Pakistan First ! The case for Pakistani Nationalism.

[TigerOfMysore]

If only people knew how the enemies of Pakistan have used the Ummah fig leaf, not to mention religious parties in Pakistan to work against Pakistani and Islamic interest. Answer is not to run away from Islam (which I dont think anyone is saying), but build a stronger National/religious identify that gives no space and room to the sold out religio-political class in Pakistan, hell bent on killing each other on the smallest of difference or through direction of their paymasters. These Kharjites have been responsible for the fitna in muslim societies since the 1st century of Islam. It is this group that needs to be cleansed.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

(Am copying this post from another thread.)
I agree with you on all points except one and here too I am partially in agreement: ( Mods: Please allow this post)
Agree
1. People or Northern Punjab, Gilgit Baltistan, Kashmir, KPK, Western Baluchistan, are genetically and racially different from the rest of the sub-continent, and more closely affiliated to Central and West Asia; specifically the old Khorasan region, with a mix of old Greek, Turkish and Persian racial mix. The Kalash, Swatis and Hunza people have nothing in common with any population segment anywhere in the subcontinent and neither do the Bugtis, Mengals and Marris of Baluchistan have anything in common with the rest of the subcontinent. Sylvia Matheson wrote a famous book on this aspect "Tigers of Baluchistan ".
Having said that, South Punjab and East Sindhi populations do have some racial affinity to their counterparts immediately across the border.
In culture however all Pakistanis were different to what is now India, and over the last 70 years have diverged considerably.

2. Pakistanis had a distinct identity and now have affirmed their uniqueness as our nation has transformed.
Post 1971 the ethnic racial foundation of our nation got further defined. We are no longer confused about who we are on account of a dog leg territory 1000 miles away.
The USA is defined by Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles and Houston, not by Honolulu in Hawai.

Partially Disagree

Indian Muslims have nothing to do with Pakistan and Pakistan has nothing to do with them. Indian Muslims are culturally, and racially different from all of Pakistan, and in anycase are too diverse amongst themselves to have any cohesive definition. A portion of Indian Muslims in the Northern Indian States speak a form of Urdu which itself is now archaic, and different from modern Urdu used in Pakistan. The Urdu Indian Muslims speak is rapidly getting Sanskritized so even the feeble linguistic connection is fading fast.

The earlier generation of Indian Muslims prior to 1947 fought for Pakistan, through civil disobedience, voted for Pakistan and Partition while facing severe loss of life and property through vengeance pogroms.
Despite this only a very small portion of their population went to live in Pakistan. Subsequent generations have paid a fearful price for the action of the one generation that supported Pakistan.

Indian Muslims support Pakistan emotionally similar to the way Jews world over support Israel even though few would go and actually live in Israel. For Indian Muslims Pakistan is the insurance that there will be a Muslim presence in the subcontinent which will survive Hindutva hostility for the foreseeable future . I therefore agree with the RSS that most Indian Muslims are sympathetic to Pakistan. Being pro-Pakistani in India is risky proposition. Any solidarity with any Islamic entity is "anti-national " in India.
At this point faced with a fascist regime in power Indian Muslims have fallen silent. Any show of affinity to Pakistan has heavy consequences.
About 5-6 highly vocal paid turncoats come on the media, and curse Pakistan hoping that by their actions they will relieve the pressure on the rest of the population.

Indian Muslims don't figure in any calculation of collateral damage either by India or Pakistan. In the case of a nuclear war 90% of the urban Indian Muslim population living in Ghettos will be wiped out.
About 180 million Indian Muslims will be killed.
Pakistan should not care what happens to Indian Muslims. They have their own destiny whatever that is.



We are referring to the post Islamic converted Persians or then known as Iranians. Basically the old Khorasan region.

Great post, I agree with everything you stated. Glad to see someone like you here.

If only people knew how the enemies of Pakistan have used the Ummah fig leaf, not to mention religious parties in Pakistan to work against Pakistani and Islamic interest. Answer is not to run away from Islam (which I dont think anyone is saying), but build a stronger National/religious identify that gives no space and room to the sold our religio-political class in Pakistan, hell bent on killing each other on the smallest of difference or through direction of their paymasters. These Kharjites have been responsible for the fitna in muslim societies since the 1st century of Islam. It is this group that needs to be cleansed.

