Is Pakistani principally a race or ideology?

[B.K.N]

Desi

Des or desh means country or mulk in Hindi so Desi means something native to your country this word is used in the meaning of native like here in Pakistan home made sharab is called Desi sharab guns made in fata are called Desi guns etc
so our des is Pakistan and something native to Pakistan would be Desi for us and something native to India would be Desi for you

 

[Dubious]

So I was having this discussion in my family, and the topic came up.

To give you a background, I am from the USA and we have a large Pakistani origin population which neither speak any Pakistani tongues, know about our history, care about Pakistani politics, nor self-identify as Pakistani.

So would such persons be identified as Pakistani even if they want nothing to do with Pakistan, and choose instead either to identify only as Muslims or only as Americans (Canadians, Australians, British, Europeans etc.)

Although the concept of a (Muslim) homeland along the Indus/Sindh River is a much older concept, Pakistan was first conceived by our founders as a place where Muslims/Non-Muslims of our region can live in peace, practice our faith, and work on achieving a model nation which promotes equality, freedom, and brotherhood for all its citizens.

The two nation theory and the movement for Pakistan were definitely ideologies and one had to ascribe to them to be part of the Pakistan movement.

After independence, Pakistan and Pakistanis began being treated as an ethnic and racial group by Non-Muslim countries. For example the hateful epithet ‘Paaki’ is racial in design, and not at all ideological.

Sometime after 2000s, Pakistanis, esp in America, began to distance themselves from their country of origin and ascribe to the term ‘Desi,’ whose meaning was changed to incorporate Indians and Bengalis. Desi originally is a term only for Pakistanis (Des, Pardes) or Pakistani products (Desi egg, ghee, chickens, etc.)

So we have a whole generation of descendants of Pakistanis in the diaspora who have no connection or desire to associate with Pakistan. They grew up intentionally avoiding Pakistani languages, Pakistani immigrants (besides relatives,) many have intermarried with people of Non-Pakistani origin, and they have no concept of the history/struggle/politics of the Pakistani homeland.

There is no doubt that Pakistani is now a robust and strong nationality, which has gained a new lease on life thanks to PTI and Pakistani military, however besides this the question needs to be asked.

Is Pakistani a racial, ethnic identity or is it an ideological choice?

For those who do not care for Pakistan (new generation of the diaspora) and those who actively fight against our state (like Husain Haqqani, Altaf Hussain, Rehman Khan, etc.,) are they Pakistanis?

I never really understood how parents forgot to imprint their homeland into their children...

I was raised abroad but because we had Pakistani passport it was always in our minds we would go back so we stuck to our identity despite being abroad for abt 30 yrs...

Also my dad's passion for the country, the annual trips back for vacation made the connection. ..and the language was spoken at home though we siblings speak English and other languages among ourselves...

 

[fitpOsitive]

So I was having this discussion in my family, and the topic came up.

To give you a background, I am from the USA and we have a large Pakistani origin population which neither speak any Pakistani tongues, know about our history, care about Pakistani politics, nor self-identify as Pakistani.

So would such persons be identified as Pakistani even if they want nothing to do with Pakistan, and choose instead either to identify only as Muslims or only as Americans (Canadians, Australians, British, Europeans etc.)

Although the concept of a (Muslim) homeland along the Indus/Sindh River is a much older concept, Pakistan was first conceived by our founders as a place where Muslims/Non-Muslims of our region can live in peace, practice our faith, and work on achieving a model nation which promotes equality, freedom, and brotherhood for all its citizens.

The two nation theory and the movement for Pakistan were definitely ideologies and one had to ascribe to them to be part of the Pakistan movement.

After independence, Pakistan and Pakistanis began being treated as an ethnic and racial group by Non-Muslim countries. For example the hateful epithet ‘Paaki’ is racial in design, and not at all ideological.

Sometime after 2000s, Pakistanis, esp in America, began to distance themselves from their country of origin and ascribe to the term ‘Desi,’ whose meaning was changed to incorporate Indians and Bengalis. Desi originally is a term only for Pakistanis (Des, Pardes) or Pakistani products (Desi egg, ghee, chickens, etc.)

