Is secularisation of Pakistan possible?

[ashokdeiva]

Your example is flawed.

It brings back visions of segregation-era US where black pupils cliqued together because blacks and whites saw each other as 'different'. Or when interracial couples felt singled out because they were viewed as 'different'.

The solution to people getting freaked out by headscarves is not to legitimize their xenophobia by outlawing the scarves; it is to educate them to disregard the headscarf -- the same way as they disregard the skin color -- and interact with the individual.

so mean to say that Black White Racial problems are no more. Still there are gangs in the US based on racial grounds and so is in other countries. The tolerance for other race is still not yet reaced. To reach that level atleast we are have to remove those differences that can be removed. Though a color of a man can not be changed atleast bring uniforminty in the way we speak and behave in the general public and make sure RELIGION sticks to your home or even to your prayer hall. No more of Religion in the streets. No more of its practices in your work place and study hall No Christianity No Hinduism, No Islam in public. Religion is a matter of private affires, let it remain so.

 

[Pakistanisage]

Pakistan is a Secular Country. There is no room in Pakistan for ignorant Maulvis and Mullahs.

 

[truthseer]

Pakistan is a Secular Country. There is no room in Pakistan for ignorant Maulvis and Mullahs.

Pakistan is an Islamic democracy, not a Satanist secular country

 

[regular]

Pakistan is a Secular Country. There is no room in Pakistan for ignorant Maulvis and Mullahs.

So thats why our great leader/hero Mumtaz Qadri beat the **** out of the secular leader Mr. Salman Taseer......

 

[Zarvan]

Pakistan is a Secular Country. There is no room in Pakistan for ignorant Maulvis and Mullahs.

Pakistan was never formed to be secular it was formed for Muslims so the implement Islamic Laws and sorry to Say so called Mullahs are the one who know the Islamic Law the most and they will have lead the Muslims most

 

[Subramanian]

No,Not possible.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Pakistan is an Islamic democracy, not a Satanist secular country

You can gauge for yourself how sound is your stand by watching who agrees and who disagrees with you. Would you live in a country ruled by those who agree with you?

 

[Developereo]

so mean to say that Black White Racial problems are no more. Still there are gangs in the US based on racial grounds and so is in other countries. The tolerance for other race is still not yet reaced.

The problem of intolerance is solved by teaching people to accept differences, not by denying their existence.

To reach that level atleast we are have to remove those differences that can be removed. Though a color of a man can not be changed atleast bring uniforminty in the way we speak and behave in the general public and make sure RELIGION sticks to your home or even to your prayer hall. No more of Religion in the streets. No more of its practices in your work place and study hall No Christianity No Hinduism, No Islam in public. Religion is a matter of private affires, let it remain so.

There is always a debate about how to achieve religious equality. The French want to hide everything; the Americans take a two-pronged approach: ban it in official places, but allow it in public places.

What is ironic is that tub-thumping secular France has more (Christian) religious holidays than the US or Australia.

 

[kumarkumar1867]

Hello secularism a very broad topic and there are many factors which may lead to it but since the to nation theory is also being discussed here so i first would comment on it.

First The Two Nation theory was not given by a mullah or a religious leader it was given by a normal man who was rather concerned with the state of Muslims than Islam and the reason was the state of common Muslims was miserable after the fall of Mughals and subsequent war of 1857 Muslims in general become very poor financially uneducated and had very less political power they left the British education as mullahs gave fatwas that British education was Haram.On the other hand the Hindus embraced education took British bureaucracy jobs had political power and British were happy with them too.

But Muslims were disillusioned that they will seize power again without being the part of system.It was therefore that Sir Syed realized that if someday the subcontinent became Independent there would be no one to protect the rights of Muslims and being a minority it was no way they could do so in united India.

Therefore he Advocated "British education" along with the Two Nation theory.The two nation theory was one of his ideas and not all of his ideas hence with his efforts despite of being labeled as a Kafir(Infidel) by mullahs of that time he was very successful and that of course was his biggest achievement and many of the people who latter joined AIML were educated in his Aligarh College.The two nation theory was one of the reason of AIML's popularity and subsequent success but was NOT the sole cause of Creation of Pakistan.