You are painting all religious people as a threat, I disagree completely with hat you have stated.

Religious Muslims have always been and still are an asset to this country. Pakistan needs more islamization and not less.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Forging a national identity of any kind requires the state. The state is the steward of the task as it (in theory) controls education, regulates societal interactions, and issues incentives for desired actions.

The issue in Pakistan, however, is that the state isn't good at its job. No matter what identity it tries to forge, it's going to leave (intentionally and unintentionally) gaps that others will exploit. In the 1950s and 1960s we had a fairly liberal and secular project, and that didn't do jack in 1971. In the 1980s, we experimented with an Islamic identity, and that didn't do jack in stopping society from rallying behind corrupt fools.

Basically, neither side in this thread is wrong, but the faults they're pointing at are actually all symptoms of a common problem -- bad leadership. If you trust bad leaders to run a secular project, you're probably going to risk the rise of regional nationalism all over the country (like East Pakistan). If you trust bad leaders to run an Islamic program, you're going to run into TTP-(Insert Province) everywhere.

Simply, this is a discussion for our establishment. The fact that it isn't happening at that level should tell us that any talk of national identity or whatever is a practical non-starter. Perhaps, then, our goal should be to fill the highest institutions of country with people such as ourselves?

 

[Baibars_1260]

Hindutva and conflict with India is better then peace

This is the situation NOW and it will only change for the worse. There is nothing we can do about this.
It is hard to believe it now but at one time the choice did lie somewhat with us. India had center or center left governments ( 1977-1980) ; ( 1990-1999) ; ( 2005-2014 ) that were far less interested in fighting Pakistan. These governments especially the ones led by Chandrashekhar , I.K. Gujral, and Dev Gowda were far more concerned with the rising tide of right wing fascism than with any threat they perceived from Pakistan. For these governments Pakistan could wait and at a right moment a permanent settlement on Kashmir could be sorted out.

If Kashmir had been with Pakistan from 1947
India would have won by now

It would have depended much on what the Soviet Union would have done. Right after independence the Soviet Union offered Pakistan support on Kashmir both at the UN on the ground, as well as massive arms aid, if Pakistan got into an alliance with the Soviet Union and allowed it access to the sea via Afghanistan. There were left wing army officers in the PA who favored this idea . They were arrested in the Rawalpindi case . Pakistan moved firmly into the US orbit and nearly suffered a nuclear attack or a massive conventional air strike from the Soviet Union in 1960 over CIA U2 flights from Peshawar.

Our population had extensive links with India Our culture was too similar etc. The only thing that truly saved us was the shitstorm over Kashmir which ensured conflict and war and hatred upon which the basis of Pakistani independence was formed

Disagree. The differences between Pakistan and India are not merely territorial. There are different fundamental reasons why all Indian governments (even left wing ones) want Pakistan's destruction. I mentioned that in my post here.

Will Pakistan and India survive the next 50 years ?

Thread is in response to this question: Getting a bit off topic but in your opinion, where do you think Pakistan's geostrategic and security settings will be in the next 50 years? I think that is the million dollar question. It is off topic and we can have a separate thread on that. My short...

defence.pk

Hindutva extremism and the communal shithole in India and snapped many Pakistani out of the daze especially Muhagirs
The threat to us is peace and contact

A small minority amongst us often mention the community of immigrants from India as "Muhajirs " in a controversial way (even assuming that term is valid two generations later).
Suspicions if any, are far removed from reality.,
Given their miniscule population compared to the rest of Pakistan do they even count as a factor in Pakistan's national identity?
Here are some facts:

After the initial influx in 1947 there were sporadic instances of group migration although in small numbers. These were related to the communal situation in India. Sporadic group migration ceased in the early sixties to be followed by a trickle migration of educated Indian Muslim professionals. The trickle migration abruptly stopped in 1971,due to the India Pakistan war. After the ceasefire there were no consular services and when limited consular and visa services were resumed, India did not allow any migration of Muslims into Pakistan, not even family reunion cases.

