Partition was a mistake

[dabong1]

Partition was a mistake was a mistake....we should have kept india

Maybe in the future pakistan can absorb india into the federation of pakistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

First as I said clearly, Nation is a union of People of different Opinion, Faith and religions . the main reason nations were created from tribal and nomad past is our sense to unity. We made families then clan and this union progressed towards society and finally nations. so Nation signifies the progression of human unity and not the contrary .
Now has that progression or evolution stopped ? No.. evolution is natural and the perception shall be based on this trend of evolution and not the pessimistic assumption of future or momentary bitterness .
Culture is never stagnant . it has always changed or evoled and with this evolution our sense of understanding ourself has changed .. more we communicate better is our sense of unity .
We have made nations because of our sense of unity and this sense will keep on evolving and future is always optimistic then Past.Please see our human history .
We have travelled half distance .


Pakistan as an Idea , originated as sense of segregation from the Other which is contrary to sense of unity .
Every Idea has an underlying philosophy .. and if Nations has the philosophy of Unity Pakistan have this philosophy of segregation

I agree with the first half of your post - that is the very sense with which the people of Pakistan chose to form their nation. The problem Indians have is that they see Pakistanis as somehow being a part of some "mythical United India", and there is as much justification for that argument as there is for the Zulu or the French being a part of some "United India".

The Zulu, like the peoples that comprise Pakistan, are a people who chose to form a Nation based on clan, Tribe, Faith and culture. It was never a question of "Seperating from India" - we never considered ourselves a part of any "Akhand Bharat".

Therefore the idea of Pakistan is only as segregationist as that of India since it does not incorporate the East Asians or the Africans.

The reason that Pakistan has used the brainwashed extremist to take on this terrorism is that they can evade the responsibility of being answerable to humanity .
While every incident of Indian soldiers wrong doing has been reported investigated and punished .


Lol , Yes you are moderator of this forum so you can filter the expression , which suites you .

A handful of token reprimands and punishment is not sufficient for washing away the blood of tens of thousands of innocents who have died at the hands of the Indian Army.

The "filtering" is for this thread only for the moment, so that the discussion does not get hijacked into a "IA committed atrocities in Kashmir, Pakistan sponsored terrorism in India" tangent. Read back through my posts, and you will find that I am never the one to broach this issue - it is always in response to "terrorism by Pakistan" allegations by Indians.

Bringing those issues up is a circular debate that almost always degenerates into a flame war. Hence my position on it for this thread since you brought up the issue.

This is an example of Pakistani obsession with India .. all those charges are without any evidence or fact . Can you please show me any evidence to support these charges ? .
1971 was not creation of India . it was the policies of Pakistan and their inability to accept and respect Bengalis . Sheikh did what Jinnah Taught him “differences can exploited “. ( it was lack of maturity of Pakistan to accept that difference in cultural background )

On the contrary, like I mentioned above, the only time I raise these issues is when Indians get on their moral high horse and pretend that their **** doesn't stink, while accusing Pakistan of supporting the insurgency in Kashmir and alleging its support for terrorist acts in India.

I am merely responding, therefore the ones who are obsessed are the Indians who bring these issues up, I would be fine with not discussing them.

The evidence for these charges, like the "evidence" for the charges of Pakistan sponsoring bomb blasts on Indian trains, is the Pakistani government. The interior ministry and various police officials have all made these accusations - therfore, for me, they have as much credence as the GoI accusations about Pakistan sponsoring bomb blasts in India do to you.

Regardless of what the treatment of the people of East Pakistan was, and that is a matter of debate for a different thread, the problem was an internal Pakistani one, and India chose to support militant groups not in disputed territory, but in the land of a sovereign nation, and chose to initiate war to dismember it - there is no doubt about that - even Salim admits it on the WAB.

Again I only raise these points to counter yours, that somehow Pakistan is the only one that has been "doing evil" in South Asia, when the truth is that neither side is blameless.

Just by adding millions you cant justify any succesioniost or extremist ideology .
There were millions who supported Hitler too .
The truth is it was an extremist ideology (which always exist in every society ) and jinnah exploted it .
And the fallacy of this excuse that muslims didn’t share a "social consciousness" with Indians, is exposed by existence of the millions of Muslims who decided to stay in India .

No one is justifying secessionist ideology - Pakistan was never a part of any "One India" that it would "secede" from. The people of Pakistan simply saw themselves as a nation distinct from Bharat, as did the people of Afghanistan, China, Iran, France etc.

I at least am not arguing that "all Muslims did not share this social consciousness", I am arguing that the vast majority of the peoples comprising Pakistan and Bangladesh did not share that social consciousness or sense of nationhood with "Bharat". Other Muslims in Bharat decided that they felt more comfortable with the Pakistani nation, and they chose to emigrate, even more others did not.

This acceceptence itself that “humanity is divided” is quest of unity ..

Certainly humanity is divided, and India, Pakistan, the US, China, France, England etc. are all equal in how that humanity is divided - Pakistan, as you falsely argue, is no more "divisive" than any other nation on this planet.

Humanity will unite as peoples and nations form blocs to serve various interests over time -as the EU is doing.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

this is so funny , the whole energy and effort of Pakistan is to disprove the secularism and democracy in India . because accepting India as secular is acceptance that Idea of Pakistan was wrong . People of different faith can live together . and this obsession to prove the authenticity of their own existence has led Pakistan to always see everything with the narrow perception of jealousy .

On the contrary, there are many on this forum who advocate a "secular" Pakistan, just as there are many who argue for an "Islamic Pakistan". Its part of having "many opinions within a nation". We do not see secularism as making "Pakistan wrong" - secularism is not making the US merge into India, or Western Europe into the US or vice versa - and whatever form of government Pakistan evolves into, its identity will remain Pakistani because the people view themselves as Pakistani, not because of what form of government we have.

Again, you will find that most of those who question India's secularism and "equality of rights for all" do so only because Indians point out the flaws in Pakistan and swagger about as if India has none itself. Now there are some who do so just because they have a profound dislike for India, just as there are those Indians who have a profound hate for Pakistan, and would like nothing better than to see it destroyed.

To us, it is Indians who just cannot "accept" Pakistan, because they just can't let go of a mythical idea of "Akhand Bharat".

 

[Vinod2070]

AM, you talk about the atrocities by Indian soldiers but don't you think you take an easy way out regarding the 1971 events (which were on a much bigger, almost unimaginable scale) by trying to point out some mythical disputes between some unspecified historians (as though it disproves all the events that took place). Even though, I believe even your own Hamidur commission accepted that there were widespread atrocities and Niazi used to ask questions like: "How many Hindus did you kill today?".

The point here is that we all make our convenient arguments to support our positions. You are absolutely convinced that Pakistan (and Pakistanis) were never part of India and you are entitled to that view.

Many Indian reject this argument and feel that religious separatism and bigotry led to the partition and they have their own valid arguments. And I don't think there is any one "right" argument. These are ingrained feeling on both sides and one has to move beyond them and think of the future. There is a fundamental difference in the respective positions and it just can not be reconciled, but it does not have to lead to persistent hatreds.

I hope the countries can just have normal relations without the historical baggage. There is no need for excessive sentimentalism either. Just normal, healthy, neighborly relations will do.

 

[Flintlock]

On the contrary, there are many on this forum who advocate a "secular" Pakistan, just as there are many who argue for an "Islamic Pakistan". Its part of having "many opinions within a nation". We do not see secularism as making "Pakistan wrong" - secularism is not making the US merge into India, or Western Europe into the US or vice versa - and whatever form of government Pakistan evolves into, its identity will remain Pakistani because the people view themselves as Pakistani, not because of what form of government we have.

Again, you will find that most of those who question India's secularism and "equality of rights for all" do so only because Indians point out the flaws in Pakistan and swagger about as if India has none itself. Now there are some who do so just because they have a profound dislike for India, just as there are those Indians who have a profound hate for Pakistan, and would like nothing better than to see it destroyed.

To us, it is Indians who just cannot "accept" Pakistan, because they just can't let go of a mythical idea of "Akhand Bharat".

If Pakistan should be secular, then what differentiates India and Pakistan as concepts?
What is the clinching reason for the existence of Pakistan as a separate entity?

If Pakistan gives up the word "islamic" in its constitution, I'm afraid that it will lead to a huge identity crisis among Pakistanis.