Pakistan was made by Jinnah who once said" I am an Indian first and Indian last" and was once biggest advocate of Hindu Muslim unity.But different reasons and the attitude of Nehru and Congress changed the course of things and views of Jinnah.

There were many events which led to this some of these were the Shud-Dhi movement by Aria Samaj (the campaign to forcibly convert Muslims to Hindus), Gandhi's statement urging Muslims to leave India and to migrate to Afghanistan during the Khilafat movement,Nehru Report,The use and advocacy of Hindi and instead of Urdu Jinnah's protest and Gandhi's reply"Urdu is a Quranic Language",Congress's treatment of Muslims when it came to power a nearly decade before Independence etc there are many other event too which led to separation.
So its not only the two Nation Theory that created Pakistan.

On topic Pakistan can be secular if present state of affairs continues the growing sectarianism which is effecting people no one is safe from it people are growing impatient over this and the people advocating secularism(actually rather questioning the absolute authority of religious mullahs) they have become more vocal and their numbers have grown significantly and so has their following.

And Pakistan has always been a society of diverse view actually its founders were all secular people who were opposed by the very mullahs who sided with Congress be it the Mujlis-e-Ahrar or Moududi Jamiat or Ulema-e-Hind all opposed Pakistan and even called Jinnah Infidel,and Pakistan, "NaPakistan" even the one Ahrar leader commented on the fall of Dhaka "Thank God we were not involved in the sin of making Pakistan" so the people who know these facts wonder how on earth these kind of mullahs decide that how this country and its constitution and dealing with the citizens should be. So its quite possible in future that Pakistan would may become a secular state.

Excellent post ! Thank You !!!
Sir Jinnah deserved to be our first PM, but power hungry congress leaders created all mess !!

 

[Indus Pakistan]

I think a secular state is the future for Pakistan and there is every reason to think it is possible. Clearly within the present time, no of course its not possible. Ever since the Objective Resolution was passed in 1949 the Pakistani state has invested in a certain direction and now we have 60 years of built in inertia. Its going to take time to alter course.

In so far as the argument that there is something within the Pakistani DNA that prevents us being a secular state, I would suggest that as entirely erronous.

Lot of Indian's jump at this as some proof that the whole idea of Pakistan was 'flawed' and that Pakistan is a 'artifical' state. They would argue that by advocating secularism your undoing the Two Nation Theory and that once you do that Pakistan becomes just a estranged appendix of India. Again I would disagree with such a notion, I think Bangladesh's existance pretty well blows that 'appendix' argument.

Further I would suggest the following:-

1. Pakistan is as 'artificial' as India is.

2. Pakistan came about because of a historical circumstances, itself brought about by set of various events and dynamics that existed then.

3. What existed before 1947 was as artifical ( if not more ) then what came after 1947. Those borders of the British Raj ( note I avoid the term Indian ) were defined by a external imperial power, the British. My forefathers and dare I say others from South Asia did not get a choice to be part of this Raj. The only reason for existance of the Raj was British greed.

4. Therefore the constituent parts of present day Pakistan ( the provinces Sindh, Punjab etc ) became part of the British Raj through historical circumstance in the 1850s and the historical circumstance of 1947 just undid them from the British Raj. At least there was some rationale for 1947 whereas the 1850s lacked any rationale and if there was any, it would be just plain 'greed'.

4. So the so called partition in 1947 was not breaking away of something that existed through history. The partition was just undoing of what a imperial power driven by greed had built up.

5. Those who today bring religion up all the time please do note the founder was not a Mullah but a secular, Western educated man fond of his Western clothing and lifestyle. He may have used religion as a political tool to get what he wanted, which was a better deal for the Muslims within united South Asia. Had Congress relented to his demands there would have been no Pakistan today.

6. I would suggest today that we have no choice but to accept secularism or else we are doomed.

I intend to address this issue in another thread sometime but for now I hope this 'opens' up some minds.

And finally Regular I notice you brought up the murder of Mr Taseer and seem to be treating that despicable excuse for a human, Mumtaz Qadri as a hero. You do of course realise that he murdered Mr Taseer in cold blood? You do of course realise that he broke the law? You do realise he would have taken a oath to protect and serve? Do you have any respect for the concept of law and order? Do you realise that when we as a society condone such behaviour we are moving towards anarchy? That would bring us to one step away from the animal kingdom?