Pakistan likewise strictly banned any reunions or relative visits, There were some hilarious cases where in 1972 couples who had been engaged prior to the war met in Mecca for Hajj, and married there . It was invariably Indian girls marrying Pakistani boys. The girls would return to India to petition their government to allow them to go to Pakistan.

There was a reason both countries had taken their respective stands.
Pakistan had just faced a Civil War over language. It was feared that the influx of more people into Sindh with different language and culture might trigger another Civil War. Even though the migration was a trickle the government was still cautious.

India as a "victor"'in the recent war was trying to rebuild an aggressively secular global image. It wanted to show the world that it could assimilate and integrate Indian Muslims in defiance of the "two nation" theory.
Forcibly holding Indian Muslims back, and isolating them from Pakistan was the best strategy they could devise.
The ban was indefinite, but it stayed for 8 years until a non-Congress government came to power. However the strategy worked much better than India had bargained for Migration to Pakistan stopped completely and didn't resume when India began allowing reunions. The Indian Muslims began to buckle down, start looking for jobs and employment within India . There used to be a joke at the Aligarh University in India amongst engineering students there that they would fill up their final year examinations form along with the visa form for Pakistan to make the "jump " once they got their degrees.
After 1971 this didn't happen. Muslims were now not going to Pakistan and were in the job market. Even with discrimination a tiny talented group did make it through the Civil Services, Army, Air Force and into the private sector executive cadre. Their numbers were grossly underrepresented as compared to the general Indian Muslim population which remained wretchedly poor and marginalized, but the numbers were far more than the pre-1971 levels. This was viewed with mixed feelings, by the immigrant community in Pakistan who got news of some their relatives doing well in India, wondered if they themselves had made the right choice.
In India there were mixed feelings too. The embittered Indians who themselves were refugees from
Pakistan felt cheated, as they asked if there is a Pakistan then what are Muslims doing in India?
The aggressively secular Indians tried to make the best of the situation by show casing these young Muslim executives as proof of India's secular character, Of course the Indian Muslims would have to wear their loyalty on their sleeve and curse Pakistan.
This led Pakistanis to assume that the forced hyper-patriotic Pakistan cursing Indian Muslim, was the same as the immigrant in Karachi. In fact they were different and are different. So many years have passed and so many of the original immigrants have died off that Pakistanis of immigrant origin have forgotten where they originally came from, except " some where in India ". Likewise Indian Muslims have forgotten their generation that left them except in some faded pictures in dog eared family albums 80 years old, Two generations down even family visits have stopped, No one except Sikh and Hindu pilgrims travel between Pakistan and India.
The divide is complete.
Urdu is only spoken as a mother tongue by a tiny fraction of the population of Pakistan, This population will one day merge and assimilate into Pakistan's native population and the "Indian "'connection will be gone forever.
We can then decide whether to keep Urdu as a link language.
As Pakistani's first we must look West to our roots in Central Asia or Uzbekistan and perhaps replace Urdu with Turkish in the Roman Script.

 

[TigerOfMysore]

Great post, I agree with everything you stated. Glad to see someone like you here.


You are painting all religious people as a threat, I disagree completely with hat you have stated.

Religious Muslims have always been and still are an asset to this country. Pakistan needs more islamization and not less.

You need to read what I said before making generalizations around what I am saying. Let me know if you need further explanation around my points:
1) This is a group of sold out people
2) We should not run away from our Islamic identity
3) This group is inline with Kharjites

The fact is un-disputed that useful idiots in the religious class of Pakistan get directly or indirectly used to hurt muslim and Pakistani interest needs no explanation. Also most people in religious parties are good people, but it does not take much to rally people's emotion in these topics. Get a few key leaders on your payroll and you control the movement (that is how it has always been done).

 

[TMA]

Pakistan is like Russia is a way.
Take Orthodoxy out of Russia and Russia is no more. Take Islam out of Pakistan [whatever that is left] and Pakistan is no more.

Now some might say that this can be said about, say, Turkey or Iran? Even Afghanistan?

 

[Baibars_1260]

Pakistan is like Russia is a way.
Take Orthodoxy out of Russia and Russia is no more. Take Islam out of Pakistan [whatever that is left] and Pakistan is no more.

