Pakistani Nationalism - contradictions?

[Norwegian]

Modern India was built by the British, the whole history and narrative told by the Gangas is a lie and clever PR stunt by Bollywood,academics paid off by their lobbying and sadly Pakistan does not do anything to counter this lie the Brits unified India as a unit

Wikipedia. Great. So your entire source of history is a open source where any dick can change the contents. Furthermore when it says 'India' might it be in the sense of Scandanavia, Balkans, Maghreb, Iberia, Indochina etc

When you guys come out of troll mode, read this:

The Largest Empires In The History Of India

 

[Yankee-stani]

When you guys come out of troll mode, read this:

The Largest Empires In The History Of India

So a few empires in present North India which got cucked by invaders and shiett

 

[Indus Pakistan]

USA = Kicking the crown out of North America.
Canada = Keeping the crown in North America.

(Originally)

The best post on this thread. And look what they made out of that ""ideaology"! The greatest power on earth today.

 

[Yankee-stani]

The best post on this thread. And look what they made out of that ""ideaology"! The greatest power on earth today.

Yet the WASPS let the J..ws take over in the mid 20th century sigh

 

[M. Sarmad]

Nice drive by history but I think the Mullahs got more powerful in the 1970s when Bhutto and his cough cough left wing PPP made deals with them

Yes, Bhutto tried to outIslam the Islamists. He tried to use Islam, the weapon of his political rivals, for his own political gains. But his Plan backfired horribly.

.. It was during his Zulfiqar Ali bhutto's regime that religion became the official legitimizing strategy for all political manoeuvres. In a frenzy to break the momentum of the PNA-led movement, numerous Islamisation measures erupted. Shariat laws were introduced; gambling, horse racing, and alcohol were banned. The PPP manifesto was duly amended, making Friday the weekly holiday, introducing Quranic studies as mandatory for all students, establishing Ulema (clerical) academies and so forth . These moves established the PPP’s dedication to the cause of Islam, which became Bhutto’s most powerful defence to fight the PNA in their own battlefield.


He was the one who made Islam the state religion and set pre-requisites for the head of state to be Muslim.... One of Bhutto’s last desperate bids to buy off religious parties agitating for his overthrow with U.S. backing was to declare the Ahmadiyya Community non-Muslim in 1974 ... The concept of "constitutional kafir" was introduced for the first time, thereby making "official adoption" of sectarianism (as a state policy)...


In 1976, ZAB controversially appointed General Zia-ul-Haq the Chief of Army Staff in another move to appease the JI (of whom Zia was a close compatriot) ... Zia ul Haq was the Pakistan army's most junior Lt. General when Bhutto selected him to be Chief of the Army Staff.... Later regretting his choice, ZAB told the Supreme Court (which sent him to the gallows): "I appointed a Chief of Army belonging to Jamaat-i-Islami and the result is before us." ... Bhutto institutionalized mullahism through constitution, and then he appointed an Army Chief belonging to JI ... !! And then came Zia (the darkness)

 

[Indus Pakistan]

When you guys come out of troll mode, read this:

Ffs you do know I am a amateur historian. Stop pasting garbage here, please. The Mughal empire expanded from what is today Pakistan into what is now India. They did not control all of India. Kushan Empire was leveraged more in what is today Pakistan. Please open another thread on this and I will dismantle your reifyication of Mata India faster then ice melts on the Ganga.

And think before you post. Is Indian nationalism based on bunch of Muslim conquerers from Central Asia that foisted their culture on majority Hindu's? If anything Pakistan has greater chance to claim as the succesor to the Mughal Empire. Not that I agree with that.

 

[Yankee-stani]

Yes, Bhutto tried to outIslam the Islamists. He tried to use Islam, the weapon of his political rivals, for his own political gains. But his Plan backfired horribly.

.. It was during his Zulfiqar Ali bhutto's regime that religion became the official legitimizing strategy for all political manoeuvres. In a frenzy to break the momentum of the PNA-led movement, numerous Islamisation measures erupted. Shariat laws were introduced; gambling, horse racing, and alcohol were banned. The PPP manifesto was duly amended, making Friday the weekly holiday, introducing Quranic studies as mandatory for all students, establishing Ulema (clerical) academies and so forth . These moves established the PPP’s dedication to the cause of Islam, which became Bhutto’s most powerful defence to fight the PNA in their own battlefield.


He was the one who made Islam the state religion and set pre-requisites for the head of state to be Muslim.... One of Bhutto’s last desperate bids to buy off religious parties agitating for his overthrow with U.S. backing was to declare the Ahmadiyya Community non-Muslim in 1974 ... The concept of "constitutional kafir" was introduced for the first time, thereby making "official adoption" of sectarianism (as a state policy)...


