continent and almost all races of man. Pakistan is just one of them. Yes Pakistan is just one of 50.

If Pakistan nationalism is primarily based around Islam can anybody explain to me it differantiates from 50 other countries? How can one state represent Muslims when they number 1.8 billion and are spread in 50 countries?

Can people see the contradiction in the yellow patch [Pakistan] trying to be the contractor for all 50 Muslim countries? And trying to define it's nationalism around something that is spread in 50 countries? How does that work? Can the tiny yellow patch own a identity as it's own that actually belongs to 50 green patches?

In short how can a identity owned by 50 be claimed exclusively by one?

@OsmanAli98 @Nilgiri @MultaniGuy etc

I do not see any contradictions. Hell there are umpteen Latin American countries. I could not tell you why each one exists. at one point you stood for all Muslims living in Indian subcontinent. Right now you represent Muslims living in Northwestern portion of Indian subcontinent. the only contradictions is that some of you like to pretend you are distinctly different. the rest of the world in general looks at you as "Indian". that is not as bad as the ones who pretend they are Turkish or Afghan or Arab

 

[MultaniGuy]

I do not see any contradictions. Hell there are umpteen Latin American countries. I could not tell you why each one exists. at one point you stood for all Muslims living in Indian subcontinent. Right now you represent Muslims living in Northwestern portion of Indian subcontinent. the only contradictions is that some of you like to pretend you are distinctly different. the rest of the world in general looks at you as "Indian". that is not as bad as the ones who pretend they are Turkish or Afghan or Arab

Since when does the world look at me as an Indian.

The world looks at us as South Asian.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

I do not see any contradictions. Hell there are umpteen Latin American countries. I could not tell you why each one exists. at one point you stood for all Muslims living in Indian subcontinent. Right now you represent Muslims living in Northwestern portion of Indian subcontinent. the only contradictions is that some of you like to pretend you are distinctly different. the rest of the world in general looks at you as "Indian". that is not as bad as the ones who pretend they are Turkish or Afghan or Arab

Wishful thinking on your part. We are in fact closer ethnically to Turks, Persians, and Afghans due to the ethnic makeup of our nation whom were mainly migrants from Turkic, Irani, Mongol tribes.

You are trying to further your political cause of trying to undue Pakistan by misrepresenting us.

We want nothing to do with you, why is that so hard to understand?

 

[padamchen]

Since when does the world look at me as an Indian.

The world looks at us as South Asian.

"South Asian" is a Pakistani breed.

Because the rest of the world calls this the Indian subcontinent.

And that's not new either.

It's somewhat like the Arabs and the Persian Gulf.

Cheers, Doc