Now some might say that this can be said about, say, Turkey or Iran? Even Afghanistan?

This may have been true in the 1950s for Pakistan. Today Pakistan is changing right before our eyes, and our only regret is it should have been faster. Islam is being moved into personal context, from national.
The national identity is forged.

1. Pakistan today has a West Asian, Central Asian focus. The South Asian element is fading away. The faster it fades away the better.

2. Pakistan will sooner or later revert to its Ghurid Khorasan identity, that it had for centuries.

A federation with Afghanistan is very likely with CPEC taking off.
Afghanistan needs an access to
the sea.
The cultural impact of the federation will be far reaching,
Opening the Iran border completely will result in further intermingling .
If the BRI initiative works then we will be interacting with Uzbekistan as well.
By learning Turkish, Farsi and Pashto and welcoming visitors we impact our identity.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

India was a Greek name for the region of the Indus. It was not until 1947 that the country "India" took up the name. Historical India and modern India are two different things. Just as Greek Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia which took up the name are two different things.

Indians like to claim India is a continuity of British India, which is not so. British North America and the United States of America are two different things, despite commonality in name. British North America also included Canada. I don't see Americans claiming Canada was part of America.

These Indians are really deluded and use kindergarten logic to peddle this 'India' myth. Who has claim to Romans? Roma Gypsies or Italians? According to kindergarten Indian logic the Roma Gypsies because of the commonality of name.

Pakistanis aren't meaningfully different from Indians

What is this supposed to mean? Are the Germans "meaningfully different" from Germans? Are Yanks meaningfully different from Canadians? Are Poles meaningfully different from Russians etc

@AgnosticIndian

 

[peagle]

It would have depended much on what the Soviet Union would have done. Right after independence the Soviet Union offered Pakistan support on Kashmir both at the UN on the ground, as well as massive arms aid

I do not wish to derail the post, if you feel my question will, please ignore it, it can be discussed another time.

I've enjoyed the contributions so far, but mostly disagree with the contributions at least on page 23, but it is an interesting read, for now, I prefer to learn alternate viewpoints. Only when you learn the alternate viewpoints, can you fine-tune your own.

Ok, I would be interested in your above statement, as far as I was aware, both the Soviet Union, and the Americans courted India, and the Indian leadership very strongly. In fact, even before independence, a member of the Nehru family, I do not remember which, was flown to the US for some sort of negotiations. Pakistan was not offered anything by anyone, the Soviets had only agreed to a visit from Pakistan, but no pre-agreed largess, India was still their first preference.

Only when India decided to take the so-called neutral route, with the socialist twist, did the Americans decide to entertain Pakistan.

 

[Baibars_1260]

I do not wish to derail the post, if you feel my question will, please ignore it, it can be discussed another time.

I've enjoyed the contributions so far, but mostly disagree with the contributions at least on page 23, but it is an interesting read, for now, I prefer to learn alternate viewpoints. Only when you learn the alternate viewpoints, can you fine-tune your own.

Ok, I would be interested in your above statement, as far as I was aware, both the Soviet Union, and the Americans courted India, and the Indian leadership very strongly. In fact, even before independence, a member of the Nehru family, I do not remember which, was flown to the US for some sort of negotiations. Pakistan was not offered anything by anyone, the Soviets had only agreed to a visit from Pakistan, but no pre-agreed largess, India was still their first preference.

Only when India decided to take the so-called neutral route, with the socialist twist, did the Americans decide to entertain Pakistan.

Ok this one is for @jamahir but I will try to answer your question without disclosing names.

This is common knowledge amongst Indian Marxists of the earlier generation one whom I had the privy to meet when he was in his 90s almost 12 years back .
I subsequently confirmed the situation from one of our own expat leftists also aged 90+ .
They are all dead now, but I am 100% sure that our security apparatus has maintained these records, as has our enemy.

This goes back to 1946-47 in the turmoil of Partition and given Russia's inheritance of the Soviet legacy and interests in this region the information is still sensitive,

Let's get on the Time Machine.