In 1976, ZAB controversially appointed General Zia-ul-Haq the Chief of Army Staff in another move to appease the JI (of whom Zia was a close compatriot) ... Zia ul Haq was the Pakistan army's most junior Lt. General when Bhutto selected him to be Chief of the Army Staff.... Later regretting his choice, ZAB told the Supreme Court (which sent him to the gallows): "I appointed a Chief of Army belonging to Jamaat-i-Islami and the result is before us." ... Bhutto institutionalized mullahism through constitution, and then he appointed an Army Chief belonging to JI ... !! And the came Zia (the darkness)

Screw the PPP and the Bhuttos for making deals with the mullahs and putting Pakistan in this frenzy mode but I also blamed the Cold War if the Pakistani geo-strategic goals were more long term than short term like tackling Communism we could have been in a different place today a Non Alligned Pakistan meaning in the 1970s we balance between the USSR and the US just like Tito Yugoslavia did or what Indira Gandhi India did but it was always Pro Yankee for Pakistan yeah we had China and still have China but thats because of shared regional goals against India

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Yes, Bhutto tried to outIslam the Islamists. He tried to use Islam, the weapon of his political rivals, for his own political gains. But his Plan backfired horribly.

.. It was during his Zulfiqar Ali bhutto's regime that religion became the official legitimizing strategy for all political manoeuvres. In a frenzy to break the momentum of the PNA-led movement, numerous Islamisation measures erupted. Shariat laws were introduced; gambling, horse racing, and alcohol were banned. The PPP manifesto was duly amended, making Friday the weekly holiday, introducing Quranic studies as mandatory for all students, establishing Ulema (clerical) academies and so forth . These moves established the PPP’s dedication to the cause of Islam, which became Bhutto’s most powerful defence to fight the PNA in their own battlefield.


He was the one who made Islam the state religion and set pre-requisites for the head of state to be Muslim.... One of Bhutto’s last desperate bids to buy off religious parties agitating for his overthrow with U.S. backing was to declare the Ahmadiyya Community non-Muslim in 1974 ... The concept of "constitutional kafir" was introduced for the first time, thereby making "official adoption" of sectarianism (as a state policy)...


In 1976, ZAB controversially appointed General Zia-ul-Haq the Chief of Army Staff in another move to appease the JI (of whom Zia was a close compatriot) ... Zia ul Haq was the Pakistan army's most junior Lt. General when Bhutto selected him to be Chief of the Army Staff.... Later regretting his choice, ZAB told the Supreme Court (which sent him to the gallows): "I appointed a Chief of Army belonging to Jamaat-i-Islami and the result is before us." ... Bhutto institutionalized mullahism through constitution, and then he appointed an Army Chief belonging to JI ... !! And the came Zia (the darkness)

Great stuff. I am too tired to go further but I will reply tomorrow to you.

 

[Yankee-stani]

Ffs you do know I am a amateur historian. Stop pasting garbage here, please. The Mughal empire expanded from what is today Pakistan into what is now India. They did not control all of India. Kushan Empire was leveraged more in what is today Pakistan. Please open another thread on this and I will dismantle your reifyication of Mata India faster then ice melts on the Ganga.

And think before you post. Is Indian nationalism based on bunch of Muslim conquerers from Central Asia that foisted their culture on majority Hindu's? If anything Pakistan has greater chance to claim as the succesor to the Mughal Empire. Not that I agree with that.

Comparing India to China or what Ottoman Turkish Empire is probably the most stupidest thing any historian be it amateur or pro would do India was more into regionalism in the past and still is now

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Ottoman Turkish Empire

Ottoman Empire was formed around a nucleus of Turkic Muslims. They still form the core of Turkey. Mughal Empire on the other hand was formed by people who are now either migrated to Pakistan or as a culture/religion are on the margins of Indian society. The former enslaved [Hindu] are now masters in a country called India.

What next. Is @Norwegian going to appropriate the British Empire as Indian as well?

 

[Yankee-stani]

Ottoman Empire was formed around a nucleus of Turkic Muslims. They still form the core of Turkey. Mughal Empire on the other hand was formed by people who are now either migrated to Pakistan or as a culture/religion are on the margins of Indian society. The former enslaved [Hindu] are now masters in a country called India.

Worst mistake the Turkic Mughals made was tolerating the HindJ..ws and getting high with their shitty Ganga culture at least the Mongols in China basically left a impact somewhat against the Han and the Turkics in Anatolia

Ottoman Empire was formed around a nucleus of Turkic Muslims. They still form the core of Turkey. Mughal Empire on the other hand was formed by people who are now either migrated to Pakistan or as a culture/religion are on the margins of Indian society. The former enslaved [Hindu] are now masters in a country called India.

