I think the title is fairly self-explanatory. But you may be asking, what do I mean by neo-Indus nationalism?
By neo-Indus nationalism, I am referring to the (relatively) modern sub-ideology of Pakistani nationalism, which postulates that rather than Pakistan being made as a homeland for the Muslims of British India, Pakistan was in fact made for the people of the Indus. As a result, the individuals who subscribe to this school of thought (i.e many of the members on this forum) tend to view history in the prism of "the Indus vs everyone else".
I consider this thought-process to be problematic for the following reasons, which I will elaborate on:
1. Pakistan was not founded as a nation for the people of the Indus
This is by far the biggest contradiction to neo-Indus nationalism. Pakistan itself was always envisioned as a nation for the Muslims of British India, rather than as a distinct nation for the people of the Indus. Muhammad Ali Jinnah and others always spoke about how Muslims from British India were a different community to the rest, but never did Pakistan's founding fathers mention that the people of the Indus were different to the rest of British India on the sole basis of them being from the Indus. If Pakistan were founded as a nation for the people of the Indus first and foremost, then why does the two-nation theory speak about Muslims vis a vis the rest of British India rather than the people of the Indus? Why did so many Muslims from beyond the Indus migrate to Pakistan during partition? Why was Bangladesh made a part of Pakistan? Why was the Punjab divided? Why is it that Muhammad Bin Qasim, and not the Indus Priest King is viewed as the metaphorical first Pakistani?
I will leave you with this speech from Muhammad Ali Jinnah:
"It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, litterateurs. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspect on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state."
2. The Muslims of the Indus region are, broadly speaking, similar to those inhabiting the rest of the north of the sub-continent
I think the point itself is fairly self-explanatory. The reason why I say this is because I find it pretty undeniable. Most Muslims from both the Indus and the rest of the north of the sub-continent speak Urdu (and used to speak Farsi), have minor amounts of ancestry from people who came to the region during the Islamic rule over it, wear topis, wear headscarves, grow long beards, pray in Arabic, identify primarily with their religion, follow similar social rules (i.e doing what is halal and avoiding what is haram), keep many of the same tribes/clans, share similar heroes, look fairly similar, keep similar names, etc. Again, this is proven by the fact that many Muslims from the north of the sub-continent that came from beyond the Indus migrated to it during the partition of British India. Not only that, but throughout most of history, the Indus region has been considered no more distinct from the rest of the north of the sub-continent than any other part of it (other than the fact that it was considered the gateway to the rest of it).
3. Neo-Indus nationalism reeks of ethnic pride
My problem with ethnic pride is the fact that it is just plain silly. Why would you take pride in something you had no choice in being? Just because it's inherited doesn't make it any less ridiculous, can you imagine people saying they're proud to be blue-eyed? Or proud to be a ginger? Or proud to be 5'10? It's silly, and even more silly when one considers that all of humanity shares a common origin and that we are all almost identical on a biological level.
Conclusion:
I think this attempt to try and form a cohesive Pakistani identity without involving Islam has utterly failed. I will soon make a follow-up thread justifying my position that being a proud Pakistani must entail one's appreciation for Islamic principles and values as well as Muslim history (especially from what was once British India).
@Indus Pakistan @Indus Priest King @Samlee @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan @war&peace @Ahmad Sajjad Paracha @Ahmet Pasha @iqbal Ali
@newb3e @AfrazulMandal @M.R.9 @Kambojaric @Army research @Champion_Usmani @Clutch @Areesh @Zibago @django @Horus @Mentee @maximuswarrior @Imran Khan @Reichsmarschall @Talwar e Pakistan @RiazHaq @WebMaster @TMA @DESERT FIGHTER @Desert Fox @waz @Mugwop @Albatross @RealNapster @Dalit @Ocean @Starlord @hussain0216 @AZADPAKISTAN2009 @Azadkashmir @Taimoor Khan @Hassan Guy @UnitedPak @WAJsal @JohnWick
