What identity pakistan should have?

[MultaniGuy]

Bhai, we are proud Muslims...rest is secondary... ethnicities were created for diversity so that we could recognise each other and develop different characters ...otherwise the world would been boring and confusing we if all were the ditto copies of the each other

Exactly that is what the Glorious Qur'an says to us that Allah has divided us into nations and tribes so we may know one another.

Ofcourse we are proud Muslims. I never doubted that for a second!

 

[django]

Agreed with you bro. You are spot on. I apologize. I did not want to say I that I assumed you meant anything.

I think I misunderstood @django . My apologies.

We are children of Indus River Valley Civilization. Long live Pakistan. Pakistan Zindabad! Pakistan Paindabad!

@war&peace

.Kudos bro

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Exactly that is what the Glorious Qur'an says to us that Allah has divided us into nations and tribes so we may know one another.

Ofcourse we are proud Muslims. I never doubted that for a second!

Ma sha Allah, some good thoughts here brothers.

I hope this Hindutva troll gets banned ASAP.

 

[Great Brahmin]

That is very true. I have said many times over the years here on PDF and other places that the biggest problem Pakistan has is it failed to consolidate a solid identity in it's formative history. The problem was Nehru was there in India for over 17 years after independence to oversee a solid construction of the foundation of the state. As he caried the halo of having led India to independence he could push through the basic contours of your state. In Pakistan Jinnah died within months and as result Pakistan suffered from premature birth. The Muslim league left was full of contradictions spilling over from the politics of pre-partition Raj and these played out and we never saw a solid definition of the state - instead convenient on the moment ideas to perpetuate power became part of the Pakistan DNA. That is why we have that problem persist to this day.

He was not just a good guy handling new born democracy. He was the founder of India.

Pandit Nehru literally built India from the scratch, he founded Indian democracy, he founded Heavy industries for nation's development and he also gave us Gurudaspur region, founded many employment plans that still benefits India today. also avenged our humiliation by banging last British Viceroy's wife.

Jokes Aside, He was a true Indian and his contribution to Indian Nation is unmeasurable.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

he also gave us Gurudaspur region

Ferozepur and Gurdaspur were two Muslim majority areas cleared by mob violence and backed by the Indian military. Are you proud of that?

Shame on you.

 

[cringe master]

indians are famous for ethnocentrism, everything is an offshoot of vedic civilization, it seems. if tomorrow, you meet an alien, he will also be forcefully inducted into the indian ethos. ethno centrism, you see, they will start their fantasy league with mythical lands of mahabharata and will moke pakistani for using religion but only have mythical religion ram leela claims which no will take seriously , we wuz descendent of sun god niggervanshi and whatnot , ridiculous

 

[Great Brahmin]

Ferozepur and Gurdaspur were two Muslim majority areas cleared by mob violence and backed by the Indian military. Are you proud of that?

Shame on you.

We got it by Pandit nehru banging wife of last British Leader of Raj.

Don't know/care about others you are talking about.

 

[Aryan0395]

And they [British] gave us the legacy just like you guys. Had Britain not "Make british Raj" there would have been no India, Pakistan but lots of independant countries like the map of Europe.

And by the way Europe is far, far more racially, culturally integrated then India.

IMO, had britain not established British Raj, United India would be under the control of Marathas, Sikhs and Rajput.
Marathas in deccan and south, Sikhs in north, Rajputs in west and central and smaller nawabs in eastern spread in the bengal region which would later get assimilated by Marathas.
The reason I'm not including Mughals is because by the time British arrived, they were a declining power, constantly under attacks by Marathas and Sikhs, Although Rajputs has become vassals but seeing mughals decline they would also start campaigning against mughals.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

IMO, had britain not established British Raj, United India would be under the control of Marathas, Sikhs and Rajput.

You can wish anything but a objective 'alternative' history of South asia sans British -

• Sikh Kingdom taking up most of coterminous Pakistan or the Indus region.
• A kingdom or kingdoms centred on the Ganga
• A maratha empire in Deccan

South Asia, has twice the population of Europe and three times the diversity. Thus is analogous to Europe and as much as Europe is not a country neither is sub-continent of India. Over the timeline being united has been a exception rather than the norm. The normative has been like Europe - lots of kingdoms, lots of ethnic groups, lots of languages fighting and warring with each other. To give you example of the geography of sub-continent with Europe, if it is transposed on Europe, the northern bit hits Sweden, western France, eastern Georgia and southern bit on the tip of Africa in Libya.

Also the Sikh kingdom over the coterminous Pakistan would over the long term adopt a secular make because it would have had majority Muslims and a more inclusive kingdom would eventually fall apart unless it adopted a secular approach.

We got it by Pandit nehru banging wife of last British Leader of Raj.

Brutal but the truth.

 

[Aryan0395]

You can wish anything but a objective 'alternative' history of South asia sans British -

• Sikh Kingdom taking up most of coterminous Pakistan or the Indus region.
• A kingdom or kingdoms centred on the Ganga
• A maratha empire in Deccan

Just what i said. We both agree on broad parameters, im just discussing what actual picture would look like when compared to today's geography.

