What do Pakistanis have in common?

[niaz]

After giving the commonality a lot of thought I could only name two things all Pakistanis that I know like:

Love of cricket and mangoes.

It may be on a lighter note but I do agree that there are too many differences of opinion, ethnic, religious as well as linguistic. But as on post has already mentioned is plurality a bad thing? IMO a multicultural and heterogeneous society is always a good; any society with no divergence of culture would be boring.

 

[Zyxius]

Ok...but the whole multiculturalism thing is good in theory...but even in the western "multicultural" countries they espouse some sort of shared heritage or unique values, i.e. French values or American values. In Pakistan we have a great deal of division. Every single province has a powerful separatist movement that feels that Punjab is a bully and is usurping their rights. In Sindh, the fact of the matter is that the majority have a problem with Punjab and almost everyone thinks that Karachi would be better off without the rest of Pakistan. Mike Mullen reportedly wanted to hold a referendum on NWFP to allow them to separate. Balochis....as you know....hate the federation and specially Punjab. Mahmud Khan Achakzai is a very popular man also and his speeches constantly go on about how the federation doesn't work and there is only one thing we all have in common....which is not our language, or culture or ethnicity. Muhajirs hate the Sindhis and the Punjabis. Pathans dislike Muhajirs because of the ethnic riots of the past...and they also dislike Punjabis. Seraikis dislike the rest of Punjab because of their own feeling of being treated unfairly. I am honestly telling you that I have been on outdoor adventures to some far flung parts of Pakistan and it surprised me when people asked me, "aap Punjabi to naheen hai?" and this was clearly done because they wanted it to be known that Punjabis are not welcome. Once I was climbing a hill in Balochistan and we noticed a small village on top of the hill. When someone from the village noticed a group of people climbing up the steep rock side of the hill at night....he wondered who we were and what the hell was going on. We told him we were just "out for shikaar" and he then asked just out of the blue, "aap Punjabi to naheen ho?" when I said no...he said, "your welcome then". Obviously this is surprising and disturbing to me regardless of the fact that I am not Punjabi, have no Punjabi relatives, and have only visited Punjab 4 times in my whole life for a combined total of less than 2 weeks. As a Pakistani, one has to wonder what the hell is going on with this division.

My point is that every single ethnic group in Pakistan has a problem with the federation and there is a great deal of disunity. Pakistan has already been broken once and it is conceivable that it could be broken again. Therefore, I dont think these visions of a multicultural and multi-ethnic country have proven to be realistic. Using India, or another country as an example to say that they too have these problems does not provide a solution or justify this problem as a natural occurrence in multi-ethnic/lingual countries. Whenever you have slaughter of one group of citizens by another based solely on ethnicity, or separatist movements that seek to divide based on ethnicity, it should be a clear indication that the glue that holds the nation together is weak because it lacks the right ingredients.

 

[muse]

Every ethnicity has a problem of some sort with the other - and so? your point is...??

Your post mentions nothing about the politics of identity and the inability or unwillingness of the State to deliver services and create a uniquely Pakistani identity, that are at the root of this.

Please do suprise us with something more meaningful than Islam the answer to every problem

 

[Vinod2070]

Dude did you type that with a straight face? I mean seriously? Have you paid attention to the religious riots and civil strife in your country?

How many separatist movements are there in India again?

Must be different definition of "unity" in Indian dictionaries.

OK, I never said that there are no problems in India. There are separatist movements and there is religious strife. Riots also happen though with a much reduced frequency.

These are the negatives.

Now, there are so many positives too. So many ethnicities, languages and dialects, climates, cultures, religions, landscapes in one country! On the whole it is still a very peaceful co-existence. All the different communities have their space, no one is forcing a common culture on them.

If you don't agree, I respect your opinion. But Indians and many people the world over do recognize that it is a marvel of unity in diversity.

Can you show me one example of so much diversity in one country the world over? I believe USA could be a close second.

If you are taking the separatist movement as a barometer of "Unity" and especially the Kashmir strife, I will say that will be a narrow measure of what "Unity" is really. Unity is when you go to any corner of India, meet a person who is totally unlike you, doesn't speak your language, has different food habits, prays differently and you can relate to him as a fellow Indian without even the thought of such differences crossing your mind.

Believe me I have had this feeling numerous times in my life. India is united, politically and emotionally.

 

[Vinod2070]

There's that self congratulatory attitude again - despite evidence caste, ahmadabad, communalism, naxalites -- but stillf make room for triumphal self congratulation -- sure, OK, India is doing great, khush?

These are the problems and challenges India faces. You have done a good summary of them, but that does not take our faith from the essential unity and idea of India. Same as I suppose you will not waver from your idea of Pakistan because of the current challenges your country is going through.

I am proud of my country's diversity and what we have achieved in spite of the numerous challenges that we have faced. You are welcome to not agree. In fact I don't expect most Pakistanis to agree to this post for obvious reasons.

 

[Vinod2070]

There's that self congratulatory attitude again - despite evidence caste, ahmadabad, communalism, naxalites -- but stillf make room for triumphal self congratulation -- sure, OK, India is doing great, khush?

These are the problems and challenges India faces. You have done a good summary of them, but that does not take our faith from the essential unity and idea of India. Same as I suppose you will not waver from your idea of Pakistan because of the current challenges your country is going through.

I am proud of my country's diversity and what we have achieved in spite of the numerous challenges that we have faced. You are welcome to not agree. In fact I don't expect most Pakistanis to agree to this post for obvious reasons.

 

[roadrunner]

Read my post again. It mentions Race, Architecture, Ideas. I"ll be clearer: Race, Religion, Ideology, Opinion, Aesthetics.

"Unity in Diversity", I'll repeat, is mainly a 20th century development. Very few nations in the history of mankind have ever truly managed "unity in diversity". Perhaps none.

"Unity in Diversity" is not a 20th century development. The idea is centuries old. In fact the Greeks used the idea, the Romans, the Taoists, used it in one form or other, for different reasons. In fact, Aristotle was writing about democracy and how it could only thrive through unity in diversity centuries before the idea of America had been created.

 

[Majnun]

Zyxius, are you just trying to say that Islam is the binding factor?
Because its not. Its the thing that comes closest to breaking us up.
There isn't anything that we all have in common except love of cricket, manoges, hockey as a national sport, dramatic controversy in everything we do anywhere (I love that one ) and better-looking girls than anywhere else in the world (I love that one even more).

 

[Flintlock]

India seems to be doing pretty well!

Well India hasn't done 'very well' so far, there is a lot of discontent, and problems to overcome which will take many decades to resolve.

However, India has managed to validate the theory that countries with diverse peoples can manage to stick together if everybody is given an equal stake. It also validates the theory that sticking together is far better than dividing up into tiny countries.

Oh and I forgot to mention perhaps one of the greatest achievements in multiculturalism - The European Union.

 

[roadrunner]

Ok...but the whole multiculturalism thing is good in theory...but even in the western "multicultural" countries they espouse some sort of shared heritage or unique values, i.e. French values or American values. In Pakistan we have a great deal of division. Every single province has a powerful separatist movement that feels that Punjab is a bully and is usurping their rights. In Sindh, the fact of the matter is that the majority have a problem with Punjab and almost everyone thinks that Karachi would be better off without the rest of Pakistan. Mike Mullen reportedly wanted to hold a referendum on NWFP to allow them to separate. Balochis....as you know....hate the federation and specially Punjab. Mahmud Khan Achakzai is a very popular man also and his speeches constantly go on about how the federation doesn't work and there is only one thing we all have in common....which is not our language, or culture or ethnicity. Muhajirs hate the Sindhis and the Punjabis. Pathans dislike Muhajirs because of the ethnic riots of the past...and they also dislike Punjabis. Seraikis dislike the rest of Punjab because of their own feeling of being treated unfairly. I am honestly telling you that I have been on outdoor adventures to some far flung parts of Pakistan and it surprised me when people asked me, "aap Punjabi to naheen hai?" and this was clearly done because they wanted it to be known that Punjabis are not welcome. Once I was climbing a hill in Balochistan and we noticed a small village on top of the hill. When someone from the village noticed a group of people climbing up the steep rock side of the hill at night....he wondered who we were and what the hell was going on. We told him we were just "out for shikaar" and he then asked just out of the blue, "aap Punjabi to naheen ho?" when I said no...he said, "your welcome then". Obviously this is surprising and disturbing to me regardless of the fact that I am not Punjabi, have no Punjabi relatives, and have only visited Punjab 4 times in my whole life for a combined total of less than 2 weeks. As a Pakistani, one has to wonder what the hell is going on with this division.

My point is that every single ethnic group in Pakistan has a problem with the federation and there is a great deal of disunity. Pakistan has already been broken once and it is conceivable that it could be broken again. Therefore, I dont think these visions of a multicultural and multi-ethnic country have proven to be realistic. Using India, or another country as an example to say that they too have these problems does not provide a solution or justify this problem as a natural occurrence in multi-ethnic/lingual countries. Whenever you have slaughter of one group of citizens by another based solely on ethnicity, or separatist movements that seek to divide based on ethnicity, it should be a clear indication that the glue that holds the nation together is weak because it lacks the right ingredients.

Please stop posting bullshyt just to make your thread last a bit longer.

The Baloch Liberation Movement is tiny, Musharraf has more support in balochistan than the BLM.

The Pashtuns don't hate any group .. such a broad generalization is based on no survey for sure.

The Sindhis don't hate the Punjabis..again just a broad generalization

etc etc..

 

[Flintlock]

"Unity in Diversity" is not a 20th century development. The idea is centuries old. In fact the Greeks used the idea, the Romans, the Taoists, used it in one form or other, for different reasons. In fact, Aristotle was writing about democracy and how it could only thrive through unity in diversity centuries before the idea of America had been created.

No ancient civilization, republic or empire came close to the modern definition of multiculturalism.

Sure, democracy has ancient roots dating back to ancient Greece and India. Equality of all citizens has roots dating back to the Abrahamic faiths. Multi-religious society has roots in India as well.

Greeks had slavery, so did the Romans. Hindus had caste, Islamic empires had both slavery and monopoly over religion. China too had a totalitarian state.

However, only the 21st century has combined all these strands of thought and put them into practice.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Therefore, I dont think these visions of a multicultural and multi-ethnic country have proven to be realistic.

Zyxius,

Its not enough to simply recognize th fact that we are a multicultural and diverse nation, successive governments never decentralized power, and gave the opportunity for gripe to everyone, especially those who were not the majority 'ethnic group'.

To truly recognize and respect diversity, we also have to provide more autonomy to the provinces, and in the long run create more provinces. In fact I would argue that the distrust and dislike that exists today between different ethnicities (without any judgment on how widespread it is) is precisely because we tried to brush over those differences and ruled Pakistan as 'one unit', with the Central government having its hands in everything.

This structure is utterly inefficient in a country the size of Pakistan and with the social and economic challenges of Pakistan, and the inefficiencies have merely fed into the discontent, and as humans it is but natural for us to blame our ills on the 'other'.

 

[Malang]

Dude did you type that with a straight face? I mean seriously? Have you paid attention to the religious riots and civil strife in your country?

Religious riots and civil strife? in a land of billion+ these incidents are statistically irrelevant...

Unfortunately in India each incident reported, has to mention caste and religion even though they may not have a part to play.

These incidents are largely relegated to the interiors of Rural India and Ghettoes of Urban India,which admittedly are still very backward and conservative.

How many separatist movements are there in India again?

Indian constitution allows separatist movements but the question is how many
have popular support??

In Pakistan, Balochistan separatist movement resulted in many Baloch leaders being "martyred" by the Pak forces.

In India, Kashmiri separatists aka Hurriyat Conference leaders are provided security by GoI. Khalistani separatists like Simranjit Mann an elected MP is provided all facilities by the GoI.

Must be different definition of "unity" in Indian dictionaries.

happens, when seeing India through a Pakistani PoV.

There's that self congratulatory attitude again - despite evidence caste, ahmadabad, communalism, naxalites -- but stillf make room for triumphal self congratulation -- sure, OK, India is doing great, khush?

Caste is a hallmark of Indian society and is not going out sometime soon.. but the important thing is there are two types caste system one based on hierarchy and the other based on ethnicity. Brahmin discriminating against a Dalit and a Yadav discriminating against a Brahmin, a Syed Muslim discriminating against an Ansari Muslims, A Jatt sikh discriminating against a Bhappa Sikh are all incidents of caste system.. though only 1 incident has "supposed" sanctions by "some" "controversial" hindu texts.

Ahmedabad?

Communalism is another hallmark of Indian subcontinent, Bangladesh and Pakistan too where created as a result of communalism besides other reasons. The states re-organisation has helped quell it quite a bit. The rise of regional parties and abuse of reservation system has led to a revival in communalism to an extent.

Though its heartening to know that a Sikh from Punjab is revered as a patriot and leader by a Muslim from Hyderabad, a Parsi from Pune, a jew from Kerala and a Christian from Tamil Nadu...

Naxalites - I empathise with them, but they have distanced themselves from their ideological foundation. They concentrate on cops et al. not civilians.

and thanks.

The best example is acceptance of foreign influences without giving up Indianness. The popularity of Sonia Gandhi, a Roman Catholic Italian married into a Kashmiri Hindu-Parsi family is a testament of the India's character.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

In Pakistan, Balochistan separatist movement resulted in many Baloch leaders being "martyred" by the Pak forces.

In India, Kashmiri separatists aka Hurriyat Conference leaders are provided security by GoI.

Is the GoI providing security to militant leaders who are firing rockets at them and or the ones who have shunned violence for the time being?

 

[Malang]

Is the GoI providing security to militant leaders who are firing rockets at them and or the ones who have shunned violence for the time being?

AFAIK Bugti was a leader not a combatant..
Security is provided to leaders not all and sundry.. Murderers like Yasin Malik who is a HC leader is provided security.