What's new

New Defining Lines

Salik

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
1,918
Reaction score
2
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Previously posted incomplete that didn't convey the message and obviously was taken down. Trying again, including all the points and hopefully this time it will make a right sense.

The subject matter is that; since the creation of Pakistan there have been demands of implementation of Shariah Law on and off. This has been creating issues regarding law and order and social harmony. There are various schools of thoughts in Pakistan; if ever, entertaining any one group and leaving the others is not a right strategy. There has to be a solution any way.

So the idea is that; just like India made it's states based on linguistics, we in Pakistan can make different regions on the basis of different schools of thought.

For instance: we can give tribal areas and adjacent regions to Deobandi Hanafi school, Hazara and adjacent areas to Shia school, Karachi and adjacent areas to Barelvi school and capital territory with nearby areas to the current system i.e. Pakistan Penal Code, etc.

This proposal will have immediate effect on our judicial system and remove the burden from judiciary where millions of cases are pending. Secondly, it will kill the narrative of extremism and terrorism once and for all.
 
. .
Perfect recipe for weaponizing religion. Armed with that Pakistanis will be killing each other en masse.

A good alternative would be to divide Pakistan into 10-20 provinces. And not along ethnic, linguistic, religious lines.
 
. .
Perfect recipe for weaponizing religion. Armed with that Pakistanis will be killing each other en masse.

A good alternative would be to divide Pakistan into 10-20 provinces. And not along ethnic, linguistic, religious lines.

There were similar concerns when India was to be divided on linguistics lines:-

During the Indian independence freedom struggle, Indian National Congress had promised in the 1920s that India would be divided into different provinces based on linguistics. After independence, Congress was hesitant to carry out this promise as India was already divided based on religion and did not want to create more divisions based on language.

  • Both Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel were against the creation of states based on linguistics.
  • Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel wanted steps to be taken which would help in the growth of nationalism and rejected the steps which would prevent it.
  • People speaking Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam, and Marathi were disappointed with this development.
  • The strongest protest came from Telugu-speaking regions of Madras Province.
  • The entire Andhra region was engulfed in chaos when a veteran Gandhian named Potti Sriramulu died of a hunger strike.
  • Due to intense and widespread protest, the state government decided to create the new state of Andhra Pradesh on 1st October 1953.

States Reorganisation Commission – Division of States​

  • The State Reorganisation Commission was formed in 1953 and gave its report in 1955 to reorganise states into 16 states and 3 union territories. The Government divided the country into 14 states and 6 union territories under the State Reorganisation Act that was passed in November 1956.
  • As per this report, North India was divided into several states.
  • Kannada, Malayalam, Bengali, Tamil, Oriya, Bengali, and Assamese speakers provinces were created.
  • In 1960, Bombay was divided into Gujarati and Marathi-speaking states.
  • In 1966, Punjab was divided into Punjab and Haryana

And now it is a success story:-

There are more than 19,500 rationalized mother tongues – both classified and unclassified – spoken in India (PTI 2018), and multiculturalism and multilingualism is the heart of Indianness. Therefore, there is no national language in India, and Indians proudly celebrate the linguistic harmony among cultural diversity. Though Indians are overwhelmingly Hindu in religious affiliation or belief, yet India promotes the recognition, appreciation, celebration, and preservation of social difference.
 
.
There were similar concerns when India was to be divided on linguistics lines:-

During the Indian independence freedom struggle, Indian National Congress had promised in the 1920s that India would be divided into different provinces based on linguistics. After independence, Congress was hesitant to carry out this promise as India was already divided based on religion and did not want to create more divisions based on language.

  • Both Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel were against the creation of states based on linguistics.
  • Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel wanted steps to be taken which would help in the growth of nationalism and rejected the steps which would prevent it.
  • People speaking Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam, and Marathi were disappointed with this development.
  • The strongest protest came from Telugu-speaking regions of Madras Province.
  • The entire Andhra region was engulfed in chaos when a veteran Gandhian named Potti Sriramulu died of a hunger strike.
  • Due to intense and widespread protest, the state government decided to create the new state of Andhra Pradesh on 1st October 1953.

