TheSolution
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2021
- Messages
- 7,530
- Reaction score
- 6
- Country
- Location
Why liberalism is actually the biggest threat Pakistan faces apart from insurgencies...
(liberals please read and give your opinions down below!)
Many may think that I am an Islamist of sorts, and assume I am writing this thread for fearmongering purposes, but hear me out
To understand why the above statement is true, we must look at the founding ideology of Pakistan, and the basis of its formation:
Two-nation theory is the founding ideology which paved the way for the establishment of Pakistan. In basic terms, it proposed that subcontinent India cannot be considered a single nation but rather two nations – the Muslims and the Hindus. This is due to the polar opposite values, way of life, and ideal societies which both religious groups demanded.
Where Muslims wanted to create a society allowing to prioritise their Islamic values such as modesty, celibacy, condemnation of queer ideology, promotion of the nuclear family structure, etc and were strictly against the idol worshipping of the Hindus. On the other hand, the Hindus wanted to create a polar opposite society which was largely individualistic and open - where they societally normalise premarital companionship, sexual liberation, queer ideology, propagate extreme narratives of feminism as seen today.
India - A copy of western culture with Hindu aesthetic and Indian local cultural touch.
Pakistan - Islamic influenced society with local cultural touch.
The first esssentially encompassing the values of modern day liberalism and standing against everything which the Muslims wanted to be discouraged from society as it goes against their Islamic principles.
This brings me back to my original point – if liberalism continues to spread in mass throughout society till the majority see such concepts of queer ideology, sexual liberation, radical feminism, individuality, anti-celibacy, anti-modesty, anti-nuclear family structure, as acceptable and something that should be normalised, then it negates the very foundation of Pakistan and the two-nation theory. It blurs the societal line which divided Pakistan and India, it removes the purpose of divisions when both societies seek to largely be shaped in the same way.
Some may use ethnicity as an argument to say only a minority of Indian Panjabis have a common ethnicity with Pakistan, hence that is valid enough - but you must remember India itself is incredibly diverse of many ethnicties and states, where many share cultural proximity regardless. Hence the line between India and Pakistan then becomes non-existent and serves no real purpose but rather hinders their overall national power.
There is no difference between Indian society and in the clip seen below:
If this is normalised in society - what really is the conflict with India for, what really is the purpose of forming Pakistan when you want the same thing? What's the difference?
Which brings me to the conclusion that widespread liberalism defeats the purpose of Pakistan.
And it actually promotes ethno-nationalism due to state ideology and national identity/conscious becoming weak – whereas the Indians have a centralised national identity based on cultural proximity as well as historical events!
This is something Pakistan has barely touched upon only briefly using M.A Jinnah and Allama Iqbal but hasn’t fostered a strong powerful centralised independent identity.
Which begs the question - what kind of society or civilisation is Pakistan trying to be? Is it just trying to be another India, which defeats it's purpose, or an actual Islamically influenced civilisation as its founder set it out to be?
@Sayfullah @_NOBODY_ @Rusty2 @epebble @Menace2Society @villageidiot
(liberals please read and give your opinions down below!)
Many may think that I am an Islamist of sorts, and assume I am writing this thread for fearmongering purposes, but hear me out
To understand why the above statement is true, we must look at the founding ideology of Pakistan, and the basis of its formation:
Two-nation theory is the founding ideology which paved the way for the establishment of Pakistan. In basic terms, it proposed that subcontinent India cannot be considered a single nation but rather two nations – the Muslims and the Hindus. This is due to the polar opposite values, way of life, and ideal societies which both religious groups demanded.
Where Muslims wanted to create a society allowing to prioritise their Islamic values such as modesty, celibacy, condemnation of queer ideology, promotion of the nuclear family structure, etc and were strictly against the idol worshipping of the Hindus. On the other hand, the Hindus wanted to create a polar opposite society which was largely individualistic and open - where they societally normalise premarital companionship, sexual liberation, queer ideology, propagate extreme narratives of feminism as seen today.
India - A copy of western culture with Hindu aesthetic and Indian local cultural touch.
Pakistan - Islamic influenced society with local cultural touch.
The first esssentially encompassing the values of modern day liberalism and standing against everything which the Muslims wanted to be discouraged from society as it goes against their Islamic principles.
This brings me back to my original point – if liberalism continues to spread in mass throughout society till the majority see such concepts of queer ideology, sexual liberation, radical feminism, individuality, anti-celibacy, anti-modesty, anti-nuclear family structure, as acceptable and something that should be normalised, then it negates the very foundation of Pakistan and the two-nation theory. It blurs the societal line which divided Pakistan and India, it removes the purpose of divisions when both societies seek to largely be shaped in the same way.
Some may use ethnicity as an argument to say only a minority of Indian Panjabis have a common ethnicity with Pakistan, hence that is valid enough - but you must remember India itself is incredibly diverse of many ethnicties and states, where many share cultural proximity regardless. Hence the line between India and Pakistan then becomes non-existent and serves no real purpose but rather hinders their overall national power.
There is no difference between Indian society and in the clip seen below:
If this is normalised in society - what really is the conflict with India for, what really is the purpose of forming Pakistan when you want the same thing? What's the difference?
Which brings me to the conclusion that widespread liberalism defeats the purpose of Pakistan.
And it actually promotes ethno-nationalism due to state ideology and national identity/conscious becoming weak – whereas the Indians have a centralised national identity based on cultural proximity as well as historical events!
This is something Pakistan has barely touched upon only briefly using M.A Jinnah and Allama Iqbal but hasn’t fostered a strong powerful centralised independent identity.
Which begs the question - what kind of society or civilisation is Pakistan trying to be? Is it just trying to be another India, which defeats it's purpose, or an actual Islamically influenced civilisation as its founder set it out to be?
@Sayfullah @_NOBODY_ @Rusty2 @epebble @Menace2Society @villageidiot
Last edited:
