Developereo
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2009
- Messages
- 14,093
- Reaction score
- 25
- Country
- Location
Yes, we would have demanded a lot of things. If could, we would even have demanded Korea & Japan. But would we have got them?
That was precisely my point: that focus on ethnicity as a definition of Pakistan was flawed.
You see, the point is that our country's creation was based on the idea that religion is a stronger identity that ethnicity.
Is that true?
I am not asking about for liberal ideals and integrative philosophies. I am asking about the facts on the ground. What is the reality?
The country's creation was based on the discrimination and injustices faced. If that discrimination had been based on ethnicity, you would have seen a separatist movement based on ethnicity -- plenty abound in the modern world. In this particular case, the basis of discrimination, and impetus for separation, was religious bigotry against Muslims (due to the invasions, etc.)
Is it true that religion is a stronger bond than ethnolinguistic identity? When you open your eyes, what is that you see?
For some people it is, not for others.
Muslims around the world hold on to their regional traditions along with Islam. Same thing for other religions.
You now sound like Maulana Azad. This is exactly what he said opposing the very creation of Pakistan. He said, exactly as you did, that we should all emphasize commalities and downplay differences. He argued that India's Muslims would continue to have their "cultural uniqueness" (your words) but that did not mean that they would not be as Indian as anyone else. Please see your fellow philosopher here:
Abul Kalam Azad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not at all. I would liken my view closer to Jinnah.
It is always advisable to seek resolution within before opting for separation. Since I was not alive at the time, I will take Jinnah's decision on faith that reconciliation was impossible and partition was the only option.
God forbid that anything should be a prerequiste for Pakistani Identity (perhaps with the exception of Islam). I am sure we can accomodate a lot of very diverse people (as long as they are Muslims).
But I am happy to see that we are now truly taking pride in the IVC and moving away from that childish notion that Bin Qasim was the First Pakistani. But when you say it does not define Pakistani identity, I am left a little confused: Then what does? What defines our Pakistani identity? Is it fuzzy logic? Swirling mists of Messianic hope? Could you be more specific?
Once again, I made it clear earlier that the progressive vision of Pakistan includes religious freedom for all, not just for Muslims.
As for your second part, Pakistani identity depends on swearing allegiance to the flag and being beholden to furthering Pakistan's interests as a nation. If a Caucasian Christian or a Han Buddhist migrated to Pakistan and accepted the above conditions, they would be just as Pakistani as anyone else. Any discrepancies in rights that exist are contrary to Jinnah's vision.
Is this not the liberal argument against the very creation of Pakistan? Isn't this what Dr. Najma Heptullah often says in her lectures. I think you may have found another soul-mate in Dr. Heptullah
I haven't heard of her, but I explained my position above wrt Maulana Azad v/s Jinnah.
(BTW, I admire her a lot)
If you admire (and presumably agree with) someone who questions the need for Pakistan's creation, then your loyalty as a Pakistani becomes compromised. By my definition above of Pakistaniat, you would not qualify, regardless of whatever passport you hold.