The Unexpected Origins Of The Name Pakistan

[dexter]

 

[El Sidd]

What a Jealous physically disabled geek

 

[Indus Pakistan]

What is interesting is that Iqbal [1930] and Rehmat Ali [1933] both enunciated the exact form of Pakistan we have today - a federation of Punjab, Afghania [K-Pk], Kashmir, Sindh, Balochistan. In this scheme there is no Bangla. Therefore in 1947 when Bangla was included it was not consistent with the original blueprint. But history has funny of correcting aberrations. In 1971 Pakistan reverted to it's orginal blueprint as espoused by Sir Allama Iqbal in 1930 and Rehmat Ali in 1933.


"India is a continent of human groups belonging to different races, speaking different languages, and professing different religions [...] Personally, I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sindh and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single State. Self-government within the British Empire, or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India."

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_iqbal_1930.html

 

[war&peace]

a federation of Punjab, Afghania [K-Pk], Kashmir, Sindh, Balochistan. In this scheme there is no Bangla. Therefore in 1947 when Bangla was included it was not consistent with the original blueprint. But history has funny of correcting aberrations. In 1971 Pakistan reverted to it's orginal blueprint as espoused by Sir Allama Iqbal in 1930 and Rehmat Ali in 1933.

 

[SQ8]

What is interesting is that Iqbal [1930] and Rehmat Ali [1933] both enunciated the exact form of Pakistan we have today - a federation of Punjab, Afghania [K-Pk], Kashmir, Sindh, Balochistan. In this scheme there is no Bangla. Therefore in 1947 when Bangla was included it was not consistent with the original blueprint. But history has funny of correcting aberrations. In 1971 Pakistan reverted to it's orginal blueprint as espoused by Sir Allama Iqbal in 1930 and Rehmat Ali in 1933.


"India is a continent of human groups belonging to different races, speaking different languages, and professing different religions [...] Personally, I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sindh and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single State. Self-government within the British Empire, or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India."

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_iqbal_1930.html

It was frankly impossible to maintain East Pakistan both from a logistical and cultural standpoint.
It was imperative that a separate Muslim homeland for Bengali Muslims be created but at the same time it was impossible that two very distinct lingual cultures could co-exist.
It is possible for a person who speaks Urdu to understand Punjabi and Sindhi.. perhaps even some Pashto Balochi and Makrani due to the common persian influences, but it is nigh impossible for them to understand Bengali due to a 3000km difference in linguistic norms as no Persian or Arabian or Turkic empire spread as far as Bengal.
Bengali never dominated as a ruling language during all the various empires that spanned the subcontinent. So there was simply no shift of Bengali culture or peoples into the areas of west Pakistan to create a sense of ownership and familiarity. The Muslim league was perhaps the first true unifying force and that too under the Quaid.
Then, the rulers of west Pakistan were too focused on playing power games and simply could not(and by human nature would not) accommodate dictate from any seat of power which had very little cultural and financial similarities to their interests. Iqbal recognized this much earlier and hence Bangistan was always a separate nation. The fact that Bengalis preferred to stick to their own language in terms of the name for their nation is just testament to the pride they take in their singular culture. West Pakistan on the other hand has 5 or 6 distinct ethnic groups and cultures.

 

[UnitedPak]

Complete nonsense video.

The names of Pakistani provinces by far predate British India or the names "India" and "Hindustan" which are ironically enough both derived from the Pakistani province of Sindh.

So the name Pakistan is ancient and modern at the same time.

 

[The Accountant]

What is interesting is that Iqbal [1930] and Rehmat Ali [1933] both enunciated the exact form of Pakistan we have today - a federation of Punjab, Afghania [K-Pk], Kashmir, Sindh, Balochistan. In this scheme there is no Bangla. Therefore in 1947 when Bangla was included it was not consistent with the original blueprint. But history has funny of correcting aberrations. In 1971 Pakistan reverted to it's orginal blueprint as espoused by Sir Allama Iqbal in 1930 and Rehmat Ali in 1933.


"India is a continent of human groups belonging to different races, speaking different languages, and professing different religions [...] Personally, I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sindh and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single State. Self-government within the British Empire, or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India."

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_iqbal_1930.html

Not original blue print .. Kashmir is missing

 

[Kuru]

Pakistan is a fairly new country so offcourse the name can't be ancient. West has a very little knowledge about Indian Subcontinent.

 

[Pakistan Fascist Ball]

West has a very little knowledge about Indian Subcontinent.

True, the only knowledge worthy of espousing is one that a Sanghi pulls out of his arse!

 

[niaz]

Undoubtedly it is true that Bengal was not included in the name ‘Pakistan’ as proposed by Ch. Rehmat Ali.

I had transferred from the St Mary’s to Islamia High School Rawalpindi in 1956 after 4th Standard because my father was being transferred to Okara where there were no English medium schools.

I was in the History class when the question of the Pakistan name came up. I remember my history teacher who also had been a member of ‘ Khaaksar’ movement in his early days advised us that when Ch. Rehmat Ali was questioned as to why he had left out Muslims of Bengal who were equal in number; he is supposed to have replied that they should also become an independent country with the name ‘Bangistan’.

I can’t say whether the above is true or not, but that is why I was told.

 

[Kuru]

True, the only knowledge worthy of espousing is one that a Sanghi pulls out of his arse!

I only said that Pakistan is a new country so of course the name Pakistan cannot be an ancient one. I don't know why you are so angry about it.

 

[Pakistan Fascist Ball]

I only said that Pakistan is a new country so of course the name Pakistan cannot be an ancient one. I don't know why you are so angry about it.

Modern nation states are a recent phenomenon. India, just like Pakistan, is a new country. The name is irrelevant. I am not angry, I am only agreeing with you.

 

[Kuru]

Modern nation states are a recent phenomenon. India, just like Pakistan, is a new country. The name is irrelevant. I am not angry, I am only agreeing with you.

I am glad you are not angry

Of course nation-state is a recent phenomenon, the important things to note here is that what this region was known as. There is a reason why this region is called Indian subcontinent.

 

[Pakistan Fascist Ball]

I am glad you are not angry

Of course nation-state is a recent phenomenon, the important things to note here is that what this region was known as. There is a reason why this region is called Indian subcontinent.

Why is it any more important than a country's name now? The "Indian subcontinent" doesn't belong to a nation that just calls itself "India". Even the name India was imposed on the locals, it's not like the people themselves called themselves "Indians".

 

[Kuru]

The "Indian subcontinent" doesn't belong to a nation that just calls itself "India".

I am only saying that this region was always known as a single entity: Indian subcontinent. Modern India is the successor state.

Anyway that's not the topic here. Pakistan is a new country so the name Pakistan cannot be an ancient one, so let's just leave it there.