States Reorganisation Commission – Division of States​

  • The State Reorganisation Commission was formed in 1953 and gave its report in 1955 to reorganise states into 16 states and 3 union territories. The Government divided the country into 14 states and 6 union territories under the State Reorganisation Act that was passed in November 1956.
  • As per this report, North India was divided into several states.
  • Kannada, Malayalam, Bengali, Tamil, Oriya, Bengali, and Assamese speakers provinces were created.
  • In 1960, Bombay was divided into Gujarati and Marathi-speaking states.
  • In 1966, Punjab was divided into Punjab and Haryana

And now it is a success story:-

There are more than 19,500 rationalized mother tongues – both classified and unclassified – spoken in India (PTI 2018), and multiculturalism and multilingualism is the heart of Indianness. Therefore, there is no national language in India, and Indians proudly celebrate the linguistic harmony among cultural diversity. Though Indians are overwhelmingly Hindu in religious affiliation or belief, yet India promotes the recognition, appreciation, celebration, and preservation of social difference.
I don't think you can compare language-based division into states with sectarian states. People who speak different languages don't hate and try to conquer people who speak different languages. e.g., Canada has French Quebec and English in other provinces. We here in U.S. use Spanish almost as a second language. But see what happened in Ireland and Yugoslavia. If the difference between Northern Ireland and the Republic were only language, nobody would care. It would be like England and Wales.
 
.
That's a horribly sectarian idea and could cause much much worse problems than today. The solution to our problems is dissolving societal divisive lines, not solidifying them further. You don't want provincial sectarian wars...

If you want a stable state, then all it's many characteristics should be centralised and single between the population.

Religious schools of thought is comparatively the easiest one to do if you regulate what is being taught at religious madrassas and teaching institutions around the country. Make it a singular school of thought that isn't extremist in nature and about Khawarijs.

Mix that with a bit of national identity building and nationalism - and the extremism should drop. The key is a wider access to quality education, rather than stuffing kids into medrassas being taught by older extremists who haven't even been vetted.

But I think our leaders are too lazy to focus on what's needed, sociocultural level societal changes that have macro-level effects.

Perfect recipe for weaponizing religion. Armed with that Pakistanis will be killing each other en masse.

A good alternative would be to divide Pakistan into 10-20 provinces. And not along ethnic, linguistic, religious lines.
Yes, easier to manage administrative sections perhaps
 
Last edited:
.
Previously posted incomplete that didn't convey the message and obviously was taken down. Trying again, including all the points and hopefully this time it will make a right sense.

So the idea is that; just like India made it's states based on linguistics, we in Pakistan can make different regions on the basis of different schools of thought.
Nopes,
the governing factor is land reforms that india introduced right after partition,
whereas we have not done so since 75 years,
thus legitimizing and hyping the feudal way of life and power.

Careful analysis of history will show, that the idea of Pakistan was a Bengali invention,
the people of the western subcontinent jumped on that to gain land and resources.
thereby using religion, race, etc for political benefits.

The subject matter is that; since the creation of Pakistan there have been demands of implementation of Shariah Law on and off. This has been creating issues regarding law and order and social harmony. There are various schools of thoughts in Pakistan; if ever, entertaining any one group and leaving the others is not a right strategy. There has to be a solution any way.

NO, that is wrong,
Pakistan was never envisioned to be a religious state, it was to be a progressive state.
the whole idea and drama of Islamic state, was started AFTER Pakistan was created by Molvis,
who wanted a part in the power circles.

For instance: we can give tribal areas and adjacent regions to Deobandi Hanafi school, Hazara and adjacent areas to Shia school, Karachi and adjacent areas to Barelvi school and capital territory with nearby areas to the current system i.e. Pakistan Penal Code, etc.

and what tells you they wont further divide, or even get to each other's throats ?

