Pakistan's Identity Crisis: Can it explain itself without India?

[magra]

In the same sense as moosad and ISI cooperated to defeat USSR in Afghanistan.
1857 was a reactionary, temporary and unorganized conflict with Britishers.nothing more.

It was not a temporary alliance. Hindus & Muslims again joined hands to oppose Bengal province partition by British in 1905 and made them reverse the action. They again aligned to oppose British during Khilafat movement.
Subhash Chandra Bose's Azad Hind Fauj had both Hindu and Muslim senior officers.

The reality is that Religion is the most influential thing in this world.people can do literally every thing to save interests of their religion.Ham ne tu Sirf aik country banaea hai

Most of the major conflicts in this world happened between co-religionists. World war 1 & 2 involved mostly Christian states. Cold war was between Christian US and Christian Russia.
North & South Korea conflict or North & South Vietnam conflict had no religious basis.
Gulf states fight each other although belonging to same religion.

Mughals fought Delhi Sultanate although both were Muslims.

 

[Wood]

...with a supa pawa of cow urine drinkers as a neighbor.

Always write your lines completely

India is equally poor, if it makes you feel less offended.

 

[El Sidd]

What is the incentive for British to belittle Mughals and exaggerate Maratha power?

For that you need to look at geography of resources spread across India.

 

[magra]

For that you need to look at geography of resources spread across India.

I am not as intelligent as you sir. Can you please explain the British incentive clearly.

 

[El Sidd]

I am not as intelligent as you sir. Can you please explain the British incentive clearly.

maybe some appropriate time. you would have to look from the outside to understand that not from a native's pov.

 

[Muhammad Saftain Anjum]

Hindus & Muslims again joined hands to oppose Bengal province partition by British in 1905

Simple google search shows that Muslims supported the division of Bangal.

They again aligned to oppose British during Khilafat movement.

It is hilarious that ghandi was leader of that movement.Although after khilafat movement,its leaders played significant role in creation of Pakistan.

Subhash Chandra Bose's Azad Hind Fauj had both Hindu and Muslim senior officers.

We also have non Muslims in Pakistan armed forces.so its not some big evidence of Hindu Muslim unity.

Most of the major conflicts in this world happened between co-religionists. World war 1 & 2 involved mostly Christian states. Cold war was between Christian US and Christian Russia.
North & South Korea conflict or North & South Vietnam conflict had no religious basis.
Gulf states fight each other although belonging to same religion.

Mughals fought Delhi Sultanate although both were Muslims.

Arab Muslims fought against their own relatives for preaching Islam.Muslims of Indian subcontinent struggled hard to separate from their own hindu relatives for the cause of Separate country.Iranians rebelled against shah to establish shia religion. Jews from all over the world went to Israel leaving their homelands behind.
Future wars will also be clash of religious based civilizations.
Sect based hate is also very significant factor in ME wars.

 

[Maula Jatt]

Simple google search shows that Muslims supported the division of Bangal.

It is hilarious that ghandi was leader of that movement.Although after khilafat movement,its leaders played significant role in creation of Pakistan.

We also have non Muslims in Pakistan armed forces.so its not some big evidence of Hindu Muslim unity.


Arab Muslims fought against their own relatives for preaching Islam.Muslims of Indian subcontinent struggled hard to separate from their own hindu relatives for the cause of Separate country.Iranians rebelled against shah to establish shia religion. Jews from all over the world went to Israel leaving their homelands behind.
Future wars will also be clash of religious based civilizations.
Sect based hate is also very significant factor in ME wars.

religions are dying out in the world and you are predicting a war on a dying relic?...

 

[SIPRA]

Hinduism was never a 'my way or high way' kind of culture. It accepted and assimilated foregin cultures with ease - Greeks, Parsis, Buddhism, Jainism etc. Before Britishers came, the fight in the subcontinent was not even religion based. Hindus at times faught against Hindus in alliance with Muslims and vice versa.

The religious identities hardened only in the 20th century due to clever British machinations. Sadly the extremists on both sides used this to sell their narrative successfully and this locked us into this multi-generational conflict whereas the masterminds (British) flew away to their comfortable life.

Well, this is the standard, cliche based, narrative of Congress, which they paddle, to prove, as if Congress was at no fault and this was all the machinations of British, which led to division of "British India". We of course don't agree to this narrative. Interestingly, this narrative implies that Gandhi, Nehru, Patel and Congress was fool of first water, who grossly failed to realize and confront the intrigues of British.

 

[SIPRA]

We do not know what would have happened. It might have been better or just delayed the inevitable.

Probably, we would not have fought over Kashmir and it truly would have been the peaceful paradise on earth. Probably, we would not have lost of lakhs of soldiers over the years and crores in poverty due to funds going to military.

The entire conflict over "alleged BD muslims in Assam" would not have had any basis in a united subcontinent.

A civil war, between Hindus and Muslims, on an unprecedented scale, would have erupted, for sure. That is precisely the reason that both British and Congress agreed on the division, against their wishes.

 

[magra]

Simple google search shows that Muslims supported the division of Bangal.

Not all. British would not have caved in if it was only Hindus opposing Bengal partition.

It is hilarious that ghandi was leader of that movement.Although after khilafat movement,its leaders played significant role in creation of Pakistan.

It is ironical that Jeena opposed Indian participation in Khilafat movement.

We also have non Muslims in Pakistan armed forces.so its not some big evidence of Hindu Muslim unity.

Not talking about foot soldiers but generals. Prem Sahgal, Gurubaksh Singh Dhillon and Shah Nawaz Khan were the INA generals tried for treason.

Arab Muslims fought against their own relatives for preaching Islam.Muslims of Indian subcontinent struggled hard to separate from their own hindu relatives for the cause of Separate country.Iranians rebelled against shah to establish shia religion. Jews from all over the world went to Israel leaving their homelands behind.
Future wars will also be clash of religious based civilizations.
Sect based hate is also very significant factor in ME wars.

Religion does not explain why China and Pak are allied, and why US and Russia are still adversaries. Future wars will be mainly over scarce resources like drinking water - irrespective of religion.

Well, this is the standard, cliche based, narrative of Congress, which they paddle, to prove, as if Congress was at no fault and this was all the machinations of British, which led to division of "British India". We of course don't agree to this narrative. Interestingly, this narrative implies that Gandhi, Nehru, Patel and Congress was fool of first water, who grossly failed to realize and confront the intrigues of British.

Ofcourse we can agree to disagree. Congress and its leaders were not fools, but just were not powerful enough to stop the growing mistrust fomented by the British.

A civil war, between Hindus and Muslims, on an unprecedented scale, would have erupted, for sure. That is precisely the reason that both British and Congress agreed on the division, against their wishes.

Congress had to agree on the partition at the end after the 'Direct Action' call in Calcutta by Muslim League led to large scale violence.

 

[SIPRA]

The animosity between Hindus and Muslims primarily stems from the partition. Without it, there would not have been this divide. Remember that Hindus and Muslims fought side by side in our 1st war of independence in 1857.

... and don't forget Kolkata killings (August 16, 1946) and following Bahar massacres. Had division not happened, the extent of killings and forced displacements would have been unprecedented and British India would have fragmented beyond regnition. There was a reason that Congress and British accepted division, against their wills.

 

[magra]

... and don't forget Kolkata killings (August 16, 1946) and following Bahar massacres. Had division not happened, the extent of killings and forced displacements would have been unprecedented and British India would have fragmented beyond regnition. There was a reason that Congress and British accepted division, against their wills.

Jinnah was the only credible leader in Muslim league. Had Congress known that Jinnah is terminally ill and going to die soon, they would have resisted the partition. Post Jinnah, it would have been easier to co-opt other Muslim leaguers.

 

[SIPRA]

Jinnah was the only credible leader in Muslim league. Had Congress known that Jinnah is terminally ill and going to die soon, they would have resisted the partition. Post Jinnah, it would have been easier to co-opt other Muslim leaguers.

In that case, an intense civil war, spread all over British India, with due paticipation of Indian army, split as Muslim and non-Muslim soldiers, with arms and amunition, whatever they could lay their hands on, was sure and certain. What then would have been the fate of Subcontinent is anybody's guess.

 

[Maula Jatt]

Except for Baloch and Pashtuns, I don't think there would have been a fight as they have a strong dislike for Indian ways, non muslim and are generally hard to control areas

Maybe riot's but not a fight

Punjab was electing unionists till 46 or something

 

[GHALIB]

Islam is our identity.Thats all.Pakistan was established for the Muslims of south asia.Anyone who came here in 47 partition is citizen of Pakistan,No matter what is his caste.Islam allows us to use the name of our castes so does the constitution of "Islamic Republic of Pakistan"
Now tell me what's wrong with it?

Religion only.there is nothing else to explain the existence of Islamic Republic of Pakistan

If you have an identity why this thread ?

You have severe identity crisis .