Pakistan, Bharat, British India - What came first, what came after?

[vsdoc]

Yes, the minuscule small minority that tries to claim this pre Islamic identity (and it is because just Islamic identity is never sufficient to form a sense of nationhood. This has been proven beyond doubt.) has its battle within the country, not outside.

It is precisely because they are helpless in fighting inside that they turn their attention to snatching the common heritage exclusively to make it more palatable inside Pakistan.

It probably is rational from their POV. Just that it defies reality and is therefor doomed to fail.

And that is the essence of Pakistan.

Namely - Not India.

How convenient would it have been if all 1.5 billion of us were to have been Muslims come Independence time.

Then we would have an Indian Iran. Selectively proud of its "cultural" Hindu heritage and past.

 

[indushek]

And that is the essence of Pakistan.

Namely - Not India.

How convenient would it have been if all 1.5 billion of us were to have been Muslims come Independence time.

Then we would have an Indian Iran. Selectively proud of its "cultural" Hindu heritage and past.

I may be wrong but, may be the ummah thingy did more damage to Pakistan. People in their blind adherence to the ummah concept went so far that they left a lot and lost a lot.

I mean one can understand that the Muslims could have wanted Pakistan for preserving their Islamic tradition but there was no need for them to throw out the ancient past of the land, but they did. Is this because they wanted to be different from India or was it because they thought a Pan Islamic outlook would work better is not know atleast to me. May be the future generations of Pakistan can find an answer to this.

 

[Joe Shearer]

And that is the essence of Pakistan.

Namely - Not India.

How convenient would it have been if all 1.5 billion of us were to have been Muslims come Independence time.

Then we would have an Indian Iran. Selectively proud of its "cultural" Hindu heritage and past.

Hah!

Typical Bawaji doublespeak, trying to confuse us with reasonableness.

And where would the residual Hindus go? To Thailand, until they too got converted? Then join them pushing off to - what? - China? Japan?

No, thanks, we'd rather stay back and concentrate on bashing Mlechchhas.

 

[vsdoc]

I may be wrong but, may be the ummah thingy did more damage to Pakistan. People in their blind adherence to the ummah concept went so far that they left a lot and lost a lot.

I mean one can understand that the Muslims could have wanted Pakistan for preserving their Islamic tradition but there was no need for them to throw out the ancient past of the land, but they did. Is this because they wanted to be different from India or was it because they thought a Pan Islamic outlook would work better is not know atleast to me. May be the future generations of Pakistan can find an answer to this.

Bro, they got Pakistan on the basis of the argument that they were somehow "different".

How else could they have explained a different homeland when other minorities were perfectly happy to live alongside their Hindu brothers and sisters in undivided India?

In Pakistan's case, they live with the choices their forefathers made.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I may be wrong but, may be the ummah thingy did more damage to Pakistan. People in their blind adherence to the ummah concept went so far that they left a lot and lost a lot.

I mean one can understand that the Muslims could have wanted Pakistan for preserving their Islamic tradition but there was no need for them to throw out the ancient past of the land, but they did. Is this because they wanted to be different from India or was it because they thought a Pan Islamic outlook would work better is not know atleast to me. May be the future generations of Pakistan can find an answer to this.

Both. In the first flush of enthusiasm, they rejected everything Hindu, embraced everything Muslim. Those were edgy days, when there was doubt whether the new state would survive. Even the nearly best decided it was prudent to take sides, and not remain in a state of pleasantly intellectual dither. Only the very, very best, like Manto, held out.

Over two generations, they have gained confidence. Now they want their history back.

 

[vsdoc]

Over two generations, they have gained confidence. Now they want their history back.

As Vinod said per his 3 stage evolutionary plan, and as is still amply evident here, not very many of them yet.

The onus of realization is always on he that has been misled.

The larger flock can only be non-judgmental and gracious.

 

[RazPaK]

My grandfather would have laughed at some of the things bhartis are writing here. That is all I can say.

 

[indushek]

Both. In the first flush of enthusiasm, they rejected everything Hindu, embraced everything Muslim. Those were edgy days, when there was doubt whether the new state would survive. Even the nearly best decided it was prudent to take sides, and not remain in a state of pleasantly intellectual dither. Only the very, very best, like Manto, held out.

Over two generations, they have gained confidence. Now they want their history back.

As you said many times a distorted outlook on history is a dangerous thing to have, i pray that they have their history but a balanced one not the distorted one.

 

[RazPaK]

But Pakis make perfect sense, is it?

The ones that have lived through Partition. More so than you.

 

[vsdoc]

The ones that have lived through Partition. More so than you.

Those on this side had grandfathers too.

 

[RazPaK]

Those on this side had grandfathers too.

I agree. I believe before anyone makes assumptions we should all sit with our seniors. What their identity was and why they chose to emigrate. It beats the hell out of making speculations from history texts.


History without emotion is not history.

 

[Joe Shearer]

As Vinod said per his 3 stage evolutionary plan, and as is still amply evident here, not very many of them yet.

The onus of realization is always on he that has been misled.

The larger flock can only be non-judgmental and gracious.

I am amazed that this arises at all. Amazed, because I did not join the dots. I didn't realize that my liberal Pakistani friends weren't being pan-Indian (= pan-south Asian) out of wanting to make me feel good, but out of their weltanschaung.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

History with emotion is the usual basis of philosophy.History itslef is cruel,emotionless and unmoving.Like time.

 

[vsdoc]

I agree. I believe before anyone makes assumptions we should all sit with our seniors. What their identity was and why they chose to emigrate. It beats the hell out of making speculations from history texts.

History without emotion is not history.

I am neither Hindu nor Muslim. But I have grown up with a very strong sense of nationalism. And cultural affinity, debt of gratitude, and deep rooted ties to the land of my forefathers.

Neither my grandfather (I did not get to know my paternal grandfather), nor my father, nor me, can see the logic of partition.

And all three of us have very strong views on it.

Its dimmed in my son's generation. I don't know what the scene is at your end.

 

[RazPaK]

History with emotion is the usual basis of philosophy.History itslef is cruel,emotionless and unmoving.Like time.

Without personal accounts, history gets swayed into the wind of bias by whoever is sharing it.


It's ultimately not about about who was right or wrong in the long run, but what we should focus on.

I can share what my family background was and why they decided to emigrate. That would only be one out of thousands of stories.