Neo-Indus nationalism does not work

[GHALIB]

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

Great article for some.

 

[Progressive1]

Our ultimate goal is secular and liberal, modern society in Pakistan , all national rhetorics are manufactured is some way or another , so we will also do bit of manufacturing even though it might not be 100 percent correct factually. Indus identity is one of it .

 

[Jackdaws]

In total agreement, if it had evolved peacefully, who knows the relationship could have been as the Quaid had wanted.

The question is why didn't it? What prompted Mountbatten to bring the date ahead by an entire year?

 

[AfrazulMandal]

An attempt to try and form a cohesive Pakistani identity solely on the basis of religion has already failed.

Bangladesh became independent because Hindus and atheists gained an upper hand in your east. Islam failing to unite the people was not Islam's fault. But the people's.

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

Very good post. Agreed.

Sad to see ethnic nationalists in your country too.

- An Indian

Pakistan has a national identity now, that's why Hindu and Christian soldiers have given their lives for this country, you saying that sacrifice means nothing, is disgraceful IMO.

Think about it. Would they have fought without pay? If not..what does it make them?

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Our ultimate goal is secular and liberal, modern society in Pakistan

Never going to happen in a state founded on Islamic principles and Muslim self-rule.

May as well merge with India if you want a secular society.

 

[AfrazulMandal]

Family, health, wealth, faith, success etc are all important.

Your obsession over death is what is causing you to be this myopic. Don't obsess over death. Plan for the end, be grateful for what you have and live life to the fullest.

No offense but that's exactly what an average Hindu here thinks.

Never going to happen in a state founded on Islamic principles and Muslim self-rule.

May as well merge with India if you want a secular society.

The problem with that is why not leave Islam in the first place. I hope the vast majority of Pakistanis don't think along similar lines.

Many here would still prefer for instance to become Hindus on condition that Pakistan remains.

But even then, personally I don't agree with the Partition of the subcontinent on religious lines. Had We United, we would have had a much greater say and United the people better under the banner if Islam.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

The folks like Taimur who most probably never left Pakistan or live some ethnic ghetto somewhere in the diaspora have not seen how Bengalis abroad curse Pakistanis man they dont understand even the "moulvi" type of Bengalis hate Pakistanis and Pakistan they will moan and make you feel like you massacare their fishing village in 1971, bursts the whole narrative that the folks in Pakistan had common with the former East Bengal, I dont blame folks like Taimur its the failure of the Govts from 1949 till now with the exception of Ayub Khan who promoted the IVC and Mughal past all lot in his Govt propaganda in the 60s after his stint it was all using religion and ethnic vote banks to keep the masses down and the crap we have now thankfully the thawing and the end of "petro arab oil" lottery" is drying up and more moderate voices from Turkey and Indonesia are draining the Muslim World from these petro Arabs. just need Turks need to rid that hot head Erdogan soon



You see before the wonderful Taimur calls me a Libtard or some coconut which I expect him to do the reason we need a coherent identity is we have to counter the Ganga trash and lies that our country is artfecial design or I have heard some Indians call us "British invention" crap like that if we want to make Pakistan away from the Gangas we need to look back get our own history or identity



You see what makes South Asia and the region that surrounds Afghanistan compared to West Asia and East Asia it was never homogenous and was invaded all the time with all types of folks moving and mixing in so this is why the Ganga Bhartis and their "Akhanand Bharat" is flawed issue is they got money to lobby,bully academics and media to blast their persepective while we all bicker about who we are and lose time

@Indus Pakistan @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

The ulema of British India were split for this very reason. His perspective lies at the core of the issue, and we cannot escape it.

This conversation needs to continue and we need to discuss this among ourselves. For all Pakistanis, secular, religious, nonreligious, minority, diaspora, we need to come to a united conclusion about this burning issue.

I say, let's listen to brother Taimur (totally religious mindset) and brother Indus Pakistan (completely secular nationalist mindset) and accept the middle ground. Pakistan is both a religious and ethnic nationalist state. Neither are wrong, both are correct.

Pakistan is what Pakistanis decide and make it for themselves.