The European Union exists because European countries have several commonalities. If Pakistan becomes a secular state, I think we have begun a process which would ultimately lead to the unification of South Asia on EU lines.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM, you talk about the atrocities by Indian soldiers but don't you think you take an easy way out regarding the 1971 events (which were on a much bigger, almost unimaginable scale) by trying to point out some mythical disputes between some unspecified historians (as though it disproves all the events that took place). Even though, I believe even your own Hamidur commission accepted that there were widespread atrocities and Niazi used to ask questions like: "How many Hindus did you kill today?".

The point here is that we all make our convenient arguments to support our positions. You are absolutely convinced that Pakistan (and Pakistanis) were never part of India and you are entitled to that view.

Many Indian reject this argument and feel that religious separatism and bigotry led to the partition and they have their own valid arguments. And I don't think there is any one "right" argument. These are ingrained feeling on both sides and one has to move beyond them and think of the future. There is a fundamental difference in the respective positions and it just can not be reconciled, but it does not have to lead to persistent hatreds.

I hope the countries can just have normal relations without the historical baggage. There is no need for excessive sentimentalism either. Just normal, healthy, neighborly relations will do.

Vinod:

Welcome back.

I accept that there were atrocities, and since my comments were already in response to accusations by Logic, I felt no need to enumerate Pakistan's misdeeds. I don't deny that there were atrocities committed, but I do argue against the accusation of "genocide" and the "inflated" death toll, IMO. You can disagree, and there is a thread precisely for that purpose, where you can counter the arguments raised by Pakistanis against what we consider distortion of history.

You are also conveniently ignoring that I am not the one who raised this issue of atrocities committed by either side, I was merely responding and making a point that India has just as much blood and hate towards Pakistan on its hands as some Indians claim Pakistan does.

I have no issue with different viewpoints on the independence of India and Pakistan, that is what this thread is for - I see the Indian argument as inherently flawed and irredentist based on mythical history, and I am arguing in favor of that, while others against.

I do have issue with the discussion being hijacked by tangential arguments that amount to "India is Holy and Pakistan is evil" - which is what Logic purported to do, first with his silly comment of using some opinions on this board as validation of his argument that Pakistanis hate India, to which I pointed out the even greater hate and bigotry on Bharat Rakshak, and then by going into a tangent about "Pakistan supporting terrorism" to which I pointed out India's own not so clean hands.

I have already stated that neither side is blameless, and to you as well I will say that read my post and you will not find me broaching these subjects of the Indian Army's atrocities in Kashmir or India's deliberate attempt to destroy Pakistan in East Pakistan, Baluchistan and the NWFP until Indians try to play the "terrorism and insurgency card" themselves.

We should move beyond this, I would like to move beyond this, these arguments serve no purpose - hence my intimation to all on this thread that such a line of discourse, that would most certainly lead to flaming, be discontinued.

The two nations need to move forward, but that cannot happen if one side continues to "unilaterally" harp on "injustices" by the other. I think this is best avoided if Indians and Pakistanis take up these issues with their countrymen themselves, and point out that our own hands are not clean, so one should not accuse the other.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If Pakistan should be secular, then what differentiates India and Pakistan as concepts?
What is the clinching reason for the existence of Pakistan as a separate entity?

If Pakistan gives up the word "islamic" in its constitution, I'm afraid that it will lead to a huge identity crisis among Pakistanis.

The European Union exists because European countries have several commonalities. If Pakistan becomes a secular state, I think we have begun a process which would ultimately lead to the unification of South Asia on EU lines.

That we are Pakistani is what differentiates us.

I have often said that Pakistan is what Pakistanis will make it. There is going to be no "sudden" shift to a "secular Pakistan" If it happens, it will come over time, as attitudes and beliefs among Pakistanis evolve towards that particular form of government. This evolution in though will occur within the context of being Pakistani, and therefore will not lead to any sort of "identity crisis" among the majority of Pakistanis who support such an idea (it would have to be a majority for such a change to take place and last). There might be some within the minority at that time that does not support the "switch", but they will be the ever shrinking minority, and hence of minor consequence.

I, Neo and others are firm believers that a secular Pakistani State is the best way to go, and let me assure you that we have absolutely no "identity crisis".