So we have a whole generation of descendants of Pakistanis in the diaspora who have no connection or desire to associate with Pakistan. They grew up intentionally avoiding Pakistani languages, Pakistani immigrants (besides relatives,) many have intermarried with people of Non-Pakistani origin, and they have no concept of the history/struggle/politics of the Pakistani homeland.

There is no doubt that Pakistani is now a robust and strong nationality, which has gained a new lease on life thanks to PTI and Pakistani military, however besides this the question needs to be asked.

Is Pakistani a racial, ethnic identity or is it an ideological choice?

For those who do not care for Pakistan (new generation of the diaspora) and those who actively fight against our state (like Husain Haqqani, Altaf Hussain, Rehman Khan, etc.,) are they Pakistanis?

Pakistan is a project, Jo keh delay ka shikar hogaya hai. We will complete it.

 

[Sheikh Rauf]

if we look at around world with different races living with mix society they still have some how linked with roots for example in Aus many whites european descendants and alot of em know which country their forefathers were.
even in USA they might dont know their dad but knows if they are german polish or irish so people who doesnt care about Pakistan or race they can hide but cant run away from roots.
our principle is Islam who brought us together but its not we gathered from nigeria,scandinavia, french or els where, we been living together from centuries, almost from the same area like in arab all arabs are not indigenous they speak same language but there are baloch punjabi hydrabadi(indian) irani african we muslims had bigger land to move around but now we select smaller place to stick together and follow islam.

 

[paritosh]

Indeed, hence why I used proportional %age which showcased that these overlapping ethnic groups are but a drop in the ocean of the Indian population.


The boundaries of the "State of Punjab" was based solely on British Administration rather than ethnicity, language, heritage or culture. Himachal Pradesh is culturally closer to Tibet than it is to Punjab. Neither has Haryana been culturally or linguistically a part of Punjab. No doubt there are segments of these populations which would fit into the Indus cluster like the Jatts, but to include them in whole is simply far-fetched.

Himachal Pradesh shows the effect of the influence of both Tibet and Punjab. Culturally as well as in ethnicity of the population. The hill tribes and the people in the northern parts are closer to Tibetans while the people of the plains are closer to Punjabis. I will try and find a percentage split of Himachal to give you a sense of the punjabi population there.

I am not sure why you referred to the Mughals, romanticization of them is fairly recent and originates from Islamic nationalism that ignited in the late 1800s and was also introduced by Muhajirs.

You have been factoring only geographic proximity as a source of showing ethno-cultural overlap. While it is one of the largest determinants of population spread, immigration/emigration based on zones of influence should also be factored in. Hypothesis is this - if there is a centre of power favourable to a particular demogrpahic identity, it will swell up with people from that identity replacing any other group in that area. That's the reason why Hyderabad (Indian) has a very different ethnicity mix than the other south indian states for example.

Historically the Mughal power-base was in the Delhi region while modern-day Pakistan was usually left autonomous except for some major cities. The people usually saw the Mughals with neutrality and some with even hostility. With many autonomous polities breaking free as soon as they saw an opportunity (modern-day KPK, Sindh, Bahawalpur, Balochistan, etc...). We even had many folk heroes that fought the Mughals and are still revered to this day like Dulla Bhatti.

People of UP and Delhi are foreign to us. Even the partition-era refugees of these areas still identify themselves as Muhajir (migrant) and are seen that way by the natives. The ethnic-tensions in Sindh also highlights the divide.

I did not mean to bring political implications of the mughal rule into the discussion, my last post was not worded properly.

Claims made by British colonialists with inconclusive, vague and spineless evidence and then parroted by Rajput nationalists. Such claims have been largely dropped in the academic field.

Are you sure about that? Could you provide some proof for the dropping of the Rajput rule hypothesis? Aren't the Janjhuas and Kambojas on your side as well? (Bhatis/Bhuttos, etc.?)

Oh trust me, I have met these "Arab/Afghan Bengalis" and I have seen just how Afghan/Arabic they are. Majority of these self-claims are false, just as those of the Syeds/Qurayshis of Pakistan. Perhaps some of them did have Afghan/Arab ancestors, but I believe it has been diluted to irrelevance.

Diluted in about 300 years? I am not sure, I am quoting from memory, will believe you unless I find a better source to validate what I had posted earlier.

Oh ignorance is bliss, eh?
Sanskrit a language that was created in the lands of modern day Pakistan by the people that call themselves Pakistanis. Every heard of Taxila

How can you reconcile the concept of Pakistan with any of the stuff in your post? The language that was developed in the region that is modern Pakistan has no written record and is dead like it's Iranian cousins. The only known Sanskrit that is used and read around the world was developed in the Gangetic plains.
Let's assume that Sanskrit was created in Pakistan, do you then claim hindu/vedic ancestry? How can you be selective to only adopt the language the practitioners of dharmic religions used while disregarding everything else (including your genetic and cultural linkage to them and with the people from north west India)?

No, it's gold calling the dirt a piece of crap.

I am not going to get involved in name calling. I had quoted clearly what I had commented on, yet you for some reason thought I was not clear in my post. Don't know what got you riled up.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

I am pretty sure he is referring to the Shahis and the Chach Dynasty, which have been connected to the Rajputs by early British "ethnologists" on baseless grounds.

My reply was directed to that context, other than that, I do not doubt that there were many Rajput dynasties and polities that resided in the Indus Region.

Yes I know brother. I was just adding some context for those who do not know.

It’s such a sublime ideology that two thirds of the subcontinental Muslims have completely missed it!!! One third has voluntarily assumed the socioeconomic status of that lower than the Dalits, who carry portable toilets on their heads!!! Another third has ecstatically gone back to the absolute subjugation on the basis of the “Permanent Settlement” under the Hindu Raj!!! And, that too for the second time....

As for Pak, she’s on her usual course of fighting it out at all plausible Dunyavi fronts against the most of the known world....

The spirit of the Daulat and Amanat of Muhammad bin Qasim, Khilji and Dilli Sultanat, Ghaznavi, Ghori, Shah Wali Ullah, Ahmad Shah Abdali, Mughals, and Tipu Sultan continues today in the shape of Pakistan.

I never really understood how parents forgot to imprint their homeland into their children...

I was raised abroad but because we had Pakistani passport it was always in our minds we would go back so we stuck to our identity despite being abroad for abt 30 yrs...

Also my dad's passion for the country, the annual trips back for vacation made the connection. ..and the language was spoken at home though we siblings speak English and other languages among ourselves...

I also find it hard to relate to that, but then again there are many who chase the smoke of the life of this world, leaving behind mountains of gold.

Just as people leave Islam, so too do we find people leaving their Pakistani identity in the West for something inferior.

Alhamdulilah that we have been gifted with clairvoyance and a deep mission, to re-introduce to the world the true face of Islam and stand as a citadel of Islam on its border in the East.

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

I will try and find a percentage split of Himachal to give you a sense of the punjabi population there.

Beat you to it

Do forgive me, however, I fail to see the relevance of an Indian State that makes up 0.57% of the Indian population and has a 8.96% Punjabi population in this topic, the numbers are simply too insignificant.

You have been factoring only geographic proximity as a source of showing ethno-cultural overlap. While it is one of the largest determinants of population spread, immigration/emigration based on zones of influence should also be factored in. Hypothesis is this - if there is a centre of power favourable to a particular demogrpahic identity, it will swell up with people from that identity replacing any other group in that area. That's the reason why Hyderabad (Indian) has a very different ethnicity mix than the other south indian states for example.

I believe that is an overly-general outlook, such examples can be applied to any other country.

Are you sure about that? Could you provide some proof for the dropping of the Rajput rule hypothesis? Aren't the Janjhuas and Kambojas on your side as well? (Bhatis/Bhuttos, etc.?)

Burden of proof lies with the one who initially made the claims. If you can provide me substantial evidence, I can refute it.

Also, Janjuas never really had a ruling dynasty and through much of their existence; struggled with the more powerful Gakhar tribe. Kambojas are generally not considered Rajputs and are mentioned far before them.

How can you reconcile the concept of Pakistan with any of the stuff in your post? The language that was developed in the region that is modern Pakistan has no written record and is dead like it's Iranian cousins. The only known Sanskrit that is used and read around the world was developed in the Gangetic plains.

Vedic Sanskrit was developed in the Indus Region. Standard Sanskrit was developed by Panini who was a Gandharan, a people that inhabited the North West region of Pakistan.

Let's assume that Sanskrit was created in Pakistan, do you then claim hindu/vedic ancestry? How can you be selective to only adopt the language the practitioners of dharmic religions used while disregarding everything else (including your genetic and cultural linkage to them and with the people from north west India)?

You cannot equate Indus Vedism to Hinduism, they are distinct and even contradictory. Modern-day Hinduism developed in the Ganges Region and never became a dominant religion in the Indus Region due to cultural incompatibility.

For the brief period that Hinduism did reign in modern-day Pakistan was through forceful imposition.

Nor do we deny our link to parts of North West India (which make up a very minuscule %age of the Indian population).

 

[B.K.N]

Punjabi population in this topic

But Punjabi spoken in India and Pakistan is not same Indian Punjabi songs and films are in Urdu with few Punjabi words Indian Punjab is similar to Lahore division Sialkot etc rest of Punjab is different from Indian Punjab

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

But Punjabi spoken in India and Pakistan is not same Indian Punjabi songs and films are in Urdu with few Punjabi words Indian Punjab is similar to Lahore division Sialkot etc rest of Punjab is different from Indian Punjab

You are correct that they are different dialects, however it is still the same language.

 

[B.K.N]

You are correct that they are different dialects, however it is still the same language.

Different vocabulary different pronounciation different folk dances customs religion there are a lot of differences
like bhangra is common only in Indian Punjab and some north Eastern parts of Pakistani Punjab but we have a different folk dance called dharees similar to jhummar different singing style poetry etc

 

[Azadkashmir]

That's what you think... but the way street scene in Pakistan looks like, no one in the world would like to associate him /her self with Pakistan.
Only thing which is reason for Pakistan's existence and value is it's armed forces.

come to azad Kashmir brother we fix you one time you love us.

 

[xyxmt]

need a third option "State of mind"

Not a Pakistani, and not participating in this discussion, but wanted to point out that the quoted part of your post shows how desperate you guys have become in removing any trace of your association with your heritage.
'Desi' is by no means a Pakistani term, its origin is sanskrit and Indians were the first south asians to claim this term (right around the time the infamous 'dot busters' and other white hate groups had started attacking the 'Patels' in New Jersey in the 1950s and 60s). Please don't claim sanskrit as yours as well.

just like you are trying to delete Muslim history and effect of Muslims on India yet using same Muslim era language as yours with a different name and calling your dead soldiers Shaheeds.

 

[Mamluk]

Dude I have read enough, please quote the research that backs your hypothesis.

We can take this to private. It won't take me very long to convince you. It's academically well established.

You think our border was stopping any mixing from happening on your side? Eastern part of your country and north-west India are racially the same.

Not the same. It's part of North-South and West-East clines. Hope you understand what "cline" means.

also are you claiming that Pakistanis have hindu ancestry by any chance?

There's nothing called hindu ancestry. Ancestry depends on caste. As I said, upper caste originate in Pakistan (male lines).

 

[Shane]

You should add a third option - both.

Pakistan and Israel have something in common for being born out of an ideology in the name of religion and largely a homeland created for the majority of those who follow it.

It is an ideology beyond race and still too young in its creation to become equal to or at par with becoming a race in itself.

I see being a Pakistani as a race born out of an ideology but others may not see it for a lot of other reasons but the actual very basic and real one for me i.e. its still early days so lets call it for its inception; an ideology.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Pretty much unanimous that our members see Pakistan as an ideology before being a race/ethnicity.

Interesting results on PDF.