Pakistani Nationalism - contradictions?

[Norwegian]

• In Islamic theology you cannot create two categories of Muslims [sub-continent/others] as that discriminates against Muslim [others] in favour of Muslims [sub-continent] and this goes against the very essence of Islamic brotherhood.

There is no concept of nationhood in entire history of Islam. All Islamic governments before the rise of western nationalism were based on the Islamic concept of Ummah or Commonwealth of Believers:

Ummah (Arabic: أمة‎ [ˈʊm.mæ]) is an Arabic word meaning "community". It is distinguished from Shaʻb (شعب [ʃæʕb]) which means a nation with common ancestry or geography. Thus, it can be said to be a supra-national community with a common history.

It is a synonym for ummat al-Islām (أمة الإسلام, 'the Islamic community'), and it is commonly used to mean the collective community of Islamic peoples. In the Quran the ummah typically refers to a single group that shares common religious beliefs, specifically those that are the objects of a divine plan of salvation. In the context of pan-Islamism and politics, the word ummah can be used to mean the concept of a Commonwealth of the Believers (أمة المؤمنين ummat al-muʼminīn).

 

[Yankee-stani]

Which logic have you been taught? I am challanging the existing basis as it has contradictions. To do so I don't have to provide alternatives. I am merely pointing out the theological [Islamic] flaw as it exists within the normative definition often cited for Pakistan.

Such states are not sustainable ... india united first time in history by muslim kings and then as a result of anti british and anti Pakistan hate ... there is a reason india cannot solve Kashmir issue as it is a motivation to keep india a nation ... india is a nation united in its hated for muslims otherwise they are bound to dis integrate and were never a single nation in history ...

Muh Historic Ganga is 10000000x years old.Thats the Indian narrative they are pushing these days Pakistan needs to get back to its history to disprove the Ganga Lies

 

[Nilgiri]

Bingo. Bullseye. Here is simple fact -

• Islam is universal and for all times
• Islam is global
• Nationalism is restricted to limited geography
• In Islamic theology you cannot create two categories of Muslims [sub-continent/others] as that discriminates against Muslim [others] in favour of Muslims [sub-continent] and this goes against the very essence of Islamic brotherhood.

Then there is the fact that if religion should be the be-all end-all unifier....it is not established for a significant no. of Pakistanis that go to fellow muslim countries (say in the Gulf). A concept of supra-national overarching contract of any kind has to extend genuinely both ways (in both perception and pragmatic levels) for it to be sustainable.

Upholding just one end of it is a monumental folly for one of the parties. No points for guessing which one's which here.

 

[Nefarious]

Pre 1947 it was a different time then. I think when Pakistan idea came to being...the world wasn't as globalised and connected. World has gotten 'smaller' since then.

Edit - so during this time Muslims made there own mini 'ummahs' where they got the chance as main ummah was dismantled.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Such states are not sustainable ... india united first time in history by muslim kings and then as a result of anti british and anti Pakistan hate ... there is a reason india cannot solve Kashmir issue as it is a motivation to keep india a nation ... india is a nation united in its hated for muslims otherwise they are bound to dis integrate and were never a single nation in history ...

We are deflecting from the thread. Some of the most successful countries on earth like USA do not have one 'race', neither does Canada etc

And even countries like Turkey or Iran are not one 'race' but are made up of patchwork like Pakistan. Can we please dismantle this canard about Pakistan being unique in having more than one ethnic group please.

Turkey -

Iran -

Ps. Can we focus back on the OP. Thanks

 

[Norwegian]

Then there is the fact that if religion should be the be-all end-all unifier....it is not established for a significant no. of Pakistanis that go to fellow muslim countries (say in the Gulf). A concept of supra-national overarching contract of any kind has to extend genuinely both ways (in both perception and pragmatic levels) for it to be sustainable.

Upholding just one end of it is a monumental folly for one of the parties. No points for guessing which one's which here.

IMO, after spending years studying Jinnahs vision of Pakistan, I came to conclusion that his vision for Pakistan was secular state with Islamic soul. Just like China's state ideology: socialism with Chinese characteristics. It's obvious now after 71 years of failures, it didn't work as he expected.

 

[Yankee-stani]

Well lets see our neighbors and near abroad

People's Republic of China-Gets along with us is Communist sort of

India-Hates us to core and muh Historic Ganga

Afghanistan-Muslim but they hate us to core over muh Pastunistan and whatever cocked up Ganga propaganda New Delhi provides them

Iran-Cordial at best but f..cked up mentality towards Shia's and Saudi lobbying prevents closeness between us.


Bangladesh-Well Ganga Colony and dog


Gulf Arabs States- BAKI Send us soilders and cheap labor we will show you wonders of wahhabism


Turkey-Secular Republic gets along with us


Point is Pakistan gets along with states whose ideology as nation is completly different than us

We are deflecting from the thread. Some of the most successful countries on earth like USA do not have one 'race', neither does Canada etc

And even countries like Turkey or Iran are not one 'race' but are made up of patchwork like Pakistan. Can we please dismantle this canard about Pakistan being unique in having more than one ethnic group please.

Turkey -

Iran -

Ps. Can we focus back on the OP. Thanks

Ataturk and Reza Shah basically destroyed the patchwork it was being Turk or Persian first I mean I heard they are more Georgians and Azerbaijanis living in both Iran and Turkey but at this point in time they have all became Turks or Persian these days due to assmilation policies of the early 20th century

 

[Norwegian]

Point is Pakistan gets along with states whose ideology as nation is completly different than us

No. Actually Pakistan gets along with states that throw money at it

 

[Yankee-stani]

No. Actually Pakistan gets along with states that throw money at it

Sort of but our so called Muslim neighbors in the Gulf never were really friendly to us and just provided pain for us for the last 40 years

 

[Indus Pakistan]

For example Historically KPK is part of Central Asia and Balochistan is part of Middle-east.

Bingo. This is always conveniently overlooked.

 

[Yankee-stani]

Bingo. This is always conveniently overlooked.

Why doesnt Pakistan actually push a more identity based on that easy way to make us different from the Gangas and Namaks across the border

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Just for the record most states are multi-ethnic. In Turkey only 70% are Turks. Rest are other ethnic groups like Kurds etc. In Iran only 60% are Persian.

• Turkey and Iran share Kurds.
• Pakistan and Iran share Baloch.
  
• Afghanistan and Pakistan share Pashtun.
  
• Tajikistan and Afghanistan share Tajiks.
  
• India and Pakistan share Punjabis.
• India and Bangladesh share Bengalis.
• Sri Lanka and India share Tamils
• The list goes on ......

 

[Norwegian]

Why doesnt Pakistan actually push a more identity based on that easy way to make us different from the Gangas and Namaks across the border

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.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Even India has thousands of years of experience as an empire.

No. When. Where? Cobblers ...

 

[Yankee-stani]

Just for the record most states are multi-ethnic. In Turkey only 70% are Turks. Rest are other ethnic groups like Kurds etc. In Iran only 60% are Persian.

• Turkey and Iran share Kurds.
• Pakistan and Iran share Baloch.
  
• Afghanistan and Pakistan share Pashtun.
  
• Tajikistan and Afghanistan share Tajiks.
  
• India and Pakistan share Punjabis.
• India and Bangladesh share Bengalis.
• Sri Lanka and India share Tamils
• The list goes on ......

One thing you gotta admit both the Iranians and Turks dont tolerate sepratists groups or parties they get shut down or toned down

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.

Well I would not say its a failure just yet its just in a bit of a hangover but at least some identity building must be done