However, we really don't need to be giving the Indian trolls here any ammunition to parrot their anti-Pakistanism nonsense.

Don't expect from him this dude wants to turn Pakistan into Syria under ISIS.He hates minorities and has advocated for the destruction of Pakistani culture and history because of Hindu/Buddhist heritage. I am actually wondering if he is even serious or a troll because he is almost too over the top with his fanaticism .
I seem to remember he doesn't know the difference between a museum and a temple with comments in support of the vandalism of ancient artifacts agreeing with the brilliant idea of scratching off the faces of ancient IVC relics and statues in Pakistani museums on the basis that idol worship is not allowed in Islam.
He even got butt hurt because Pakistani Hindus were allowed to celebrate their religion in their own country and implied all of them should be converted.

Don't insult our brother. He's a good guy and that thread he created about Rajputs, Jats, Gujjars was a great learning experience for many people. I appreciate it as I am also one of the groups he referred to.

He may have some different beliefs as a Salafi, but he's still our brother Muslim and we need to respect his view, even if we disagree.

Salafi does not equal Daesh, please stop furthering this nonsense.

No offense but that's exactly what an average Hindu here thinks.


The problem with that is why not leave Islam in the first place. I hope the vast majority of Pakistanis don't think along similar lines.

Many here would still prefer for instance to become Hindus on condition that Pakistan remains.

But even then, personally I don't agree with the Partition of the subcontinent on religious lines. Had We United, we would have had a much greater say and United the people better under the banner if Islam.

Yes, brother. We can respect the other opinion and yet still disagree as our ancestors did.

Wish the best for Indian Muslims. In sha Allah, may Allah swt bless you and give you victory.

 

[IbnAbdullah]

Salaam

From the discussion here it seems obvious that the points of views held have more to do with what people want Pakistan to be and not what it was 'meant to be'. When someone is saying they think Pakistan is this, they actually seem to mean they wish/hope Pakistan is this or that.

Cultural identities change with time.

How many people really think that the people who lived in the Indus Valley a thousand or two thousand years ago would feel affinity to modern Pakistanis?

Just imagine how different the identities of the inhabitants of the North American continent was a thousand years ago to now.

...

Question

Could some help me understand what it means when someone says they are Pakistani first and Muslim second or the opposite of it.

For instance if you say I am a Pakistani first and Muslim second, what does it mean to you. Does it mean that if you had to choose one and leave the other, you'd leave Islam to stay Pakistani?


..

 

[Rafi]

The question is why didn't it? What prompted Mountbatten to bring the date ahead by an entire year?

Because he was a piece of $hit.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Great article for some.

In fact, for all. It was astonishing to see names one normally associates with trash talk suddenly talking not just sense, but coming out with well-constructed good arguments. We then get the bar raised when serious brains like Indus Pakistan respond to it, in a calm, constructive opposition to the argument.

Let's not rock the boat.

I have a point of view, I think neither case is correct, and that there is a third alternative, but am scared to come out with it for fear of disturbing the logical flow and distracting the discussants.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Because he was a piece of $hit.

And responsible for the suffering, deaths of millions and shackling a whole region's freedom, Kashmir.

Pakistan itself is just a stepping-stone to the unified Muslim nation. Make no mistake, it's existence is temporary.

Arabia was the first stepping stone for the Muslim conquest, and yet does Arabia cease to exist? Did the Prophet force Arabs of different tribes to drop their identities or culture? They, more or less, still exist into the modern era.

Pakistan (IVC) will always live on in one form or another, just as it has always since the beginning. This is one of the first civilizations that has ever existed. As we excavate and research more about it, we will learn and see our commonalities with our ancestors.

Even as region giving birth to the re-invigorated destiny of the Muslim world, this place will always be our Arz e Pak. It is the inheritance of our ancestors, leaders, and scholars.

If we follow the hadith, we see our region referred to as Khorasaan (along with Afghanistan) and also Sindh (Indus region,) making us distinct from Al-Hind (Bharat,Hindustan, modern India.)

Let me quote for you an excerpt from Mehmet Âkif Ersoy's poem which is also Turkey's national anthem, İstiklal Marşı. This is the proper kind of religious nationalism which needs to be promoted in Pakistan.

View not the soil you tread on as mere earth - recognize it!
And think about the shroudless thousands who lie so nobly beneath you.
You're the glorious son of a martyr - take shame, grieve not your ancestors!
Unhand not, even when you're promised worlds, this heavenly homeland.

Who would not sacrifice their life for this paradise of a country?
Martyrs would burst forth should one simply squeeze the soil! Martyrs!
May God take my life, my loved ones, and all possessions from me if He will,
But let Him not deprive me of my one true homeland in the world.

Oh glorious God, the sole wish of my pain-stricken heart is that,
No heathen's hand should ever touch the bosom of my sacred mosques.
These adhans and their shahadah are the foundations of my religion,
And may their noble sound prevail thunderously across my eternal homeland.

For only then, shall my fatigued tombstone, if there is one, make sajdah a thousand times in ecstasy,
And tears of blood shall, oh Lord, spill out from my every wound,
And my lifeless body shall burst forth from the earth like an eternal spirit,
Perhaps only then, shall I peacefully ascend and at long last reach the heavens.

So ripple and wave like the bright dawning sky, oh thou glorious crescent,
So that our every last drop of blood may finally be blessed and worthy!
Neither you nor my kin shall ever be extinguished!
For freedom is the absolute right of my ever-free flag;
For independence is the absolute right of my God-worshipping nation!

@Hakikat ve Hikmet @OsmanAli98

 

[Progressive1]

Never going to happen in a state founded on Islamic principles and Muslim self-rule.

May as well merge with India if you want a secular society.

Vast majority of Pakistanis are native to land , they have enough cultural ,racial, socioeconomic links to land that they dont need any religion for their country's existence. Pakistan is country with largest concentration of its ethnicities in world by far, it doesnt need religion for its justification.
What i find funny is that people like you live in Western societies but want to enforce religion on Pakistan,

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Vast majority of Pakistanis are native to land , they have enough cultural ,racial, socioeconomic links to land that they dont need any religion for their country's existence. Pakistan is country with largest concentration of its ethnicities in world by far, it doesnt need religion for its justification.
What i find funny is that people like you live in Western societies but want to enforce religion on Pakistan,

Yet you assume I have never lived in Pakistan.

Vast majority of Pakistani people are extremely religious.

Or do you dodge Kalima signs, run from loud azaans, bearded topi men, and hijabis everywhere you go in Pakistan.

Maybe you go into hibernation during Ramazan, Chand Raat, Ashura, and Eid?

 

[M. Sarmad]

I have a point of view, I think neither case is correct, and that there is a third alternative, but am scared to come out with it for fear of disturbing the logical flow and distracting the discussants.

Please share your point of view; the third alternative. Many of us know that neither case is fully correct (or fully incorrect). Pakistani Nationalism is a very unique confusing historical phenomenon that's continuously evolving, in part, due to constantly changing geopolitical realities post 1947/1971/2001 etc, and maybe it is not yet possible to arrive at a single, comprehensive theory to explain what Pakistani Nationalism entails. During the struggle for independence, Pakistan meant different things for different people.. a trend that continues to this day. I believe how the British viewed the concept of/alternative Pakistan in the 1940s needs to be analyzed in more detail.

 

[Moon]

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

Pakistani identity is synonymous with Islam; it's one of the few nations in the world to have such a status. This makes us both strong and vulnerable.
Strong because Muslims will stand for this country because it ensures their right to remain a dominant socio-political entity.
Vulnerable because this affiliation with Islam means people can manipulate faith for their self enrichment, and severley devastate the country (for example TTP, ISIS, AQ, LeJ etc..).
Vulnerable again because Islam has been under constant attack ever since it's start; and a nation which stands with Islam will remain under attack.
Becoming a nation United under faith is no easy task, you'll have many enemies and no friends.

(Also that neo-Indus nationalism IMO is a farce, Indus valley civilization and those after it are our heritage, we're proud of it; but in no way does it dictate our present or our future).