Partition was a mistake

[Vinod2070]

most pakistani's are from monglo-turkic, persian, arab descent. I think that's where the superiority complex comes in, unfortunately.

however, some pakistani's do have the base to claim that. my ancestry goes back hijaz to abu bakr siddiq through Qasim bin Muhammad bin abi Bakr. I'm sure someone's heard of the Shaikh Siddiqui family from Badaun in UP.

Why don't all those claiming such lineage go back to where they came from? Don't you ever yearn to go back?

Anyway your claim actually supports those who feel that their land has been unfairly occupied by "outsiders" and "invaders".

 

[Vinod2070]

I mentioned this to Malang as well.

One can relate to many different identities at the same time - Pakistani, Pashtun, Muslim etc. - it depends upon the context in which you are making the comment.

The Khuda Kay Liye comment was probably in the context of being a Muslim, or a Muslim in South Asia to be exact.

Yes, it is obvious that he was speaking as a Muslim.

The point is does that fact alone override his history as belonging to the native lands that were occupied by outsiders? I don't recall him claiming to be Arab or Turkic origin so the overwhelming chance is that his forefathers converted after their land was occupied.

Going by the same token, can a Dutch clam to have ruled India just because he was a Christian like the British?

What happens when there is a war between two Muslim countries like Iran and Iraq? Does the loser have the consolation that the victor is a Muslim too, so he is also a winner.

 

[Flintlock]

I mentioned this to Malang as well.

One can relate to many different identities at the same time - Pakistani, Pashtun, Muslim etc. - it depends upon the context in which you are making the comment.

The Khuda Kay Liye comment was probably in the context of being a Muslim, or a Muslim in South Asia to be exact.

How does being a muslim mean that one can claim to have ruled Spain?

This is simply an exercise in self-deception.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Yes, it is obvious that he was speaking as a Muslim.

The point is does that fact alone override his history as belonging to the native lands that were occupied by outsiders? I don't recall him claiming to be Arab or Turkic origin so the overwhelming chance is that his forefathers converted after their land was occupied.

Going by the same token, can a Dutch clam to have ruled India just because he was a Christian like the British?

What happens when there is a war between two Muslim countries like Iran and Iraq? Does the loser have the consolation that the victor is a Muslim too, so he is also a winner.

How does being a muslim mean that one can claim to have ruled Spain?

This is simply an exercise in self-deception.

Again, it depends upon how one views their identity. As a Muslim, I don't see the Arabs and Central Asians as "occupiers" of my people - I see them as harbingers of the faith that I follow, so I don't associate them with the sort of negative lens you, or specifically Indian Hindus, view them through.

Islam is different from Christianity at this stage in its evolution, so I don't think you can make those sorts of comparisons.

Viewed through the prism of Muslim, (Muslims having ruled parts of Spain) I don't see why that comment could not be made in the context of ones Muslim identity.

I would think that this sort of relationship would be easy for you guys to understand, since the dynamics in play here are essentially similar to those in play in the "One India" narrative - that of a common "Vedic" culture, that absorbs and fits in other influences.

The Muslim identity seems to play a similar role, where it starts absorbing other influences, conforms to some, and emerges as an overarching identifier.

I also think that more recent history - the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, political Islam etc. have served to highlight and strengthen those kinds of "one Ummah" narratives.

 

[Logic note]

I
There is no question of Pakistan being "secessionist" since there was no country to secede from. India in fact came into existence as a nation a day after Pakistan.

The people of Pakistan chose to form a nation in 1947 out of the hodgepodge of nations and territory conquered by the British and amalgamated into a single colony for administrative purposes - that is the extent of the myth of "one India" no matter how much you distort and manipulate history to try create a historical case in favor of your argument. India was always merely a "region" like the Orient..

I think you mean a Political Union India was not there before 1947 .
You have to understand that the present political unions are a very latest development . there were cultural unions divided in various political entities.
, Germany which had various political unions and it was unified in 1871
Unification of Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
USA , was unified in one political union very much like India
India was a cultural Union before 1947 and a cultural union is an entity which has similar culture and linguistics and had been unified many times by political power . Like Magadh Empire

Image:Mauryan Empire Map.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Secondly Pakistan was not not made by four states ( Punjab , Balochistan, Sindh and NWFP) as you mention them .other wise Hindu shindhis and baloch should have not been forced top migrate to India . Pakistan was made as nation for Muslims who don’t want live with ppl of other religion .

MOD EDIT: Lets stick with the subject please. I have asked several times now. You can raise the issue in the relevant threads.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

With all the criticism (of being secessionist) piled on the Muslims of the subcontinent who desired Pakistan, I think this excerpt points out how certain adherents of Hindu ideology in India played a part in vitiating the atmosphere, and strengthening the sense of alienation and "separateness" among Muslims who wanted Pakistan.

