Do Pakistanis feel schadenfreude towards India's Minorities?

[Imam Bukhari]

This is not an explanation of why...........xxxxxx.........This is an antiquated, caveman-like thinking of allegiance, loyalty and nationhood.........xxxx...........If you want to see the full quote, you can trivially click the "original post" link that appears below this blue quote-window

If you look at the post to which you are responding (#173, linked below), you will see that someone has "thanked" me for clarifying that Pakistan is a really country based on the Indus-Valley Civilization. Just as Egypt is based on the Valley of the Nile and as North India is based on the Plains of the Ganges.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/centra...towards-indias-minorities-12.html#post3221120

Have you checked to see who thanked my original comment above? It seems to be someone called "atanz". Look him/her up. Look at his "flag" (whatever that implies). And look up his other posts. In fact, in this very thread, at first he was vehemently opposed to my ideas, but as soon as I mentioned the "Pakistan is IVC" theory, he gave me a thumbs-up as thanks. Check it out yourself.

Clearly, there seem to be a lot of differences in opinion amongst our countrymen on this forum about what Pakistan is and what it is not.

So are the opinions in your post just your personal views as an Individual? Or are these views shared by most of our fellow Pakistanis? Is the person (atanz or something) who thanked my post in the minority? Is he a fringe deviant? Is he an "antiquated caveman"? Is he a "racist"? Do you want to "kick him out" as well? Do you think this is what you want to go around saying to fellow Pakistanis like him?

And have you thought about going all over this forum and challenging all our Pakistani members when they talk about this "Pakistanis are the descendants of the Indus Valley Civilization People" theory? Have you vigorously opposed and fought this idea? Have you insisted that there is no such thing as a separate IVC culture and that we are all civilizationally & culturally Indian? Have you firmly argued that Pakistan was created by the Quaid as a separate homeland for all of India's Muslims, so all of us must be "Indian-Muslims", otherwise the Quaid would be wrong. Still further, since we are living in Pakistan, have you conveyed to everyone that we must be Indian-Muslim Pakistanis, otherwise the Quaid would be wrong.

If you have trouble building consensus and face problems with terminologies & definitions, have you ever thought of first creating a cogent, coherant list of terms & their definitions. Perhaps something like this:

1) In the United States (since you brought the US into your post), there are Indian-Americans (a.k.a Bobbleheads & Towelheads) and American-Indians (a.k.a. Geronimo & Haiwatha). And these are obviously two very different people and there is no confusion between them.

2) Similarly, in South Asia, can't we say that there Indian-Muslims and Muslim-Indians? The term "Indian-Muslims" applies to all the Muslims of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, just as the Quaid said. However, the term "Muslim-Indians" applies only to the Muslims living in India. And then there need be no confusion between them.

If we can all agree on this terminology, then we can show that the Quaid was not wrong. He did not lie, he was not a fool, and so his picture can continue to stay on our Currency. We are Indian-Muslims, but we are not Muslim-Indians-- see what I mean?

How about it? Would that work? Think about it. This would allow the Muhajirs to say, "We are indeed Indian-Muslims as our Quaid-i-Azam said, but we are not Muslim-Indians as they are the people living in India, whereas we live in Pakistan". Would that not help solve this persistent terminology crisis?

Of course, as a final note of caution, I hasten to add that you will still have to deal with the reactions of some of our countrymen who strongly hold on to that IVC culture theory. Will they accept your theory of "we are all Indians, except that we are Muslims, so we are Indian-Muslims, but we are not Muslim-Indians"? How do they feel about your insistence that they are also Indian-Muslims like you and that there is "no separate unique IVC culture"? Do they resent it? Do they resent you when you insist on it? Do they increasingly want to deport you back into the arms of Altaf Bhai when he shuttles between London & Dehli?

Why don't you check with that "atanz" fellow on how he feels about all this?

 

[Imam Bukhari]

@Pakistani Members.

Imam Bukhari is a false flag. You guys are wasting your time.

Does it really matter all that much?

Something has been said.

Either it is true or it is not true.

Either you agree with it, or you don't.

Either you wish to refute it, or you don't.

How does it matter as to who said it?