First of all the Partition as we see it 73 years later was not only a black and white Hindu vs Muslim, Sikh vs Muslim affair. There were numerous side currents bitterly opposed to Partition, some very public and violent such as the "Naval Ratings Mutiny " 1946, ex-INA veterans, and of course the Communist Party of India (CPI) that was loathe to split along communal lines. However the CPI bosses were also a realistic and realized that India was too far gone down the path of religious frenzy to be stabilized in the short term .
Their efforts at deflecting the communal frenzy into a popular anti-capitalist anti-feudal revolution ( Airman's Mutiny etc.) had been a miserable failure and unless the Indian Armed Forces went "Red" there was no hope of taking power by revolution.
In any case first the British and then the Congress government banned the CPI which went underground. Likewise the Communist Party of Pakistan ( CPP) also went underground with its leader Jam Saqi and others fleeing to Afghanistan and subsequently the Soviet Union.
A frequent route taken by Indian revolutionaries. Subhas Bose had fled the same way.

Stalin watched in dismay as his well disciplined CPI splintered. While Pakistan wrestling with a myriad problems most important of which was Kashmir had little time chasing its leftists across the border India wasted no time rounding these up especially after the failed Telengana armed insurrection.

The CPI members fled via the Nepal China route but with a more difficult land route heavily patrolled most of the members of the CPI were arrested including some who were youthful rebel children of the Congress party cabinet members . The Muslim component of the CPI cadre was the most uncompromising, and many refused to surrender and some were shot.
For Muslim CPI members it was far easier to cross over into Pakistan and flee to the Soviet Union which they did , but were promptly arrested by the KGB, imprisoned and interrogated until they were convinced these were genuine leftists.
Meanwhile with India and Pakistan at loggerheads with one another over Kashmir, Stalins dream of a united leftist India ruled by a subservient CPI, granting the Soviet Union its warm water port was shattered.
So Stalin concentrated on Pakistan, because after all it was now Pakistan that was on the Border of Afghanistan and it was Pakistan that controlled the Baluchistan coast.
Stalin got together a conference of sorts, calling the CPI members and CPP members, both now under asylum in the Soviet Union asking them to agree to the following:
- The CPP would reach out to left wing army officers about seizing power and the Soviets would back a take over of Kashmir.
-The CPI would accept the loss of Kashmir and not support the government.(At this time India was considering removing the ban on the CPI ).

The CPI members ( including Muslims) disagreed and said they were against the communal partitioning of the country and that went for Kashmir too. Apparently they were less interested in the Soviet geo-strategic interests.
One of the junior Indian Muslim members ( "youthful rebel") who was present at that meeting only as an observer told me that any conversations they were trying to have with their Pakistani counterparts was strictly monitored by Urdu speaking Uzbek communist KGB cadres.
In any case the CPI members refused and were packed off to detention and subsequently sent back to India.
The CPP members returned to Pakistan to try to seek support amongst left wing PA officers. The Soviets also tried to officially approach Liaquat Ali Khan.
We now know that Pakistani intelligence smashed the CPP ring and this time chased them into Afghanistan, killing most of the top leadership. I am not sure if Jam Saqui survived because he had already been arrested. In any case the CPP was history apart from some poet celebrities like Faiz, Mustafa Zaidi etc.

In India, things were different. The CPI came above ground with leaders like S. A. Dange and Rajeshwar Rao who steered the party into an alliance with the Congress. This was deliberate. After the failure of the CPP the Soviets switched tack and began dealing with the CPI funding and guiding it to a position of extreme influence over the government of India. The alliance was so strong that any agreement between the Soviet Union and India was always referred to the CPI and the Indian government was aware of that.

The Soviet Union hoped to build India up to take over Pakistan and grant it the warm water port. Pakistan was not a military pushover and the Soviets were disappointed with India in the 1965 war. The Tashkent conference was salve. Which is why the eastern wing had to be separated first.