Is that the Pakistan you want?

 

[Indus Pakistan]

And the reason I avoided the name 'India' in my previous post is because of the following flowchart.

Todays Pakistan, Indian Union, Bangladesh and part of Burma are divisable parts of a whole known as the British Raj. It was the British Raj that was carved up to make Pakistan, Indian Union etc.

By using the term British Indian Raj you create the impression that Pakistan was carved out of that beast called Indian Union that dwells east of us today. That is a legal fallacy. The dupe lies in the nomenclature .............. that is India.

Had India chosen another name this mix up would not have happened but because we have a political unit today called india it gets mixed up with the geographic term India.

 

[MilSpec]

5. Those who today bring religion up all the time please do note the founder was not a Mullah but a secular, Western educated man fond of his Western clothing and lifestyle. He may have used religion as a political tool to get what he wanted, which was a better deal for the Muslims within united South Asia. Had Congress relented to his demands there would have been no Pakistan today.

False,
The scope of cabinet mission was to
>Hold preparatory discussions with elected representatives of British India and the Indian states in order to secure agreement as to the method of framing the constitution.
>Set up a constitution body.
>Set up an Executive Council with the support of the main Indian parties.

Jinnah and muslim league plan to create a united dominion of India as a loose confederation of provinces. Central government would be empowered to run foreign affairs, defence and communications, while the rest of powers and responsibility would belong to the provinces, coordinated by groups.


Nehru and INC on the other hand were a centralist party with strong socialist influence and deemed that strong central power was necessary.

jinnah did not concede and wanted a separate state of pakistan? thats how pakistan was created. Jinnah wanted a conglomeration of provinces where power and responsibility rested with the Provinces of pakistan and a weak center. After jinnah's death, the day the army took power, his plans and visions for pakistan were thrown in the trash can. And pakistan became the strongest centralized power, to an extent that it barely cared for the distant half of its own country.

 

[Joe Shearer]

And the reason I avoided the name 'India' in my previous post is because of the following flowchart.

Todays Pakistan, Indian Union, Bangladesh and part of Burma are divisable parts of a whole known as the British Raj. It was the British Raj that was carved up to make Pakistan, Indian Union etc.

By using the term British Indian Raj you create the impression that Pakistan was carved out of that beast called Indian Union that dwells east of us today. That is a legal fallacy. The dupe lies in the nomenclature .............. that is India.

Had India chosen another name this mix up would not have happened but because we have a political unit today called india it gets mixed up with the geographic term India.

While I am very sympathetic to the arguments at #116, which was nothing short of brilliant, I must regretfully disagree with the pointless coda.

Please consult the bare act of the Indian Independence Act. It makes it clear that India is the British colony that was India, except the Dominion of Pakistan which was being carved out of it.

Please also do not take this as an isolated accident of nomenclature. Please consult the record of the proceedings during Pakistan's application for membership of the UN, so ably led by Sir Mohammed Zaffrullah Khan, whose proximity to Jinnah so infuriated the Palitistani lobby. It was made clear there, in spite of Zaffrullah Khan's eloquent pleadings, that the Dominion of India was the successor state and was entitled to automatic membership of the UN by dint of (British) India's membership. Pakistan, however, was not entitled to equal but to separate status, and would have to apply for membership afresh. Which is what happened.

None of that vitiates your post at #116 in the slightest. It makes delightful reading, and rings of authenticity in interpretation in every phrase, every word. It will not, however, be unfair to your arguments to suggest that there are elements of truth in #118, and the student of the history of those times would profit by reading both views.

I look forward to your future contributions.

 

[anathema]

So thats why our great leader/hero Mumtaz Qadri beat the **** out of the secular leader Mr. Salman Taseer......

wtf ?? seriously ? Qadri is a hero for you ?

 

[Omar1984]

Pakistan is a Secular Country. There is no room in Pakistan for ignorant Maulvis and Mullahs.

Pakistan is a diverse country. It will never be a secular country but we wont stop people from living their lives the way they want to unlike the governments in Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Pakistan is a moderate Islamic country like UAE, but it really depends where in Pakistan you go.