AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
dear AM.
First you said that origin of a nation is the divisiveness of human nature and when i proved it otherwise you want prove that Pakistan was born out of sense of unity of sindhis, and others .
Actually you haven't shown me how a nation is not "divisiveness". India - whatever argument you want to make for it, common culture, philosophy, religion etc. - is divided from China - it is divided from the Arabs - it is divided form the Europeans.
Even the EU exists only because there is an economic benefit to such a union, not because of any "shared consciousness" or "sense of nationhood". The French, Germans, British, Spaniards all fiercely retain their "separate and distinct" identities and nations within the framework of the EU, and they are in turn "divided" from the Asian nations, the Arab nations and the American nations - each of whom are also fiercely independent and "divided" from the other.
Therefore I see nothing but divisiveness in nations, yet you choose to single out Pakistan for "divisiveness" - we have only done what others have, and staked out our own nation on the basis of a common nationhood and shared consciousness..
My reference to Pakistan being a "union of multiple peoples" was merely to use your own argument about "unity" in the EU and India, by pointing out that the same sort of "unity" exists in Pakistan as well, and to a far greater degree than in Europe, and equal if not greater than in India.
and this is blatant lie. Pakistan was not created as a union of Sindhis Punjabis, Baluchs and Pasthuns because millions of sindhis punjabis were massacred during partition . Pakistan is a clear example of divisiveness of human nature . it was created as an nation for few muslims who didnt want to live with ppl of other religions
Pakistan was indeed created as a Union of a majority of those Balochi, Pashtun, Sindhis and Punjabis who shared this common social consciousness and sense of nationhood (Punjab was divided so that those who didn't agree would not have to be part of this nation).
Why aren't Indians living with the Chinese? Why aren't the Europeans mingling with the Arabs? Every nation is divisive, your logic is flawed.
It is just because you see (erroneously) Pakistan as being part of some mythical "United India" that you cannot stand the idea that the people of Pakistan did not share the sense of nationhood that the people of Bharat did - that they chose their own nation, and now, for you, Pakistan and Pakistanis alone are divisive.
You bring up the massacres of millions - let us not forget that Indians were equally responsible for exhibiting hatred powerful enough to massacre women, children and entire families who chose to be part of Pakistan. This hatred existed in Indians and Pakistanis, it was not created by Jinnah, it was not perpetrated by Jinnah - this hatred, and the violence in my mind is proof without doubt that Pakistanis and Indians were two separate nations, and are two separate nations.
Such spontaneous hatred and violence would not have occurred were there a "shared social consciousness" or "shared nationhood".
So you support terrorism
" I am Wrong because others are wrong " nice argument
I do not support terrorism since I do not consider support for the insurgency targeted at Indian troops in disputed territory as terrorism. I do consider the targeting of civilians terrorism.
When the Americans and UN can call the actions of the US in Afghanistan and Latin America "terrorism", that is when I will accept that term as being applicable to Pakistan's actions in Kashmir.
Hindsight is always 20/20 - No one knew at the time how some of the insurgent groups would branch out into terrorism, or how flawed a policy of "insurgency" could be, so it was not considered a "wrong" at the time. For the record, I have already called it a flawed policy - every nation has them.
Insurgents were trained to fight the Indian Army, but as with American efforts around the world as well, what was discovered was that insurgencies take on a life of their own.The reason these poor illiterate ppl were brainwashed in the name of religios jihad was beacuse they were used to spread terror to kill civilian ( like Kashmiri hindus ) and not to fight with an army . so it is a lie when u say that "that was never supported nor envisioned"
If Pakistan wanted to fight an army they would have used the army and fight a war .
As far as atrocities and blaming Pakistan - lets not get into this game of where we have to drag in references to Indian soldiers raping kashmiri women, murdering innocent Kashmiri women, children and men. Massacring groups of youths. Your Army's record as attested by various Kashmiri groups and international organizations is a blot on humanity.
That said, I wish to go down this road no further. And any reference on this or "Pakistan supporting the killing of Hindu villagers and civilians" will be deleted - regardless of who posts it.
And for you this forum does?First BR and few other forum dont represnt majority of India ..
secondly - you expect respect from the ppls you killed ? against whom you send mad dogs of jihad ?
Stop being a hypocrite. You brought up the argument "look around this forum " to justify your argument of "Pakistan existing on enmity with a nation", and then when I point out far greater expressions of hatred on Indian forums, they are "not representative of India!"
Why should Pakistanis have respect for a nation that refuses to grant a peoples the right to choose their destiny, that schemed and plotted our nations dismemberment - through the Afghans, supporting the insurgency in Baluchistan and then through the Bengalis? Why should we have respect for a nation whose Army raped and murdered thousands of Kashmiris? Why should we have respect for a nation whose citizens exhibited so much hate towards Pakistan that they massacred millions, children and entire families, in 1947?
You see how this goes? Indians have no more claim on morality than Pakistanis, though you want to distort history to make your **** come out shining and smelling like roses.
But like I said earlier, I do not wish to initiate a flame war over the atrocities committed by the Indian Army, some outlined above, and your allegations. This discussion was going perfectly fine until this post of yours I am responding to, and your allegations of "Pakistan deliberately killing civilians through terrorism". It is material that has been covered countless times in countless flame wars on many forums.
So this will stop here.
I disagree, and so do millions of Pakistanis. The words and actions of your leaders post independence, the sentiments expressed by many Indians, your involvement with Afghanistan in trying to bring about a Pashtun insurrection, your involvement in dividing Pakistan in 1971 - it all points to a systematic policy of non-acceptance and subversion.Seriously Indians have accepted existence of Pakistan long back but Pakistanies have not accpeted India and thats why when Indians have moved on Pakistand still spends its resources and energy in fighting with India. your school curriculum clearly represents that ideology
Small is a relative word. Jinnah led millions, he captured the imagination of millions, and gave them the voice and platform they needed to achive their destiny.Yes its easy to become leader of smaller groups. there are millions of then around the world who scares a minority and spread secessionist feeling .
A leader is one who unites people . makes them see beyond these narrow identity or race , religion , caste or creed . who makes them see themselves as human sharing one value of humaity .
yes it was there .. he exploited it
no ideology is new .. it existed from the time humanity was born ..
Thank you for agreeing that the sentiment for "being separate" was there - because that validates my point that the people of Pakistan did not share a "social consciousness" with Indians, the people of Pakistan did not share a sense of "nationhood" with Indians, Pakistanis were not therefore, part of any "united India" in spirit, or in life.
And despite this, you would have them shackled to a nation they did not share a consciousness or nationhood with, and instead criticize the man and movement that allowed the to express that desire and achieve "nationhood" as they believed.
First you are chaging the context as I mentioned it as an example of extreme Idealism . secondly if I say why not united world ??
I have no issue with United World - you are the one insisting that only "partition was wrong", and Pakistan's independence alone was a mistake. If you go back and check my early posts, I argued why only pick Pakistan - say that its a shame and mistake that humanity is divided.