 

[untitled]

today has a West Asian, Central Asian focus

Those central Asian countries have somewhat lost their own identity thanks to years of communist rule. It will take a few generations until they are completely out of the Russian sphere of influence

The cultural impact of the federation will be far reaching,

Isn't this the very dilemma facing the average Pakistani? We see ourselves as a minor cog in a grand Umma/Islamic federation. Rather than we strive to be the leader of such a union and make it's interests align with ours, we are willing to forgo our interests as long the they call us their 'brothers'

 

[Baibars_1260]

Isn't this the very dilemma facing the average Pakistani. We see ourselves as a minor cog in a grand Umma/Islamic federation. Rather than we strive to be the leader of such a union and make it's interests align with ours, we are willing to forgo our interests as long the they call us their 'brothers'

Yes, it is a dilemma which we must resolve and are resolving

I think the Ummah/Islamic Federation we were looking at, has long ceased to exist. We shouldn't aspire to a leadership role but be proactive to defend ourselves from an extremely cruel and determined enemy.

A Federation will be in our best interests to confront the enemy.
The "strategic depth" we get with a Federation that includes Afghanistan will be extremely valuable,
Afghanistan will never ally with us if we keep looking east. Culture and ethnicity does count, If we identify as quasi South Asians we impress nobody. We don't need to identify as South Asians when our identity is some where between West and Central Asia.,
It is not just us that needs security but our allies need security too.

 

[untitled]

I think the Ummah/Islamic Federation we were looking at, has long ceased to exist

They say democracy will die the day we stop believing in it. The same can be applied to any idea including the Ummah. Why has the Ummah died? Shouldn't that worry every Muslim? Every alliance has major players. NATO has US and the EU has Germany and France. So why shouldn't we seek a leadership role in it? Why should we have to listen to Saudis or the Irannians. Why shouldn't be us calling the shots? Why are we underselling ourselves?

A Federation will be in our best interests to confront the enemy

Who is the enemy? India? So should we dissolve this fedreation once India is no longer a threat? And since you too are talking of a federation, where does the Pakistani-first nationalism fit in to this?

 

[peagle]

Ok this one is for @jamahir but I will try to answer your question without disclosing names.

This is common knowledge amongst Indian Marxists of the earlier generation one whom I had the privy to meet when he was in his 90s almost 12 years back .
I subsequently confirmed the situation from one of our own expat leftists also aged 90+ .
They are all dead now, but I am 100% sure that our security apparatus has maintained these records, as has our enemy.

This goes back to 1946-47 in the turmoil of Partition and given Russia's inheritance of the Soviet legacy and interests in this region the information is still sensitive,

Let's get on the Time Machine.

First of all the Partition as we see it 73 years later was not only a black and white Hindu vs Muslim, Sikh vs Muslim affair. There were numerous side currents bitterly opposed to Partition, some very public and violent such as the "Naval Ratings Mutiny " 1946, ex-INA veterans, and of course the Communist Party of India (CPI) that was loathe to split along communal lines. However the CPI bosses were also a realistic and realized that India was too far gone down the path of religious frenzy to be stabilized in the short term .
Their efforts at deflecting the communal frenzy into a popular anti-capitalist anti-feudal revolution ( Airman's Mutiny etc.) had been a miserable failure and unless the Indian Armed Forces went "Red" there was no hope of taking power by revolution.
In any case first the British and then the Congress government banned the CPI which went underground. Likewise the Communist Party of Pakistan ( CPP) also went underground with its leader Jam Saqi and others fleeing to Afghanistan and subsequently the Soviet Union.
A frequent route taken by Indian revolutionaries. Subhas Bose had fled the same way.

Stalin watched in dismay as his well disciplined CPI splintered. While Pakistan wrestling with a myriad problems most important of which was Kashmir had little time chasing its leftists across the border India wasted no time rounding these up especially after the failed Telengana armed insurrection.

The CPI members fled via the Nepal China route but with a more difficult land route heavily patrolled most of the members of the CPI were arrested including some who were youthful rebel children of the Congress party cabinet members . The Muslim component of the CPI cadre was the most uncompromising, and many refused to surrender and some were shot.
For Muslim CPI members it was far easier to cross over into Pakistan and flee to the Soviet Union which they did , but were promptly arrested by the KGB, imprisoned and interrogated until they were convinced these were genuine leftists.
Meanwhile with India and Pakistan at loggerheads with one another over Kashmir, Stalins dream of a united leftist India ruled by a subservient CPI, granting the Soviet Union its warm water port was shattered.
So Stalin concentrated on Pakistan, because after all it was now Pakistan that was on the Border of Afghanistan and it was Pakistan that controlled the Baluchistan coast.
Stalin got together a conference of sorts, calling the CPI members and CPP members, both now under asylum in the Soviet Union asking them to agree to the following:
- The CPP would reach out to left wing army officers about seizing power and the Soviets would back a take over of Kashmir.
-The CPI would accept the loss of Kashmir and not support the government.(At this time India was considering removing the ban on the CPI ).

The CPI members ( including Muslims) disagreed and said they were against the communal partitioning of the country and that went for Kashmir too. Apparently they were less interested in the Soviet geo-strategic interests.
One of the junior Indian Muslim members ( "youthful rebel") who was present at that meeting only as an observer told me that any conversations they were trying to have with their Pakistani counterparts was strictly monitored by Urdu speaking Uzbek communist KGB cadres.
In any case the CPI members refused and were packed off to detention and subsequently sent back to India.
The CPP members returned to Pakistan to try to seek support amongst left wing PA officers. The Soviets also tried to officially approach Liaquat Ali Khan.
We now know that Pakistani intelligence smashed the CPP ring and this time chased them into Afghanistan, killing most of the top leadership. I am not sure if Jam Saqui survived because he had already been arrested. In any case the CPP was history apart from some poet celebrities like Faiz, Mustafa Zaidi etc.

In India, things were different. The CPI came above ground with leaders like S. A. Dange and Rajeshwar Rao who steered the party into an alliance with the Congress. This was deliberate. After the failure of the CPP the Soviets switched tack and began dealing with the CPI funding and guiding it to a position of extreme influence over the government of India. The alliance was so strong that any agreement between the Soviet Union and India was always referred to the CPI and the Indian government was aware of that.

The Soviet Union hoped to build India up to take over Pakistan and grant it the warm water port. Pakistan was not a military pushover and the Soviets were disappointed with India in the 1965 war. The Tashkent conference was salve. Which is why the eastern wing had to be separated first.

Awesome read, a comedy of errors and old-world intrigue, but believable, although astounding. Thanks for sharing.
You know, you have an interesting mind. Although I've quit smoking, but a nice cigar, and a glass of our favourite, mine is always neat, with Qawwali or a Ghazal in the background, I am sure your stories would never end lol

Not to pick hairs, but your original quotation had inferred a different meaning, there was no offer of massive aid or taking of Kashmir directly to the Pakistani state. I only say this because our poor Pakistani friends, who will read your comments, seem to develop a vivid imagination of a crazy kind. lol

I've met one too many who believe in stories so crazy that one is forced to think, do they even know how to think.

 

[Baibars_1260]

They say democracy will die the day we stop believing in it. The same can be applied to any idea including the Ummah. Why has the Ummah died? Shouldn't that worry every Muslim?

Excellent questions, and there are no easy answers, but there are some "pre" questions.
1.How do we define the Ummah ?
2.Was there ever a united Ummah?
3. Why is an Ummah necessary for Pakistan?

Every alliance has major players. NATO has US and the EU has Germany and France. So why shouldn't we seek a leadership role in it? Why should we have to listen to Saudis or the Irannians. Why shouldn't be us calling the shots? Why are we underselling ourselves?

There isn't an alliance like NATO
or EU. of the Muslim Ummah so would there be requirements of a leadership role .
We don't have to listen to Saudi Arabia or Iran and we don't need to get between them and become security guards in Mecca. Let the Custodians of the two Holy Mosques provide their own security .

Who is the enemy? India? So should we dissolve this fedreation once India is no longer a threat? And since you too are talking of a federation, where does the Pakistani-first nationalism fit in to this?

The concept of a Federation is listed in the 1940 Pakistan Resolution which was the original idea behind the founding of Pakistan.

The Pakistan Resolution had not envisioned a threat to Pakistan from India, so while geographically the strategic depth is advantageous for defense the reason for the Federation was a political and economic Union similar to the Russian Federation today .
The Russian Federation maintains its ( Russia First ! ) Nationalism .
The Federation would no way dilute our nationalism. It would however completely redefine our national identity and revert it to its original national order.