This proposal will have immediate effect on our judicial system and remove the burden from judiciary where millions of cases are pending. Secondly, it will kill the narrative of extremism and terrorism once and for all.

Wrong, judicial pressure is due to inefficient government. a very large proportion of cases shouldn't even arise, if governance and record keeping is done right.
 
. .
I don't think you can compare language-based division into states with sectarian states. People who speak different languages don't hate and try to conquer people who speak different languages. e.g., Canada has French Quebec and English in other provinces. We here in U.S. use Spanish almost as a second language. But see what happened in Ireland and Yugoslavia. If the difference between Northern Ireland and the Republic were only language, nobody would care. It would be like England and Wales.

There were Urdu related riots in India. But there are no such riots anymore. Urdu isn't instinct in India.

The point is:

Supervising an ideology is superior than fighting an ideology. Pakistan should take a superlative position now.
 
.
You are inviting a second wave of religious war inside Pakistan. The first wave is not over yet and has taken the form of TTP, AQ and ISIS.

دودھ کا جلا چھاچھ بھی پھونک پھونک کر پیتا ہے

Please keep faith in Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali jinnah, when he says:

“We do not demand Pakistan simply to have a piece of land but we want a laboratory where we could experiment on Islamic principles.” Address at Islamia College Peshawar, 1946.

Important thing to note is the location of this address which is Islamia College Peshawar. Other addresses of Jinnah sahib on other places hint a more liberal approach. It indicates that different places of Pakistan would have different schools of thought implemented.

Lastly, Mian Muhammad Bakhsh has said that a Kafir khoji is better than a settled Muslim. We should keep exploring than staying in a so-called comfort zone.
 
.
People who speak different languages don't hate and try to conquer people who speak different languages

Currently PPC is the conqueror.

The Pakistan Penal Code (Urdu: مجموعہ تعزیرات پاکستان; Majmū'ah-yi ta'zīrāt-i Pākistān), abbreviated as PPC, is a penal code for all offences charged in Pakistan. It was originally prepared by Lord Macaulay with a great consultation in 1860 on the behalf of the Government of India as the Indian Penal Code.


Does it make sense?
 
.
دودھ کا جلا چھاچھ بھی پھونک پھونک کر پیتا ہے

Please keep faith in Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali jinnah, when he says:

“We do not demand Pakistan simply to have a piece of land but we want a laboratory where we could experiment on Islamic principles.” Address at Islamia College Peshawar, 1946.

Important thing to note is the location of this address which is Islamia College Peshawar. Other addresses of Jinnah sahib on other places hint a more liberal approach. It indicates that different places of Pakistan would have different schools of thought implemented.

Lastly, Mian Muhammad Bakhsh has said that a Kafir khoji is better than a settled Muslim. We should keep exploring than staying in a so-called comfort zone.
Religion cam be used not only as a tool but as a weapon, you know that right. This weapon can be disastrous in the wrong hands.

You can quote Jinnah or even hadiths or ayats, lets just not go there where human being loses control.
 
.
This idea shouldn't even be entertained at all

It's like this guy wants to purposefully set the grounds for religious civil wars by handing over entire areas to opposing school of thoughts, some as extremely different as Shiaism 🤡

Neither is it possible to implement Sharia Law in secluded parts of the country, it's a system that demands to spread itself. It will create TTP on steroids and make one section of society extreme
 
.
This idea shouldn't even be entertained at all

It's like this guy wants to purposefully set the grounds for religious civil wars by handing over entire areas to opposing school of thoughts, some as extremely different as Shiaism 🤡

Neither is it possible to implement Sharia Law in secluded parts of the country, it's a system that demands to spread itself. It will create TTP on steroids and make one section of society extreme

State and religion should be separated and it's correct course of action is that the religious matters are handed over to the respective units and state becomes areligious. When state is areligious, all the units will have equal opportunity to observe their religious beliefs and state will have iron fist without any bias to deal with the units to let them remind that they've sufficient space to operate in legal framework.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom