What do Pakistanis have in common?

[roadrunner]

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.

too many errors here

1) India was never a multireligious society. There was no country known as India until very recently, it was never unified. Each country had only 1 religion. Buddhism for example was driven out of India through mass genocide. Islam only thrived when India was ruled by Islamic Empires. Else there was persecution.

2) Democracy probably had more chance of originating in Pakistan's borders than Indias.

3) Unity in diversity refers to citizens obviously, not to slaves who weren't considered citizens. The Indian caste system I agree demonstrates that India was not following a unity in diversity principle, but the Greeks who used slaves that were not citizens did have an egalitarian society.

Multi-religious, equality based, multi cultural societies have existed for millenia. You don't think when Islam originated, that there were not Jews, and Christians in the same area, or when Islam entered the Indus Valley region, that people were not following other religions? Islam coexisted with these other religions, in a multi religious, multi-ethnic society.

 

[muse]

Agnostic

." 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"


And how would you explain other countries that run just fine as single units?? Perhaps we are not taking into account the divisive kinds of political ideas that our politiicans and political parties have floated - politics of identity based on ethnicity, on language, on a particular version of history.

Lets also begin with the kind of society, the kind of general culture we are --generally poor, generally ignorant and generally suspicious of education, generally suspicious of modernity and here I mean the idea that constitute and inform modernity.

How in such a meliu are we expecting anything else - like the saying goes: you plant corn and expect to harvest wheat??

I want to tell you about a personal experience - I was at a physicians and he told me that he was among the rlers of Pakistan - I had not known there was any such a thing and then he told me that he was aariayan -- Now I did not have a clue as to who these backward lot were, so I made the mistake of asking -- Some Biradari BS, basically a caste for these would be Muslims types who really did not have the courage to be muslims.

Now with such a mentality among supposedly educated people, what can one expect?

You will recall AG noorani article on Democracy in the subcontinent -- democracy is not just about venting - democracy is about action taken to allievate problems. But of course our understanding of government is not that.

This is a complex problem and as you well know, every solution leads to a new problem - that does not mean that the problem does not get solved, just that we have new problems.

May I add that we have this idea in society, driven by politiicans that everybody has to get a piece of the pie (generally it means the awam helps the politiicans and their cronies get their piece), however; there are other ideas, though sadly not in our society, which suggest that instead of pineing for a piece of the pie, one can make their own pie.

The balouchi does not forever have to be thinking of himself as a would be immoral Arab making a living off the work of others and the Sindhi forever in awe of the accomplishment and achivement of those who made karachi into a city from a small town -- It's immoral, unethical to live like a parasite and those who suggest that venting is a solution would do well to consider if we would not be better off if instead of venting we were into achieving.

 

[Flintlock]

too many errors here

1) India was never a multireligious society. There was no country known as India until very recently, it was never unified. Each country had only 1 religion. Buddhism for example was driven out of India through mass genocide. Islam only thrived when India was ruled by Islamic Empires. Else there was persecution.

India was a multi-religious society by the standards of the time. Ask any historian worth his salt.

I know you have a personal stake in disbelieving the truth of this statement, but please do consider the facts.

2) Democracy probably had more chance of originating in Pakistan's borders than Indias.

Too bad. The republics of ancient India are acknowledged to be precursors of democracy.

3) Unity in diversity refers to citizens obviously, not to slaves who weren't considered citizens. The Indian caste system I agree demonstrates that India was not following a unity in diversity principle, but the Greeks who used slaves that were not citizens did have an egalitarian society.

The lower castes in India weren't considered "citizens" either. You are simply twisting and writhing to satisfy your own prejudices.

In any case, the existence of slavery itself invalidates any claims that the Greek were an egalitarian society. Sure, they founded some of its principles, but that doesn't make their society the same as modern society.

Multi-religious, equality based, multi cultural societies have existed for millenia. You don't think when Islam originated, that there were not Jews, and Christians in the same area, or when Islam entered the Indus Valley region, that people were not following other religions? Islam coexisted with these other religions, in a multi religious, multi-ethnic society.

Yeah right. The whole of history is screaming in protest as you type these words.

Islam was definitely very egalitarian towards people within the faith. However, for people outside the faith, and particularly outside Abrahmic faiths, it was anything but "multicultural".

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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.

Bugti at that time, AFAIK, was not in the mountains because he was chairing a political conference on addressing his grievances.

Murderers, in terms of seperatist or insurgent leaders, can be provided security, and accommodated, provided they lay down their weapons. Bugti had not done that at the time he was killed.

The attempts at dialog with the Taliban leadership, the invitation of the government to the BLA and other organizations to lay down their weapons and participate in dialog, in a political process, to address their grievances is indicative of the fact that Pakistan is willing to accomodate, provided the other side lays down arms.

 

[roadrunner]

The lower castes in India weren't considered "citizens" either. You are simply twisting and writhing to satisfy your own prejudices.

In any case, the existence of slavery itself invalidates any claims that the Greek were an egalitarian society. Sure, they founded some of its principles, but that doesn't make their society the same as modern society.

Well that's not true for sure. The slaves weren't considered citizens in Greek society, the Brahmins were considered the pinnacle of Indian society, then the warrior castes and merchants and so on were considered below them. Indian society was not egalitarian towards its citizens.

 

[Malang]

too many errors here

1) India was never a multireligious society.

Asoka's edicts
"All religions should reside everywhere, for all of them desire self-control and purity of heart." Rock Edict Nb7 (S. Dhammika)

"Contact (between religions) is good. One should listen to and respect the doctrines professed by others. Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, desires that all should be well-learned in the good doctrines of other religions." Rock Edict Nb12 (S. Dhammika)

There was no country known as India until very recently,

as per the present definition there was no country ever... only empires consisting of nations..

it was never unified.

no empire was ever unified.. it was always expanding or contracting.. and people of different tribes always trying to usurp power..

Each country had only 1 religion.

refer to above..
For example Nuristanis of Astan practised a religion which was ammalgamation of Hindu and other beliefs, Tribals of India to practise an animistic religion different from hinduism.

Buddhism for example was driven out of India through mass genocide.

I didn't know that Adi Shankarcharya was a mass murderer..

Islam only thrived when India was ruled by Islamic Empires. Else there was persecution.

Persecution and conversion while Islamic Empires were in place

2) Democracy probably had more chance of originating in Pakistan's borders than Indias.

If Mr. Radcliffe sitting in England would've redrawn Pakistan to include Gujarat and exclude Punjab things would've been different.

3) Unity in diversity refers to citizens obviously, not to slaves who weren't considered citizens.

Arrian in his travels recorded that India didn't practise slavery..

The Indian caste system I agree demonstrates that India was not following a unity in diversity principle,

Varna system of classification was valid then, is valid now and will be valid in the future.... it depends on individual to individual not on hereditary basis..

Asoka's edicts prove that there was unity in diversity.. further Kautilya's Arthashastra too proves the unity in diversity feature of the Indian society at the time..

but the Greeks who used slaves that were not citizens did have an egalitarian society.

Did profess an egalitarian society in practise it wasn't..

Multi-religious, equality based, multi cultural societies have existed for millenia. You don't think when Islam originated, that there were not Jews, and Christians in the same area, or when Islam entered the Indus Valley region, that people were not following other religions? Islam coexisted with these other religions, in a multi religious, multi-ethnic society.

Not untrue.. for some time ******* did exist relatively peacefully with other non muslims.. but things rapidly changed..

 

[Flintlock]

Well that's not true for sure. The slaves weren't considered citizens in Greek society, the Brahmins were considered the pinnacle of Indian society, then the warrior castes and merchants and so on were considered below them. Indian society was not egalitarian towards its citizens.

The Brahmins were simply considered the ones who communicate with God. The Warrior castes were the ones who would fight, and the merchants would be responsible for trade. Each caste had its own duty. Its only western interpretations of this which assumed that priests were the highest caste.

Besides, you are forgetting that the caste system was originally non-heriditary. It was based on merit, which would be similar in some ways to modern society. Only later did it become rigid.

Wikipedia:

Fa Hien a Buddhist pilgrim from China visited India around 400 AD. "Only the lot of the Chandals he found unenviable; outcastes by reason of their degrading work as disposers of dead, they were universally shunned... But no other section of the population were notably disadvantaged, no other caste distinctions attracted comment from the Chinese pilgrim, and no oppressive caste 'system' drew forth his surprised censure."[27] Yet another Chinese pilgrim Hsuan Tsang's accounts (around 600 AD) indicate that the king of Sind region was of Sudra caste. In this period kings of Sudra and Brahmin origin were as common as those of Kshatriya varna and caste system was not wholly prohibitive and repressive.[28]



Sociologists have commented on the historical advantages offered by a rigid social structure, such as the caste system and its lack of usefulness in the modern world. Historically, the caste system offered several advantages to the population of the Indian subcontinent. While Caste is nowadays seen by instances that render it anachronistic, in its original form, the caste system served as an important instrument of order in a society where mutual consent rather than compulsion ruled;[30] where the ritual rights as well as the economic obligations of members of one caste or sub-caste were strictly circumscribed in relation to those of any other caste or sub-caste; where one was born into one's caste and retained one's station in society for life; where merit was inherited, where equality existed within the caste, but inter-caste relations were unequal and hierarchical. A well-defined system of mutual interdependence through a division of labour created security within a community.[30].[31] In addition, the division of labour on the basis of ethnicity allowed immigrants and foreigners to quickly integrate into their own caste niches.[32] The caste system played an influential role in shaping economic activities.[33] The caste system functioned much like medieval European guilds, ensuring the division of labour, providing for the training of apprentices and, in some cases, allowing manufacturers to achieve narrow specialisation. For instance, in certain regions, producing each variety of cloth was the speciality of a particular sub-caste. Also, philosophers argue that the majority of people would be comfortable in stratified endogamous groups, and have been in ancient times.[34] Membership in a particular caste, with its associated narrative, history and genealogy, would instill in its members a sense of group accomplishment and cultural pride. Such sentiments are routinely expressed by the Marathas, Rajputs, Iyers and Jats for instance.

and

The fluidity of the caste system was affected by the arrival of the British. Prior to that, the relative ranking of castes differed from one place to another.[42] The castes did not constitute a rigid description of the occupation or the social status of a group. Since the British society was divided by class, the British attempted to equate the Indian caste system to the class system. They saw caste as an indicator of occupation, social standing, and intellectual ability.[43] During the initial days of the British East India Company's rule, caste privileges and customs were encouraged,[44] but the British law courts disagreed with the discrimination against the lower castes. However, British policies of divide and rule as well as enumeration of the population into rigid categories during the 10 year census contributed towards the hardening of caste identities.[45]

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

And how would you explain other countries that run just fine as single units?? Perhaps we are not taking into account the divisive kinds of political ideas that our politiicans and political parties have floated - politics of identity based on ethnicity, on language, on a particular version of history.

Ethnically diverse countries run as single units? Could you provide some examples, not because I don't believe you, but because I'd like to study the similarities and differences between theirs and the Pakistani model?

The two examples that I think of as striking successes (of decentralization) are those of the US and India - India especially where similar social prejudices and divisive politics exist and inter-ethnic hostility has been subdued through greater State control over governance of their affairs.

In Pakistan I am not discounting the factor of divisive politics, but those politics worked because they had the ready made excuse of the Punjabi establishment running everything and doing nothing for anyone else.

As I said, the idea of running a huge country like Pakistan primarily through a central government is a flawed one anyway, because of the inherent inefficiencies of such a system. Add in divisive politics, vested interests, and the inefficiency and failures of the system become a conduit for channeling the misplaced criticism of peoples at whoever is perceived to be benefiting.

However, I am not suggesting that decentralization is the one and only solution we need - I think it is one of the more pressing ones, since the cat is out of the bag when it comes to divisive politics and polarization taking place. It is time now for damage control, and without provincial autonomy the political atmosphere may not allow for movement on a host of other extremely pressing issues.

 

[muse]

Agnostic

We have a prime example next door - Iran, and of course Turkiye and of course our brother neighbor China.

I think we have very different ideas of single unit -- A Pakistan in which local government democracy is in place does not need provincial governments that mimick the central govermnment.

District government does not have to be thought of as any less democractic, in fact it is more democratic, more immediate. I think some further consideration ought to be given to this idea. After all, centralized need not be box that we already know, we have have decentralized and still a focued, directed, conscious and responsive governance.

Look, lets please not sacrifice experience for ideology -- is it preferable to have ethnicstans? Why then Pak - istan?

Please recall in the US states that decided that their version of history, their vision of their "seperateness" were dealt with resolve. US states were never configured to express their "seperateness" their own langauge, their own identity seperate from the country.

To some India government organization seems valhala - these needs their heads examined. It is but a cesspool of special privelage, of expediency. For Gos sake there is a reason for the naxalite movement, there is a reason why communalism and caste refuse to die there -- and that reason is understanding democracy as majoritarism - a vice, if there were such a thing as a vice.

We have a very different notion of damage control, whereas you argue a more permissive regime (if I have mischaracterized, my apologies) wher as I should like to see action to assert with vigour the sole exclusive authority of the state as was exerted in the reconstitution of the US.

See, if you give into such politics, be ready to give them everything -- and if such a situation should come abot then Zy vision is preferable - because it offers order, authority and direction. Pakistanis hunger for these, they will, like children persist in their "demands" unless those "demands" are resisted with vigour and reason instead of demands becomes the order of the day.

 

[Logic note]

Ethnically diverse countries run as single units? Could you provide some examples, not because I don't believe you, but because I'd like to study the similarities and differences between theirs and the Pakistani model?.

India is a good example ..
however the factor which keeps this unity in diversity is the ideology which is based on ethics

The two examples that I think of as striking successes (of decentralization) are those of the US and India - India especially where similar social prejudices and divisive politics exist and inter-ethnic hostility has been subdued through greater State control over governance of their affairs.

Social prejudices and divisive politics is an integral part of insecure individual human psyche but state (Power of Society ) shall tame it whenever necessary . but the important thing is that Power shall be used to tame Negative tendencies only .

In Pakistan I am not discounting the factor of divisive politics, but those politics worked because they had the ready made excuse of the Punjabi establishment running everything and doing nothing for anyone else.

As I said, the idea of running a huge country like Pakistan primarily through a central government is a flawed one anyway, because of the inherent inefficiencies of such a system. Add in divisive politics, vested interests, and the inefficiency and failures of the system become a conduit for channeling the misplaced criticism of peoples at whoever is perceived to be benefiting.

The reason of failure of governing systems in Pakistan is because of its inability to accept and respect diversity (diversity of opinions,ideology, language, culture), as you could see in Bangladesh incident .
However This lack of respect for diversity was the main reason and essence of origin of Pakistan ( diversity of religion and faith) .

However, I am not suggesting that decentralization is the one and only solution we need - I think it is one of the more pressing ones, since the cat is out of the bag when it comes to divisive politics and polarization taking place. It is time now for damage control, and without provincial autonomy the political atmosphere may not allow for movement on a host of other extremely pressing issues.

decentralization shall have a limit (till it is controlled ). but the most important point is who is at the helm (the centralised system). I am not talking about individuals but ideology .
unfortunately what Pakistan lacked was its leadership.
Leadership in Pakistan lacked courage to criticise and question itself and hence they were intellectually not capable of providing a direction .

 

[Flintlock]

Agnostic

We have a prime example next door - Iran, and of course Turkiye and of course our brother neighbor China.

I think we have very different ideas of single unit -- A Pakistan in which local government democracy is in place does not need provincial governments that mimick the central govermnment.

District government does not have to be thought of as any less democractic, in fact it is more democratic, more immediate. I think some further consideration ought to be given to this idea. After all, centralized need not be box that we already know, we have have decentralized and still a focued, directed, conscious and responsive governance.

Look, lets please not sacrifice experience for ideology -- is it preferable to have ethnicstans? Why then Pak - istan?

Please recall in the US states that decided that their version of history, their vision of their "seperateness" were dealt with resolve. US states were never configured to express their "seperateness" their own langauge, their own identity seperate from the country.

To some India government organization seems valhala - these needs their heads examined. It is but a cesspool of special privelage, of expediency. For Gos sake there is a reason for the naxalite movement, there is a reason why communalism and caste refuse to die there -- and that reason is understanding democracy as majoritarism - a vice, if there were such a thing as a vice.

We have a very different notion of damage control, whereas you argue a more permissive regime (if I have mischaracterized, my apologies) wher as I should like to see action to assert with vigour the sole exclusive authority of the state as was exerted in the reconstitution of the US.

See, if you give into such politics, be ready to give them everything -- and if such a situation should come abot then Zy vision is preferable - because it offers order, authority and direction. Pakistanis hunger for these, they will, like children persist in their "demands" unless those "demands" are resisted with vigour and reason instead of demands becomes the order of the day.

China is not, firstly, a multi-ethnic society. its a society where the majority (>90% Han Chinese), assert their ideas and culture over the minority.

However, in multi-ethnic societies, there is a limit to what you can achieve with an iron-hand.

There are such things as local problems and local solutions. If you want order and authority, you have to paint all people with the same brush, like in China, or Iran.

Sure, you may consider it a lot less messy, and it would put an end to the 'childish' demands of self-serving communities.
However, let me ask you, is it possible to rule Pakistan or India with central authority, with complete disregard for narrow demands, without large-scale violence and bloodshed.
Let me remind you of the lives lost in both the American Civil War, and the bloody history of Communist China.

 

[muse]

Flintlock

I think you mistaken - there are a number of distinct nationalities/ethnicities in China --

And I am not suggesting "iron hand" - I am suggesting a sense of direction, focus and resolve.

If not much is achieved by an iron hand what is achived by permissiveness such that we have a hobbesian world as we have in now in pakistan?

Once again, I should like ot steer your attention to the role of politicians and political parties and the particularly divisive politics they employ in the effort to squeeze out for themselves as much of the pie as possible.

This discussion is really about pakistan - India are of course to choose their own way.

I have commented on this self congratulatory attitude - which is great in India, but why must you lot heap it on us - you got it good, great for you - Pakiatan cannot settle for self congratulation in the face of evidence that does nt merit congratulations - can you understand?

 

[muse]

Logic

the example of bangladesh is misplaced - none of the provinces of Pakistan is suggesting that they as a "MAJORITY" is being disregarded in terms of culture or language.

This entire troble is because of the permissive attitude of a governance that is bankrupt in terms of ideas with regard to citizenship, with a vision of what Pakistani is, what it's role in the world is, what justice is and how it is to be achieved in Pakistan.

Pakistani governments have been entirely too conservative in terms of activism to promote a vision of the state and nation that the peoples can hold on to.

The entire battle is about a piece of the pie - royalties from dams and water for NWFP, Royalties from oil gas and transit for Palouchistan, Sindh ants a share of the coal in Thar -- Where the hell is Pakistan in all this?? What kind of citizen is this?? Is this even a citizen?? of where??

What happened to we are all PAKISTANI -- is it any wonder why pakistanis love the fauj? At least they remember they are Pakistanis first.

 

[Flintlock]

Flintlock

I think you mistaken - there are a number of distinct nationalities/ethnicities in China --

And I am not suggesting "iron hand" - I am suggesting a sense of direction, focus and resolve.

If not much is achieved by an iron hand what is achived by permissiveness such that we have a hobbesian world as we have in now in pakistan?

Once again, I should like ot steer your attention to the role of politicians and political parties and the particularly divisive politics they employ in the effort to squeeze out for themselves as much of the pie as possible.

This discussion is really about pakistan - India are of course to choose their own way.

I have commented on this self congratulatory attitude - which is great in India, but why must you lot heap it on us - you got it good, great for you - Pakiatan cannot settle for self congratulation in the face of evidence that does nt merit congratulations - can you understand?

Wikipedia:

The People's Republic of China (PRC) officially recognizes 56 distinct ethnic groups, the largest of which are Han, who constitute about 91.9% of the total population. Ethnic minorities constitute 8.1% or 107.1 million of China's population.

I do agree that a country should have a sense of direction.
The question is: How do you forge a consensus over what direction the country should take.
Who should be the "iron hand"?

I do understand the concept of identity politics, but tell me, what other choice do we have? How do we keep the country together if we don't make citizens feel that their interests are represented? What other choice do we have apart from forcing people to accede - i.e. an Iron Hand?

As far as you last para is concerned, what exactly are you suggesting? Are you suggesting that as an Indian, I stop commenting on this thread, or are you suggesting that I stop recommending the "Indian way"?

 

[muse]

Logic

the example of bangladesh is misplaced - none of the provinces of Pakistan is suggesting that they as a "MAJORITY" is being disregarded in terms of culture or language.

This entire troble is because of the permissive attitude of a governance that is bankrupt in terms of ideas with regard to citizenship, with a vision of what Pakistani is, what it's role in the world is, what justice is and how it is to be achieved in Pakistan.

Pakistani governments have been entirely too conservative in terms of activism to promote a vision of the state and nation that the peoples can hold on to.

The entire battle is about a piece of the pie - royalties from dams and water for NWFP, Royalties from oil gas and transit for Palouchistan, Sindh ants a share of the coal in Thar -- Where the hell is Pakistan in all this?? What kind of citizen is this?? Is this even a citizen?? of where??

What happened to we are all PAKISTANI -- is it any wonder why pakistanis love the fauj? At least they remember they are Pakistanis first.