Personally what I believe will happen over the next few decades is that Pakistan will remain an "Islamic State" whose laws are modified to be more and more "equal for all ethnicities and faiths", something I believe Islam advocates anyway.

Pakistan will continue to remain a Muslim Society and will therefore have no interest in merging with a "non-Muslim" India, though we may form a trading block.

 

[Vinod2070]

Thx. AM, makes sense.

 

[Flintlock]

That we are Pakistani is what differentiates us.

I have often said that Pakistan is what Pakistanis will make it. There is going to be no "sudden" shift to a "secular Pakistan" If it happens, it will come over time, as attitudes and beliefs among Pakistanis evolve towards that particular form of government. This evolution in though will occur within the context of being Pakistani, and therefore will not lead to any sort of "identity crisis" among the majority of Pakistanis who support such an idea (it would have to be a majority for such a change to take place and last). There might be some within the minority at that time that does not support the "switch", but they will be the ever shrinking minority, and hence of minor consequence.

I, Neo and others are firm believers that a secular Pakistani State is the best way to go, and let me assure you that we have absolutely no "identity crisis".

Personally what I believe will happen over the next few decades is that Pakistan will remain an "Islamic State" whose laws are modified to be more and more "equal for all ethnicities and faiths", something I believe Islam advocates anyway.

Pakistan will continue to remain a Muslim Society and will therefore have no interest in merging with a "non-Muslim" India, though we may form a trading block.

So if suppose, that the animosity between the two nations ends somewhere in the future, and Pakistan is a secular state.
In such circumstances,

1. Will Pakistan try to resist the forces of globalization, which are making national boundaries irrelevant and nationalism a thing of the past?

2. Will Pakistan continue to exert itself as a counterweight to India? I am not concerned abut what you and Neo think. I am concerned about people like dimension117, who are stuck with the notion of Pakistan as a haven for muslims who have been persecuted. Will their conception of Pakistan change?


You have assumed that in the fight between secularization and Islam, Secularism will come out on top.
Reality indicates otherwise. Muslims all around the world are turning more religious.

Also, it isn't necessary that Pakistan will become secular only if the majority support it.
The best example is India, where the secular middle class minority calls the shots, and the vast religious majority are still coming to terms with secularism.

 

[Vinod2070]

Good post, SA.

Excellent points made.

 

[Flintlock]

No one is justifying secessionist ideology - Pakistan was never a part of any "One India" that it would "secede" from. The people of Pakistan simply saw themselves as a nation distinct from Bharat, as did the people of Afghanistan, China, Iran, France etc.

The fact is, that at the time of Independence, Pakistan and India were part of a single entity.
Atleast, that is what the national leaders thought at the time.

So, at that time, it was secessionist ideology.

If Pakistan was never part of "One India", then why need an ideology at all? Why the need to justify separation? If its natural, there is no need to exert it, right?

Only recently have Pakistanis started to find other ways to justify the existence of Pakistan.
Chatting with RR and UnitedPak over the last few months, I have come to the conclusion that even this new identity is based on finding reasons to differentiate from India, whether these are historical reasons, or reasons based on race, or geography or whatever.

Also its a fallacious argument to state that Pakistani people always saw themselves as separate from India.
Neither the people of India, nor the people of Pakistan had a choice in the matter. The decision to form India and Pakistan was taken by a small minority of leaders and freedom fighters, along with the British.

This was not like the French Revolution, where the masses revolted against the monarchy and declared the rights of man.

These concepts of "Bharat", "Pakistan" and "India" were only in the minds of the educated elite. Not the common person.

 

[Vinod2070]

To second the point made by SA, even Jinnah (the father of Pakistan as per the vast majority of Pakistanis) was a nationalist for a long time and an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity. Also I believe the partition could have been avoided had he been allowed to become the first prime minister of India.

The support for Pakistan was more in the United provinces than the provinces now part of Pakistan, which were just not interested early on.

I don't agree with the new fangled idea of any historic basis for Pakistan. It was a product of the specific circumstances that prevailed at the time of partition.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So if suppose, that the animosity between the two nations ends somewhere in the future, and Pakistan is a secular state.
In such circumstances,

1. Will Pakistan try to resist the forces of globalization, which are making national boundaries irrelevant and nationalism a thing of the past?