Quite naturally, then, when the NCERT authorities decided to issue a fresh set of texts, they chose, among others known for their antipathy to Hindu-Muslim unity, Mr Mittal for the task. As can be expected, the little-known Mr Mittal is thoroughly ill equipped for the purpose. The report quotes numerous glaring errors in his book — it refers to General Dyer, former governor of Punjab, as having been shot dead in 1940, whereas he actually died in 1927 of brain haemorrhage; it says that the foundation of the Forward Bloc by Subhash Chandra Bose so incensed the Gandhites that he had to resign from the presidentship of the Congress, whereas Bose formed the Forward Bloc only after quitting the Congress; it glorifies Savarkar, president of the Hindu Mahasabha, but remains studiously silent on Savarkar’s expounding of the theory of Hindus and Muslims being two separate, irreconcilable nations, and so on.

As can be expected, Mittal lambastes the Muslim League for its communal politics, but spares the Hindu Mahasabha any critique. He also deliberately ignores the role of many Muslims in the movement for Indian independence, with all Muslims appearing to be portrayed as separatists. While the Muslim League and the communists are bitterly criticised for their opposition to the Quit India movement, the Hindu Mahasabha’s similar stance is completely ignored. So, too, is the Hindu Mahasabha’s role in fomenting Hindu-Muslim conflict.

Students could be forgiven if they imagined, from studying this book, that Hindu chauvinists had nothing at all to do with the Partition of India, for here they are presented as ardent patriots and inspired fighters for India’s freedom, an image that has no bearing whatsoever with the facts of actual history.[/B]

 

[Logic note]

With all the criticism (of being secessionist) piled on the Muslims of the subcontinent who desired Pakistan, I think this excerpt points out how certain adherents of Hindu ideology in India played a part in vitiating the atmosphere, and strengthening the sense of alienation and "separateness" among Muslims who wanted Pakistan.

yes this is same excuse .. not being able to accept or being able to live with people having different opinion .
"they have different opinion we cant live with them " No wonder Pakistan struggled for democracy and sense of meaning of nation

 

[Flintlock]

^^^Jeez Logic...Pakistan is definitely not struggling for a "sense of meaning". Democracy perhaps.

Have you read V S Naipaul's "A Million Mutinies Now"? Its India too which is struggling to break old caste and regional boundaries and establish new ones based on secular and national lines.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Logic:

Here is a map of the Durrani empire.



Cultural similarities exist between the nations on this map as well. In fact, as I postulated earlier, the advent of Islam in the region has resulted in a marked shift (in terms of peoples sense of affiliation and nationhood) from the sub-continent.

So, for me, if I were to look for any historical homogeneous cultural entity (I don't support it at this point), I see it represented in this map of the Durrani empire, not the Maghada.

We know that cultures evolve and change. Cultural change in the subcontinent (specifically in the peoples making up Pakistan) is from the impact of Islam, the shift in how people see themselves connected to various cultures has completely removed "Bharat" from the equation.

The practices and cultures of the Muslim world already bear remarkable similarities, and it can be argued that what is happening in Pakistan, and has happened since Islam first arrived, is a minimization of the "Vedic cultural commonality" (assuming for the time being that such a thing exists). This relates to the question Stealth asked earlier of "Pakistani identity" as well.

Removed from "Vedic influences" (a separate nation of Pakistan) the Pakistani identity has completely removed itself from the sphere of influence of India.

 

[Malang]

An argument based on "for me India is always a nation" is no argument at all. You might as well say you live on Mars.
Since there is no empirical evidence for a "one India" (pre 1947), the only issue that remains is, as you said, nationalism on the basis of various commonalities and similarities amongst various peoples, as a union or individually. In the case of the people who chose Pakistan, that nationalism arose based on faith, cultural similarities and common interests that they felt would be safeguarded by creating a nation called Pakistan.

Nation, Nationalism are philosophical concepts which arose in the last couple of centuries, Nationalism means bonds between people who may or mayn't be in contact.

For Pakistan as I said bond is Religion, for Pakistanis Pakistan could be anywhere.

For an Indian the bond is land and culture, they can follow any religion.

You have no empirical proof for a concept that arose recently, and as per your empirical findings you will notice no nation as such existed.

The political elite of congress and Gandhi had their chance to try and convince the diverse peoples inhabiting the subcontinent to unite to form one single union - it was an argument that failed, and rightly so.

Congress Political Elite and Gandhi were two different entities and their argument failed because of misinterpretation of religion. This may be justifiable to you but not to me. For me God never sent a religion as pious as Islam to divide people or create hate.

Everything happens because of a cause.
Nationalism can find its basis in many things. The religious change in the subcontinent was part of the evolution of human society and culture that occurs everywhere. I fail to see why you you attribute any import to this - its pat of life.

Nationalism needs strong chords, and what better chord than hate?
When you hate someone you think of them 24*7 and when you love you don't? How many people spend their lives in taking revenge and how many spend their lives in spreading love?
& this is exactly what has happened in Pakistan, the nation unites when India and Kashmir is brought in.