Also add rajputs in west, since they never got exterminated but lost their power when compared to Mughals, and with mughals depleting they would become bolder. Rajputs had no problems with Sikhs or Marathas.

Smaller kingdoms would be centered in the modern state of western UP, bihar and bengal. Possibly bengal would subsume other smaller kingdoms since it had the riches but would succumb to the ambitious and relentless marathas.
Modern day Pakistan didn't have many kings and most of its eastern territory was under control of sikhs and rajputs.

In the north sikh extended till hindu kush and controlled peshawar. Without any credible challenger they would remain in power.

Also the Sikh kingdom over the coterminous Pakistan would over the long term adopt a secular make because it would have had majority Muslims and a more inclusive kingdom would eventually fall apart unless it adopted a secular approach.

Sikhs did fight the mughals and afghans but there are no records of local populace being treated badly or withheld from practicing their faith. All this happened in 1820's. Peshawar and lahore were sikh strongholds and they were on the move to jalalabad after capturing khyber pass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hari_Singh_Nalwa

Same can be said about Rajputs, Rana kumbha of mewar captured malwa and gujarat from Sultans, yet populace was left untouched. Same happened when Rana Sangha defeated ibhrahim lodhi of delhi sultanate in 1518.

Marathas were no different either.

So yes, there kingdoms did follow a secular approach.

 

[django]

Sikhs did fight the mughals and afghans but there are no records of local populace being treated badly or withheld from practicing their faith. All this happened in 1820's. Peshawar and lahore were sikh strongholds and they were on the move to jalalabad after capturing khyber pass.

Sikhs did go right upto Khyber agency however they were unable to advance any further, they did on two occasions launch punitive expeditions into the tribal areas without any real success, I personally doubt they could have gone on any further than KPK.Kudos

 

[Aryan0395]

Sikhs did go right upto Khyber agency however they were unable to advance any further, they did on two occasions launch punitive expeditions into the tribal areas without any real success, I personally doubt they could have gone on any further than KPK.Kudos

Yes, thats coz battle of jamrud in 1837, Emir of Afghanistan Dost mohammad attacked peshawar to drive sikhs, who were in lahore for the wedding of Maharana Ranjit singh grandson's wedding. Battle resulted in death of Ranjit Singh's chief Hari singh nalwa's death but Peshawar still remained under Sikh control.
After that their attacks slowed in afghan. didnt progress further than khyber.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Don't know/care about others you are talking about.

So you don’t care about innocent civilians whom you massacred, evicted from their homes, and how you stole their lands.

This is why after 71 yrs, you are still having the Kashmir dispute.

Your hate filled fascist mindset will be the end of you.

IMO, had britain not established British Raj, United India would be under the control of Marathas, Sikhs and Rajput.
Marathas in deccan and south, Sikhs in north, Rajputs in west and central and smaller nawabs in eastern spread in the bengal region which would later get assimilated by Marathas.
The reason I'm not including Mughals is because by the time British arrived, they were a declining power, constantly under attacks by Marathas and Sikhs, Although Rajputs has become vassals but seeing mughals decline they would also start campaigning against mughals.

Stop making lies against my people. We were never vassals.

Also add rajputs in west, since they never got exterminated but lost their power when compared to Mughals, and with mughals depleting they would become bolder. Rajputs had no problems with Sikhs or Marathas.

You don’t know anything. Most Rajputs converted to Islam and were more loyal to Mughals than any other tribe.

Marathas attacked Anyone whom they could loot and plunder, Sikh, Muslim, and Hindus were equal victims to these vagabonds.

Sikh empire lasted a short time and was defeated by mainly Punjabi Muslims (many of which were Rajputs) and Pukhtoons.

 

[django]

Sikh empire lasted a short time and was defeated by mainly Punjabi Muslims (many of which were Rajputs) and Pukhtoons.

It was the British army that broke the backs of the Sikhs in the second Anglo-Sikh war.Kudos

Marathas attacked Anyone whom they could loot and plunder, Sikh, Muslim, and Hindus were equal victims to these vagabonds.

The Mararthas were never the same after the humiliation at Panipat.Kudos

 

[Aryan0395]

The Mararthas were never the same after the humiliation at Panipat.Kudos

The problem with marathas was that they allowed their victories to get in their heads.
In the run up to 3rd battle of panipat, they made many diplomatic blunders. Interfered in internal matters of rajputs which is why didnt get their support, and interfered with jats as well.
Sikhs were ready to support but marathas considered them as non entity in punjab matters so didnt take their help.

Because of this, the force of marathas that could have been much bigger than Abdali's got reduced to equal numbers. No problem, its just an advantage lost, not a disadvantage.

During the battle:-
They let the families of soldiers to accompany for visiting spiritual places. this meant an army of 45000 soldiers was also carrying 100,000 non combatants and was responsible not only to fight the enemy but also to protect them.
Thats the big blunder. They could have survived the battle and retreated to their other stronghold and regroup later but the non combatants held them back.