What next. Is @Norwegian going to appropriate the British Empire as Indian as well?

I mean India has like 200 different languages and cultures vary by state as well unlike China where its majority Han

 

[Nilgiri]

Canada kept the crown way until like 1982 lol USA kicked out the crown but the Anglo American culture would last through out the 1800s and early 1900s then the Irish,Italians,J..ws,Slavs and what not came also you had the Ulster Scots down South which became the Southerners

Yah more or less. Give any political set up enough time and the ideology that set it up (if any) generally diminishes (for a whole host of reasons like population flux as you mention)...but there will be remnants.

Not too far from here is a collection of forts and canals lining the st lawrence and its connection to the Great Lakes....the British invested heavily in them, especially after the war of 1812 which showed how vulnerable the logistics network was to American intrusion. They even moved the capital more inland (and constructed a separate canal system to it) so it would buy enough time to put up a defense after Fort York + settlement (now Toronto) was easily assaulted (across lake ontario) and burned (legislature building and all) by the US forces. It is really an era much forgotten (esp after the US had its own civil war a half a century later)....and with it the core ideology is tempered with time.

Politically probably the most significant remnant of the difference in these ideologies (past the different setups, one parliamentary the other presidential) is the concept of inherent inalienable rights found in the US declaration of independence and highly influential in their constitution (esp the 1st and 2nd amendments)...and one of long storied and rich debate in their supreme court.

These were made largely specifically to contrast with the Crown system which of course vested powers over time away from an earthly monarch (Magna Carta and onwards)....but never recognised inherent (pre-existing) rights.

Very few people actually grasp the significance of this difference today....civics is no longer really taught in either country....and thus the action of entropy/time from the founding ideologies lurches on and on....it seems quite inevitable (its not all necessarily bad, but it is quite noticeable to those that have strong interests in history, politics and economics like myself).

Right now I am doing a significant study into Rome in my spare time, and there are many parallels both with its rise and fall....as time acted upon the edifices of its original core ideologies.

@Joe Shearer @Jungibaaz

 

[KediKesenFare3]

One can have 50 siblings but not 50 identical twins and even among siblings there will be some kind of rivalry. Sometimes they split up and sometimes they stick together; but one thing is for sure: those who stay together are family.

 

[Yankee-stani]

Yah more or less. Give any political set up enough time and the ideology that set it up (if any) generally diminishes (for a whole host of reasons like population flux as you mention)...but there will be remnants.

Not too far from here is a collection of forts and canals lining the st lawrence and its connection to the Great Lakes....the British invested heavily in them, especially after the war of 1812 which showed how vulnerable the logistics network was to American intrusion. They even moved the capital more inland (and constructed a separate canal system to it) so it would buy enough time to put up a defense after Fort York + settlement (now Toronto) was easily assaulted (across lake ontario) and burned (legislature building and all) by the US forces. It is really an era much forgotten (esp after the US had its own civil war a half a century later)....and with it the core ideology is tempered with time.

Politically probably the most significant remnant of the difference in these ideologies (past the different setups, one parliamentary the other presidential) is the concept of inherent inalienable rights found in the US declaration of independence and highly influential in their constitution (esp the 1st and 2nd amendments)...and one of long storied and rich debate in their supreme court.

These were made largely specifically to contrast with the Crown system which of course vested powers over time away from an earthly monarch (Magna Carta and onwards)....but never recognised inherent (pre-existing) rights.

Very few people actually grasp the significance of this difference today....civics is no longer really taught in either country....and thus the action of entropy/time from the founding ideologies lurches on and on....it seems quite inevitable (its not all necessarily bad, but it is quite noticeable to those that have strong interests in history, politics and economics like myself).

Right now I am doing a significant study into Rome in my spare time, and there are many parallels both with its rise and fall....as time acted upon the edifices of its original core ideologies.

@Joe Shearer @Jungibaaz

Civics lessons in the US have been lagging since the 1950s and it aint getting better I mean Ocassio Cortez is an example plus lobbying from Saudi and Israel too makes people feel the urge to vote low

One can have 50 siblings but not 50 identical twins and even among siblings there will be some kind of rivalry. Sometimes they split up and sometimes they stick together; but one thing is for sure: those who stay together are family.

An advice from Pakistani to a Turk please kick Erdogan and the AKP out of power

 

[KediKesenFare3]

An advice from Pakistani to a Turk please kick Erdogan and the AKP out of power

You can't kick out your family.