Cultures almost everywhere assimilate and share traits and absorb foreign influences - that is hardly a unique phenomenon.

Indian culture and practices can be traced back to several milleniums and at the same time many foreign influences and modernity to have shaped some practices. I have not seen such a phenomenon elsewhere. The description of some Indian cities mentioned in historical books can still be observed in the present.

One could argue that Western Culture is, bar some minor differences, identical, and countries in the West retain strong racial homogeneity as well. Yet nationalism within those nations remains extremely strong. I would put them in the same category as the Europeans, Canadians and Americans - there is racial homogeneity, strong similarities in culture and language - yet the individual nationalism of each nation is strong and vibrant.

Europeans, Canadians and Americans are all different IMO.
A better racial homogenity would be exhibited amongst Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand etc. and all owe their allegiance to the crown. God Save the Queen?

It depends upon the peoples involved. Every situation has different dynamics and undercurrents. The people of Pakistan had three main issues - faith, similar cultures and safeguarding their common interests.

If you refer to my posts in previous couple of pages I have mentioned what were the reasons mentioned for creating Pakistan...
My main issue is
1. Islam is a religion of peace and brotherhood, dividing is antithetical
2. Similar culture: the same culture is still visible in India
3. Safeguarding common interests: possibly but then such options should have been made available to all..
This arbitrary decision to grant a piece of land to Muslims was undemocratic and insecular.

Everyone identifies themselves on different levels. One can be a Christian, an American and a Hispanic all at the same time. Depending upon what the context is, you could relate to events as a Christian, as an American or as a Hispanic. Perhaps his context was that of Muslims in South Asia.

Now I personally believe most Pakistanis beleive themselves to be of outside Subcontinent descent.... Ishtiaq Ahmed mentioned in one of his editorials that at one point of time the Arayyans called themselves Rajputs and now call themsleves Arabs...

Mere opinions don't count, nor does mere "faith".
I have as of yet seen nothing but extremely tenuous arguments for a "one India", which seemed mostly contrived as the citizens of the contemporary Indian political entity try and ground themselves in some sort of historical nationhood to justify and solidify (unnecessarily) their modern nationhood.
I believe a strong part of this revisionism comes from dynamics similar to those in political Islam that argue for a untied Ummah and pan-Islamic State - its just couched in terms of "civilizational commonalities", as well as a strong animosity towards Pakistan.

AM, evolution in human behaviour have made kingdoms irrelevant, regionalism irrelevant and now divisiveness to is becoming irrelevant.. time is of consolidation but the interests and binding chords should be strong...
for eg. Muslim Ummah may be possible but only if enforced in totality..
Arabs still think themselves to be superior, Persians too etc. this attitude is detrimental..
Europeans are uniting because of interests and strong cultural binding chords...

PS :In any case please if you have the time go through some of my previous posts.. and find faults in them.

 

[Logic note]

^^^Jeez Logic...Pakistan is definitely not struggling for a "sense of meaning". Democracy perhaps.

Have you read V S Naipaul's "A Million Mutinies Now"? Its India too which is struggling to break old caste and regional boundaries and establish new ones based on secular and national lines.

Yes I have .. and it was written in 1980s and Caste and regional struggle are social struggle which can be overcome easily by education .. you can see in modern indian cities that chage has happened.

 

[Logic note]

Logic:

Here is a map of the Durrani empire.


.

AM Durrani Empire was established in 1747 .. there were many small empires which have ruled India .. they dont signify a different culture

 

[Flintlock]

Yes I have .. and it was written in 1980s and Caste and regional struggle are social struggle which can be overcome easily by education .. you can see in modern indian cities that chage has happened.

You're kidding right?

Just one word....Mayawati.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Here is a map of the Roman empire.



I would argue that you find not only greater cultural similarities here than within the different peoples of the sub-continent, but greater racial homogeneity as well. But that, like the Mauryan empire, is not validation of "one nation".

 

[Logic note]

Dear Am

Cultural similarities exist between the nations on this map as well. In fact, as I postulated earlier, the advent of Islam in the region has resulted in a marked shift (in terms of peoples sense of affiliation and nationhood) from the sub-continent.

So, for me, if I were to look for any historical homogeneous cultural entity (I don't support it at this point), I see it represented in this map of the Durrani empire, not the Maghada.

We know that cultures evolve and change. Cultural change in the subcontinent (specifically in the peoples making up Pakistan) is from the impact of Islam, the shift in how people see themselves connected to various cultures has completely removed "Bharat" from the equation.

The practices and cultures of the Muslim world already bear remarkable similarities, and it can be argued that what is happening in Pakistan, and has happened since Islam first arrived, is a minimization of the "Vedic cultural commonality" (assuming for the time being that such a thing exists). This relates to the question Stealth asked earlier of "Pakistani identity" as well.

Culture is different from Religion so please dont confuse Islam with a culture . or may be this is the main issue . Islam has confused its followers by making faith into a culture and what you are saying is that islam as an ideology will not allow muslims to live with other religions ?