National boundaries are only being made irrelevant in the economic and cultural sense. People still very much feel the need to use some sort of identifier, even within the EU.

So I find your argument premature, since I don't see any of what you are suggesting occurring currently. Nationalism still holds strong almost everywhere.

2. Will Pakistan continue to exert itself as a counterweight to India? I am not concerned abut what you and Neo think. I am concerned about people like dimension117, who are stuck with the notion of Pakistan as a haven for muslims who have been persecuted. Will their conception of Pakistan change?

If there is peace between the two nations, why would we assert ourselves as a counterweight? The "counterweight" premise to begin with is flawed, our animosity is a direct result of unresolved territorial disputes, and suspicion that one does not accept the other. To that end we have shored up our position by allying with others in the region, not to act as a "counterweight" but to protect our own interests.

You have assumed that in the fight between secularization and Islam, Secularism will come out on top.
Reality indicates otherwise. Muslims all around the world are turning more religious.

I am not assuming anything. I put qualifiers in there. Muslims are turning to faith and arguing for Shariah because their existing systems of government have failed, and faith provides solace and political Islam combines faith and the promise of a better government to come across as an attractive option, but only so long as traditional governments continue to fail.

In either case, Pakistanis will not have an "identity crisis".

Also, it isn't necessary that Pakistan will become secular only if the majority support it.
The best example is India, where the secular middle class minority calls the shots, and the vast religious majority are still coming to terms with secularism.

It cannot happen in today's Pakistan. It would be putting too much ammunition in the hands of extremists. The free media and access to it has created far greater awareness. India got away with adopting secularism in its early days, while Pakistan didn't. Democratic institutions combined with other dynamics in today's societies (assuming continuity in democracy in Pakistan) ensure that such dramatic change is no longer possible. Even Musharaf wasn't able to do it.

As I said above, my opinion is that Pakistan will not officially become a "secular State" - the importance of Islam in peoples lives is to great. However what will happen, and you see happening right now, is that peoples attitudes will change, and more and more reforms in the constitution bringing about equality and fairness for all regardless of gender, faith and ethnicity will occur - but it will continue to be an Islamic State, and a Muslim society.

Even Ataturk was not able to change the nature of the Turks - they remain a Muslim society in a secular nation, and now they are fighting back against some of the more draconian restrictions of that secular nation.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The fact is, that at the time of Independence, Pakistan and India were part of a single entity.
Atleast, that is what the national leaders thought at the time.

Absolutely wrong - we were part of the British Empire and a British Colony - you might as well argue for including Hong Kong in India on that basis.

If Pakistan was never part of "One India", then why need an ideology at all? Why the need to justify separation? If its natural, there is no need to exert it, right?

What ideology?

If the intent of the British and Congress was to create a single political entity out of the Myriad nations that comprised the sub-continent, then of course an argument had to be made to point out that such an approach was wrong, that there were peoples who did not consider themselves a part of such a "United India.

If the British had managed to capture Afghanistan as well, they would have probably tried to include it in India as well.

 

[Flintlock]

Absolutely wrong - we were part of the British Empire and a British Colony - you might as well argue for including Hong Kong in India on that basis.

India was British "India". A single entity, and quite separate from Hong Kong.

Try reading up on what freedom fighters and even Jinnah were saying before the idea of Pakistan emerged.

India, as created by the British, was seen as a single nation by the enlightened lot, at that time.

What ideology?

The ideology of Pakistan. Iqbal and all that.

If the intent of the British and Congress was to create a single political entity out of the Myriad nations that comprised the sub-continent, then of course an argument had to be made to point out that such an approach was wrong, that there were peoples who did not consider themselves a part of such a "United India.

Let me remind you that even today, the "Pakistani" identity of a large number of Pakistanis is quite weak. Same can be said about India.

Even Pakistan was formed by clubbing together princely states and whatnot. The people had little say in the matter. Did they vote on it?

ish had managed to capture Afghanistan as well, they would have probably tried to include it in India as well.

That's besides the point. They could have named it something else...who knows?

Along the same lines, if the Mughals never invaded India, history would have been quite different. All this is speculation.