Aam Khao Bhai, Ped ka Mazhab na Poocho.

Yeh ped Murtad hay, main aam nahin khaounga
Yeh ped Ghaddar hay, main seb nahin Khaounga
Yeh ped Hindu hay, main chikoo nahin Khaounga
Yeh ped Munafiq hay, main kela nahin Khaounga

Bahut beyrehem hay yay duniya;
Main kitnay dino say Bhooka hoon,
fir bhi mujhe koyee Khana nahi deta....

 

[Bang Galore]

Keep in mind that this feeling goes both ways, it isn't far fetched to assume that some Indians may feel schadenfreude at the suffering of Pakistan's minorities. It's kind of like a "haha, our enemies are ****ed" attitude.or herself an Indian in any sense whatsoever. In any case, these were my views on the subject.

I think there is where things are slightly misunderstood. Indian feeling of schadenfreude does not show up in the sorry state of Pakistan's minorities for whom there is nothing but sympathy and also for the reason that Indian identity is not based on religion. The feeling shows up when Pakistan as a state & Pakistani muslims(including Ahmedis) go through a rough patch. Unlike for Pakistan, minorities in your country do not negate Indian identity & therefore their suffering elicits no feeling of schadenfreude. The majority does & therefore their suffering does sometimes elicit that feeling.

 

[Developereo]

Please see my earlier post about the fundamental difference between Pakistan and the United States. In fact, a little reflection should tell us that Pakistan is much more like France (not a country of immigrants) and nothing at all like the US (a country of immigrants).

Perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough.

Pakistan was created to be a safe haven of religious freedom for Muslims. The more progressive elements want(ed) to extend that freedom to other religions also. Whether that vision has materialized or been hijacked is a separate debate.

Pakistan's creation had NOTHING to do with ethnicity. If that were so, we would have demanded all of Punjab or Bengal or whatever. The ridiculous game of alphabet soup you mentioned, and which finds favor with some Pakistanis, falls flat because it left out the Bengalis, who were the largest ethnicity in the original Pakistan. Also, as you mentioned, it leaves out muhajirs and other groups. That, right there, tells us that it is useless as a definition of Pakistan.

Pakistan's national identity is not defined by an amalgam of ethnicities, but by the simple virtue of holding allegiance to the flag. This does not deny the ethnic groups their particular cultural uniqueness, but it demotes the concept from having any relevance to national identity.

The rationale is to shift the focus from emphasizing differences (ethnicity, genealogy, religion, sect) to commonalities (Pakistaniat).

As an aside, you mentioned the IVC; I vehemently agree that Pakistanis should rediscover and take pride in the IVC, but it does not define, nor is it a prerequisite for, Pakistani identity. It is but one element of the historical heritage of our country.

Unless, of course, you are planning to remove the Baloch, Sindhis and Pashtuns from their lands and ship them into special "Native People Reservations" and then allow massive immigration from elsewhere to replace them --- just as the United States did to the Native Americans in the biggest and most brutal land-grab in history. Is this the American vision you would like to promote to the Sindhis, Baloch & Pashtuns?

Large scale immigration is a major aspect of American (and Canadian, Australian, etc) landscape, but respect for migrants and minorities is a universal concept that applies to Pakistan as well. The American concept of national identity is based around the idea that people are judged by what they do, not who they are. It is that concept of equality regardless of physical or genealogical attributes that I want Pakistani society to adopt from America.

In any case, what you or I "would like to promote" is not the issue. The real issue is "what is the reality on the ground?". Have you done a referendum amongst the Baloch, Sindhis, Pashtuns etcetera? Do they agree with this American Model idea of yours when they hear of it? Or would they prefer the French Model? Did we ask anyone? Or are we just talking to ourselves because we are lonely?

You are right, and I alluded in my previous post, that ethnocentricity is alive in Pakistan. Like everything else, it gets stoked and exploited by power-hungry individuals in various groups, but the aim of progressive Pakistanis should be to move the country away from this mindset, as I explained above.

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

Imam Bukhari : Its annoying that you only pick few desired sentence from long posts of others and then give lecture on it. why don't quote whole posts?

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Pakistan always want to justify creation of Pakistan by highlighting communal riots as well as giving religious colors to every incident in India. While we Indians feel that Pakistan never succeeded in creating a national unity seeing the creation of Bangladesh, disowning of Biharis, daily killings in Karachi and widespread killings of Shias.

Wrong. Just like no human being needs to justify why it was born [ existance ] no country needs to justify it's existance and that would include India or Pakistan. If you do not understand this than that shows how pathetic your understanding is of the world around you.

Pakistani's highlight many negative things about India, communal riots is only one of many. This schadenfreude is evident in this thread and comes from both Indians and Pakistani's. This just exposes the underlying animosity between both countries.

Without any shred of doubt I would say many if not all Pak-Indian members here spend some time trawling for anything ugly about their neighbour. Many will even feign concern when they use that concern as cover for taking cheap shots at each other. Any bad news out of both countries will have threads sprouting like weeds full of 'concerned members' who will be there take satisfaction in others countries misfortune.

Pakistan as came into existance was in 1947 was a ambitious project well beyond the reach of the original espouser's of the idea of Pakistan. That is Pakistan as defined by the original architect Allama Iqbal of the idea of a Indus Valley State in 1930 or the Lahore Resolution 1940.

Conception of Pakistan 1930:

"I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single State. Self-government within the British Empire, or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India".

Allahabad Address - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Pakistan today [minus East Bengal] is the exact form of the template suggested above by Allama Iqbal centred on the Indus Valley as well as Chaudry Rehmat who coined the acronym 'P A K iS Tan from Punjab, Afghania [todays K-P] Kashmir, Sindh and Balochistan.


Lahore Resolution 1940:

"that geographically contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be constituted, with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary that the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority as in the North Western and Eastern Zones of (British) India should be grouped to constitute ‘independent states".


The Lahore Resolution

The Lahore Resolution represented the final compromise between competing forces with ML. Various groups [ as is the case with all politics ] pushed for their own agenda. The compromise was just a balance arrived at not neccassrily the correct decision based on realities.

Notice how the Resolution used plural 'states' as opposed to singular 'state' thereby pointing to at least two Muslim states. Only in the rush to 1947 various forces within ML managed the 'one state model'. There had been this continous tussle vying to gain the upper hand in ML policy between the 'one state model and two states model'. Please read :

"In year 1940 All India Muslim League called its full annual session at Lahore , where a sharp division of visions was vividly visible. Urdu-speaking Muslims of central India , proponents of a unified Muslim country, formed one faction; leaders of Muslim majority provinces, who advocated linguistic, cultural and ethnic preservation, formed the other. Emboldened by the results of the 1937 elections, the Muslim majority provinces held the upper hand, and proceeded to set forth their own, divergent aspirations

So in the name of Shiva can you guy's stop this endless garbage that possibly provides you guy's some imagined schadenfreude towards your arch enemy Pakistan.

Disowning Bihari's .... That is new? I believe you guy's have a state by that name full of overflowing humanity and poverty. Or is this referance to the Bihari's in Bangladesh? If it is let me make it clear to you. They left India to go to a Muslim country and last time I checked Bangladesh is a Muslim country. End of. When Punjabi's, Sindhi's etc elected to federate into Pakistan they never at any stage took on the responsibility of hosting migrant Bihari's.

The killings in Karachi are a unfortunate consequence of 1947. Too many migrants from India flocked into Sindh and in particular Karachi and within a decade they had drowned the local Sindhi's. Over time they got used to having a dominant role in a Sindhi city and now that their dominance is being threatened a low grade civil war is being fought. If any major Indian city was overtaken by another distant ethnic group the same results would follow.

The Shia killings are across Pakistan and are more a internal reflection of the wider Iranian-Saudi hostilitry being played out inside Pakistan. We have of course failed to handle this properly. This is a post Afghan Jihad against the Soviet Union phenomena. It is a conflict that is not ethnic or regional based.

*
As you take ample pleasure out of the hash we have made of things in Pakistan don't feel too smug. I need not remind you of the widespread Maoist Insurgency that runs rampant across dozen Indian states. How serious is that problem? Well ask your own Prime Minster Singh. Although it might have abated now but you of course do recall the Sikh Khalsa troubles in your East Punjab and the bloodbath that followed the murder of Rajiv Ghandi by his Sikh bodyguard.

Both India and Pakistan have plenty of warts on their faces. When you point ours out do please take time to stand in front of a mirror.

 

[Paan Singh]

then that's even worse because its not any productive

hatred/jealousy/insult are diseases of soul which hurt us more than others

it is productive sir..i see frustration

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

@ Topic. I think everyone should present their personal opinion instead of speaking for others. Let others speak how they feel . Its not good when we try to have gross generalization about others so bukhari speak how you feel and don't try to pretend as if you know the feelings of all Pakistani belong to different ethnicities

it is productive sir..i see frustration

how trying to make others frustrate is productive for sane indians like yourself

carry on if it give you some pleasure

 

[Paan Singh]

how trying to make others frustrate is productive for sane indians like yourself

carry on if it give you some pleasure

i was talkng abt your citizens here...i think u missed fun few days back

 

[Imam Bukhari]

Imam Bukhari : Its annoying that you only pick few desired sentence from long posts of others and then give lecture on it. why don't quote whole posts?

The whole post is available by simply clicking the link that appears under the reference quote that has been "truncated" for brevity. Anyone who does not know how to use it should contact the adminstrators for help.

Al Fitnah al Muhajiriyya: Zayn Lam Mim > Ha Jim Ra > Sin Lam Mim

 

[LaBong]

Perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough.

Pakistan was created to be a safe haven of religious freedom for Muslims. The more progressive elements want(ed) to extend that freedom to other religions also. Whether that vision has materialized or been hijacked is a separate debate.

Pakistan's creation had NOTHING to do with ethnicity. If that were so, we would have demanded all of Punjab or Bengal or whatever. The ridiculous game of alphabet soup you mentioned, and which finds favor with some Pakistanis, falls flat because it left out the Bengalis, who were the largest ethnicity in the original Pakistan. Also, as you mentioned, it leaves out muhajirs and other groups. That, right there, tells us that it is useless as a definition of Pakistan.

Pakistan's national identity is not defined by an amalgam of ethnicities, but by the simple virtue of holding allegiance to the flag. This does not deny the ethnic groups their particular cultural uniqueness, but it demotes the concept from having any relevance to national identity.

The rationale is to shift the focus from emphasizing differences (ethnicity, genealogy, religion, sect) to commonalities (Pakistaniat).

As an aside, you mentioned the IVC; I vehemently agree that Pakistanis should rediscover and take pride in the IVC, but it does not define, nor is it a prerequisite for, Pakistani identity. It is but one element of the historical heritage of our country.

Pakistan was created so that Muslim don't have to live under majority hindu, true, but as jinnexed girl pointed out earlier Muslims were already majority in North West, and they weren't concerned about majority like North Indian muslims.

Also the story behind the acronym I'd true, why bengal is not in that acronym, because bengal was never supposed to. Both Suharwardy and Fazlul Haq wanted an independent Bengal and as far as I remember jinnah agreed. However Calcutta riot changed everything and East Bengal became East Pakistan, that historical mistake will be corrected 30 years from creation of Pakistan.

Why full of punjab and bengal didn't join Pakistan, the answer is obvious, bengali Hindus and punjabi Hindus didn't see them feet in the ideology of Pakistan.

As far as IVC is concerned, I'd not argue who inherited it as it is now t possible to reason with something that is matter of faith for some people, however in my humble opinion, that this glorification of neolithic time civilization, and totally ommiting rest of thousands years of history, stems from a desire, a desire to be completely separate of anything that is Indian and in that process being confused of their own identity.

Not that I'm complaining.

 

[INDIAISM]

You are violating your own statement you made in post number 2.. Secularism is actually misunderstood on your side of the boarder and yes Pakistan is not a secular state and we don't claim it.. And FYI Islam gives full rights to minorities, so please be heard.



I am just stating other side of coin. don't take that earnestly.... Its a human nature after-all, right?

Are you trying to say a state based on religion oppresses minorities?

Problem is not wether Islam Gives full right ot not.....actual problem is wether you follow it or not....

To be frank no religion teach us to discrimate or for violence but people in world does both things and the real irony That in the name of religion...By twisting few belief...according to their advantage

 

[kumarkumar1867]

then that's even worse because its not any productive

hatred/jealousy/insult are diseases of soul which hurt us more than others

Yes its unproductive & worse act from Culprits from Indian side.

But honestly I feel if Pakistani PDF members stop bashing or defaming india or stops making anti-india propoganda threads all these culprits will dissappear within hours or atleast behave like sane posters.

But many Pakistani members love to make & read Anti-Indian threads & delude people like wise many Indian members love to counter their sources & educate people

 

[Developereo]

Pakistan was created so that Muslim don't have to live under majority hindu, true, but as jinnexed girl pointed out earlier Muslims were already majority in North West, and they weren't concerned about majority like North Indian muslims.

But, without partition, they would still be subject to a Hindu-dominated central government.

Also the story behind the acronym I'd true, why bengal is not in that acronym, because bengal was never supposed to. Both Suharwardy and Fazlul Haq wanted an independent Bengal and as far as I remember jinnah agreed. However Calcutta riot changed everything and East Bengal became East Pakistan, that historical mistake will be corrected 30 years from creation of Pakistan.

Two points.

First the acronyms referred to regions, not ethnicities. Even today, those provinces constitute Pakistan, but it is wrong to equate that with ethnicity.

Secondly, as much as it may have formed some people's vision of Pakistan at that time to differentiate it from the rest of British India, I disagree that it has any relevance today other than as a quaint acronym. It's all about looking forward, not back.

Why full of punjab and bengal didn't join Pakistan, the answer is obvious, bengali Hindus and punjabi Hindus didn't see them feet in the ideology of Pakistan.

Precisely my point. It was about freedom of religion (within those regions), not ethnicity per se.

As far as IVC is concerned, I'd not argue who inherited it as it is now t possible to reason with something that is matter of faith for some people, however in my humble opinion, that this glorification of neolithic time civilization, and totally ommiting rest of thousands years of history, stems from a desire, a desire to be completely separate of anything that is Indian and in that process being confused of their own identity.

You won't find too many people in Pakistan denying that we used to be Hindus in the past. Times change; it's over.

Not that I'm complaining.

Again, I am not interested in the past or might-have-beens.

It is what it is.
We move on.

 

[Imam Bukhari]

.......Pakistan's creation had NOTHING to do with ethnicity. If that were so, we would have demanded all of Punjab or Bengal or whatever.

Yes, we would have demanded a lot of things. If could, we would even have demanded Korea & Japan. But would we have got them?

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? Is it true that religion is a stronger bond than ethnolinguistic identity? When you open your eyes, what is that you see?

.......The ridiculous game of alphabet soup you mentioned, and which finds favor with some Pakistanis, falls flat because it left out the Bengalis, who were the largest ethnicity in the original Pakistan. Also, as you mentioned, it leaves out muhajirs and other groups. That, right there, tells us that it is useless as a definition of Pakistan.

I agree with you here. And I find this so interesting that I will be starting a new thread on this topic in a few days (when I have some free time).

.......Pakistan's national identity is not defined by an amalgam of ethnicities, but by the simple virtue of holding allegiance to the flag. This does not deny the ethnic groups their particular cultural uniqueness, but it demotes the concept from having any relevance to national identity.

The rationale is to shift the focus from emphasizing differences (ethnicity, genealogy, religion, sect) to commonalities......

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

.......As an aside, you mentioned the IVC; I vehemently agree that Pakistanis should rediscover and take pride in the IVC, but it does not define, nor is it a prerequisite for, Pakistani identity. It is but one element of the historical heritage of our country.....

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?

.......You are right, and I alluded in my previous post, that XXX is alive in YYY. Like everything else, it gets stoked and exploited by power-hungry individuals in various groups, but the aim of progressive ZZZ should be to move the country away from this mindset, as I explained above.

Let us say:

XXX= Communalism
YYY= (Unified) India
ZZZ= (Unified) Indians

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 (BTW, I admire her a lot)--

Najma Heptulla - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia