Pakistan First ! The case for Pakistani Nationalism.

[Baibars_1260]

@magra
Please continue the conversation here. This is a more appropriate thread for your thoughts.

Whether you dump Urdu or not is not our concern. I am just saying that I dont think it is likely to happen.

You just showed an inordinate concern at our children learning Mandarin. What is likely to happen cannot be predicted on your preferences.

Nobody had predicted in 1900 that just 47 years later India would be carved into three pieces. Neither Lala Lajpat Rai, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal ( your famous "Lal, Bal, Pal" ) could have imagined this would have happened .

Again, we Indians claim the cultural heritage of the entire subcontinent. We have always been sure of who we are.

Interesting. So you claim the cultural heritage of the Konyak Nagas, the Tamil Irula snake catchers, the Kerala Kathakkali dancers, the pandas of Varanasi, the Rajasthani Kalbelias , the Robindro Shongeet choirs of West Bengal , along with our culture from Pakistan, like the Kalash, the Swatis, and the Mengals and Marris from Baluchistan ?
What is the cultural connection between a Hunza dancer and a Mohini Attam dancer from Kerala?

Whats the connection between the two ?

View attachment 721124
View attachment 721126

You are constantly trying to define who you are since 1947. First you claimed that you are the custodians of Muslims of the subcontinent. After 1971, you changed tack and said that you are from the clan of Islamic invaders. Then some of you say that you are from Indus Valley Civilization. May you find closure as a West-Asian nation if that is what you wish for.

You got it wrong. The resolution for Pakistan in 1940 called for at least two (or by implication more) sovereign independent Muslim majority states to be carved out of India as homelands for Muslims so that they do not have to live as minorities in a united India. Search and read the text of the resolution on line or will paste it here for you. Pre-1971 . The cultural and linguistic differences between different Muslim majority regions of pre-partition India was recognized but not implemented. Pakistan as it was immediately after 1947 and up to 1971, against the spirit of the Pakistan resolution and was an artificial aberration. A Civil War was not inevitable, and a separation that was proposed, could have been arranged without bloodshed. Thanks in part due to India's interest the situation went otherwise.

Post 1971 both the Muslim majority regions became two sovereign independent nations as intended. The question of religious identity resolved it was now up to both nations to chart their cultural identity. Speaking only for ourselves ( Pakistan as of today) we have a distinct cultural identity not connected with India. We see no connection with the Chola kingdoms or the Marathas. So we haven't changed tack, but instead actually returned to the original purpose behind the dismemberment of India.

I am not blackmailing you. You are getting blackmailed because your heart is in the subcontinent but your mind wants you to become Turkish or Iranian.

Yes, you are blackmailing. You are emphasizing the only connection left, which is linguistic affinity, which as I pointed out to you in the case of Russia can change. Yes, even though not our mother tongue we developed a deep affection for Urdu or simple Hindustani. This unfortunately is exploited big time by you, our enemy, searing our hearts with the most potent psychological weapon at your disposal.
There has come a time to change and sacrifice that which we love for the survival and transformation of our nation.
Our hearts are changing to our geographical roots in the Indus and beyond, to the Ghurid Empire, and Khorasan , much before the adventurers from this land made it to the banks of the Jamuna.
The Jamuna or Ganga means nothing to us now and even the line below is meaningless now:
Aye aberood e Ganga woh din hai yaad tujh ko, utara teray kinare jab karewan hamara.
To understand what that means look at this link for the English translation. Read the whole page please, particularly the last lines.
Forget us and we will forget you. We want to live as we have lived for 5000 years. A nuclear fireball is not our future.

 

[magra]

@magra
Please continue the conversation here. This is a more appropriate thread for your thoughts.


You just showed an inordinate concern at our children learning Mandarin. What is likely to happen cannot be predicted on your preferences.

Nobody had predicted in 1900 that just 47 years later India would be carved into three pieces. Neither Lala Lajpat Rai, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal ( your famous "Lal, Bal, Pal" ) could have imagined this would have happened .



Interesting. So you claim the cultural heritage of the Konyak Nagas, the Tamil Irula snake catchers, the Kerala Kathakkali dancers, the pandas of Varanasi, the Rajasthani Kalbelias , the Robindro Shongeet choirs of West Bengal , along with our culture from Pakistan, like the Kalash, the Swatis, and the Mengals and Marris from Baluchistan ?
What is the cultural connection between a Hunza dancer and a Mohini Attam dancer from Kerala?

Whats the connection between the two ?

View attachment 721124
View attachment 721126




You got it wrong. The resolution for Pakistan in 1940 called for at least two (or by implication more) sovereign independent Muslim majority states to be carved out of India as homelands for Muslims so that they do not have to live as minorities in a united India. Search and read the text of the resolution on line or will paste it here for you. Pre-1971 . The cultural and linguistic differences between different Muslim majority regions of pre-partition India was recognized but not implemented. Pakistan as it was immediately after 1947 and up to 1971, against the spirit of the Pakistan resolution and was an artificial aberration. A Civil War was not inevitable, and a separation that was proposed, could have been arranged without bloodshed. Thanks in part due to India's interest the situation went otherwise.

Post 1971 both the Muslim majority regions became two sovereign independent nations as intended. The question of religious identity resolved it was now up to both nations to chart their cultural identity. Speaking only for ourselves ( Pakistan as of today) we have a distinct cultural identity not connected with India. We see no connection with the Chola kingdoms or the Marathas. So we haven't changed tack, but instead actually returned to the original purpose behind the dismemberment of India.



Yes, you are blackmailing. You are emphasizing the only connection left, which is linguistic affinity, which as I pointed out to you in the case of Russia can change. Yes, even though not our mother tongue we developed a deep affection for Urdu or simple Hindustani. This unfortunately is exploited big time by you, our enemy, searing our hearts with the most potent psychological weapon at your disposal.
There has come a time to change and sacrifice that which we love for the survival and transformation of our nation.
Our hearts are changing to our geographical roots in the Indus and beyond, to the Ghurid Empire, and Khorasan , much before the adventurers from this land made it to the banks of the Jamuna.
The Jamuna or Ganga means nothing to us now and even the line below is meaningless now:
Aye aberood e Ganga woh din hai yaad tujh ko, utara teray kinare jab karewan hamara.
To understand what that means look at this link for the English translation. Read the whole page please, particularly the last lines.
Forget us and we will forget you. We want to live as we have lived for 5000 years. A nuclear fireball is not our future.

I replied on the other thread. Please feel free to quote me from there and reply here.

 

[Neurath]

What is wrong with the debate going on here is that people don't realize that you can be a Pakistani Nationalist and also be aiding Muslim countries at the same time.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

What is the cultural connection between a Hunza dancer and a Mohini Attam dancer from Kerala?

They were ruled by the British Raj.

 

[Baibars_1260]

I did not raise any concern, I was just bemused. Obviously, you can learn or forget any language you desire.

"Obviously we can learn and forget any language we want ? " Thanks for appreciating.
Wonder if you grant that liberty to your own citizens.
We are bemused too to see you try to make Tamils accept Hindi.
Years later long after the deadline to adopt Hindi as the sole official language expired your Members of Parliament still wear interpreter headphones, the only Parliament in the world that does that.
But that's your affair.

You are right when you say that in 1900, no one would have thought the nationalistic struggle against British imperialism would be made impure by religious differences. British always wanted to rule India by 'divide and rule' policy. They ensured that even while going, they leave a fractured subcontinent forever in conflict with itself.
Lal-Bal-Pal were not just ours, they were yours too. Or do you see them as anti-Muslim? Were they fighting to only free Hindus from British?

Why blame the British only for religious differences? The First War of Independence, or the "1857 Mutiny" as the British call it , used religious sensitivities on cartridges as a rallying call against the British. Later our freedom fighters had no qualms using the same unholy cartridges against the British . Much later the religious differences were a product of our own minds poisoned by charlatans masquerading as freedom fighters. Raising issues like the Khilafat movement and calls for a Punya Bhumi has rent the unity of our peoples forever.
No one knows about "Lal Bal Pal " in Pakistan and what they stood for, though Lala Lajpat Rai is is still remembered in some historical circles in Lahore.
To answer your question if Lal Bal Pal were fighting only to free Hindus:
I have no evidence on hand to suggest that these freedom fighters were sectarian or communal. But they were not the only freedom fighters. It was the whole freedom movement that changed.
From the 1920s onwards the anti-colonial freedom struggle changed in character from a secular peoples movement, irrespective of religious differences to an exclusionist stance where Muslims and British were both classified as enemies of Indians ( Hindus ). The Muslims were a bigger enemy because they would still be around even after the British left. There was a minority secular element of the freedom movement as late as the 1940s headed by Subhas Bose, and a last ditch effort by left wing armed forces members in the Bombay Naval Ratings Mutiny ironically ended when the Congress headed by Gandhi denounced the revolt. So YES the freedom movement polarized on communal grounds because of our own biases, not so much the British.

India as it stands today consists of people from Nagaland, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Varanasi, Rajasthan and all the above place you described. These people are connected with a common thread - INDIA. Each of them draws pride in their respective cultures and traditions. Does not matter how distant each culture is from each other, we are proud of them all as Indians.

Once again, interesting. So by India today I assume you mean the Union Territory of India today defined by your official map? So where does Pakistan or more precisely Sindh, Baluchistan, KPK, and Punjab come into the picture. First you said India represents the culture of the sub-continent then you say "India as it stands today". Ok, we are comfortable with that position. India as it stands today does not include the culture of Sindh, Punjab, Baluchistan, and Khyber Pakhtoon-khwa.

Our motto is "Unity in Diversity". The more diverse group we have, the better it is for our unity. Our nationhood is not dependent on one language, or one ethnicity, or one religion. We are a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-lingual nation.

Haven't seen the motto "Unity, in Diversity " anywhere in your official documents. From what I know your official motto is "Satyameva Jayatey " which means "Truth is Victorious" ( I think? ) . Pakistan and India are mult-ethnic , multi-religious, mult-lingual nations. Bangladesh is a mono-cultural, mono-lingual nation.

So what is so special about India ?

 

[Baibars_1260]

Good, if you are clear. I see a separate thread where Pakistanis are debating whether they are Pakistani first or Muslim first. People are having mixed opinion there. We Indians do not have any such confusion. For us, our nation is first and foremost.

I agree Indians have no confusion on their identity, and you have my congratulations on that.
An Indian must be a Hindu and vice versa ( never mind what the Nepalese think ). The land of India is a "Punya Bhumi" gifted by the Gods to Hindus, and only Hindus can be Indians and none others. Muslims are mleches or invaders and foreigners and that goes for Christians and Jews too. There is one nation for Hindus which is India.
The only problem I see in your India, Bharat, or Akhand Bharat, is the geographical definition of the boundaries. Your geographical definition is vague, raising questions like why is Bangladesh NOT a part of India ?

So you have no connection to any history or tradition belonging to present day India? There are some Pakistanis on this forum who originate from present day Indian territories of Bihar, Haryana etc. Would you ask them to forget their traditions? Will they need to re-write their family history as sons of Mahmud Ghazni?

.

Have already answered that question that Khybar Pakhtoon Khwa, Sindh, Baluchistan, and Punjab are not within the territory of "present day India", so obviously there is very little or no connection. There is a minuscule population of Pakistanis on this forum (and within Pakistan) who originate from many parts of pre-partition India ( wonder why you mentioned only Bihar and Haryana). The old generation that migrated out is dead. The ones on this forum are second and third generation persons, who only know their origins as "somewhere from CP & Berar". They neither know or care that "CP & Berar" no longer exists as a state and has been divided into Madhya Pradesh, and Chattisgarh.
That is all they know. Since you mentioned it, some of those from Bihar don't even pronounce the word Bihar correctly instead term it as "Bahar" confusing it with the word for the season of Spring . This is because the way the word is written in Urdu can be mispronounced unless tutored. Urdu is a non-phonetic script like English ( where the combination of letters "th" can be pronounced differently). Who cares if the name Bihar comes from the term "Vihara " or monastery . It is a different place in a different land. Those of Irish origin in the USA rarely know or care which part of Ireland they came from. They are Americans first. Similarly Pakistanis of immigrant origin are Pakistanis first. They intermarrying and merging into the populations where they reside. They have undergone a cultural transformation. A tiny residual interest in their origins remain but this will be gone soon.

Without making any effort if you are getting blackmailed, then the weakness is within you. We wont stop speaking our language to assuage your imaginary fears.

Have already confessed linguistic affinity is our weakness. At this time we have only a partial answer to the blackmail by insisting on speaking in English. So I despise those Pakistanis who accept invitations to Indian TV talk shows, or worse those who would travel to India to participate in literary seminars. These Pakistanis are either traitors or complete fools. Mercifully travel between our countries have stopped and the interaction is through a remote TV guest mode only. Even that has drastically reduced. Now is the time to change . As our children learn Mandarin and we look to developing Saraiki we can realistically look at a timeline for dumping Urdu. Kazakhastan just dumped the Russian Cyrilic alphabet and script. Nations change.

Our fears are not imaginary . Cultural, linguistic affinity between two asymmetrical nations can adversely affect a smaller nation. Nepal has a Hindi Nepalese conflict too. Border area Madhesis speak Hindi and mountain interior people speak Nepalese. The Nepalese speaking population feels culturally and linguistically threatened too.

Continue speaking your language and driving on the left side of the road. We will change.

 

[Baibars_1260]

I pity you. I see that you have deep-rooted knowledge of the subcontinent and yet you talk of severing that connection and adopting a foreign culture. A phrase is apt on this thought "A washerman's ***, is neither of home, nor the bank". You can translate it in Urdu and understand the meaning. I do not mean to insult you, just to tell you that people who run away from their identities wander trying to find it their entire lives.

Thank you for the compliments.

"severing that connection and adopting a foreign culture."

The connections were severed in 1947 , and our connections with our eastern wing were again severed in 1971. So effectively we are no more South Asian, except linked by language to India. Even the linguistic connection is an artificial one, since the link language is not native to Pakistan.
We are not adopting a foreign culture but merely cleansing our culture from South Asian influence. We have changed our dress, No more lungis, or sarees. We have changed our cuisine.. We have changed music. The only thing we have not changed is our language. It is about time. We have not changed our link language- yet .

We are not running away from our identities, but merely transforming it.
If you don't blackmail us, our change will be faster.

Forget us. We will forget you.

 

[magra]

"Obviously we can learn and forget any language we want ? " Thanks for appreciating.
Wonder if you grant that liberty to your own citizens.
We are bemused too to see you try to make Tamils accept Hindi.
Years later long after the deadline to adopt Hindi as the sole official language expired your Members of Parliament still wear interpreter headphones, the only Parliament in the world that does that.
But that's your affair.

India also went through a phase for several years after independence when many North Indian leaders felt that Hindi should be the link language of India (as English was considered a colonial relic). However, that led to agitations in the South against Hindi (and through that North Indian) imposition. There are still some confused politicians who call for Hindi as the link language but now it is no longer compulsory to learn Hindi in south but it is an optional language.
In many aspects, India's diversity is more continental in nature. Hence, no surprise that we do need interpreters with the same country.
An interesting story of my student days. We went on a student exchange trip to Europe where we were travelling to Hungary. While checking into a hotel there, we Indians (7 of us from various regions of India) started discussing in English among us. The receptionist asked in surprise as to why we were not talking in 'Indian' amongst us. It would have taken too long for us to explain why so we just smiled and went our way.

 

[magra]

Why blame the British only for religious differences? The First War of Independence, or the "1857 Mutiny" as the British call it , used religious sensitivities on cartridges as a rallying call against the British. Later our freedom fighters had no qualms using the same unholy cartridges against the British . Much later the religious differences were a product of our own minds poisoned by charlatans masquerading as freedom fighters. Raising issues like the Khilafat movement and calls for a Punya Bhumi has rent the unity of our peoples forever.
No one knows about "Lal Bal Pal " in Pakistan and what they stood for, though Lala Lajpat Rai is is still remembered in some historical circles in Lahore.
To answer your question if Lal Bal Pal were fighting only to free Hindus:
I have no evidence on hand to suggest that these freedom fighters were sectarian or communal. But they were not the only freedom fighters. It was the whole freedom movement that changed.
From the 1920s onwards the anti-colonial freedom struggle changed in character from a secular peoples movement, irrespective of religious differences to an exclusionist stance where Muslims and British were both classified as enemies of Indians ( Hindus ). The Muslims were a bigger enemy because they would still be around even after the British left. There was a minority secular element of the freedom movement as late as the 1940s headed by Subhas Bose, and a last ditch effort by left wing armed forces members in the Bombay Naval Ratings Mutiny ironically ended when the Congress headed by Gandhi denounced the revolt. So YES the freedom movement polarized on communal grounds because of our own biases, not so much the British.

Religious issues were a contributing factor to the '1857 revolt' but there were no religious differences then. I agree that Gandhiji's support to the 'Khilafat movement' in 1919 was ill-advised as though it had a short term gain of rallying the Indian Muslims against British, it led to feelings among many Hindus that Muslims' sensitivities lie outside India. In fact, Mr. Jinnah strongly advised against Indian support for Khilafat, but he was not a very popular leader at that time. How strange that his followers (Pakistanis) now talk of global Muslims (Ummah) when Jinnah only wanted Indian Muslims to care about India.
If you do not know a freedom fighter or have no evidence of sectarian involvement, then should you not give them the benefit of doubt and not insult them as mere 'your' freedom fighters.
From 1920s onwards, there were fringe Hindu groups such as Hindu Mahasabha that began talking exclusively for Hindus. Probably because they felt threatened of Muslim specific parties such as Muslim League. Congress movement remained by and large secular, although Gandhiji did use religious bhajans in his gatherings to attract crouds. Congress had towering Muslim leaders such as Maulana Abul Kalam Azad.
Subhas Bose left Congress not due to any religious difference but because Gandhiji did not like his way of work, as Bose wanted to use violent means to oppose British, and Gandhiji wanted only non-violent revolt. Same with 1946 Naval mutiny.
Ofcourse, once a crack appeared in 1920s, it kept widening instead of healing. British actively favored religious parties like Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha as they felt that the agenda of these parties is side-tracking united opposition against them. Our own faultlines were brilliantly used against us by the British.

 

[magra]

Once again, interesting. So by India today I assume you mean the Union Territory of India today defined by your official map? So where does Pakistan or more precisely Sindh, Baluchistan, KPK, and Punjab come into the picture. First you said India represents the culture of the sub-continent then you say "India as it stands today". Ok, we are comfortable with that position. India as it stands today does not include the culture of Sindh, Punjab, Baluchistan, and Khyber Pakhtoon-khwa.


Haven't seen the motto "Unity, in Diversity " anywhere in your official documents. From what I know your official motto is "Satyameva Jayatey " which means "Truth is Victorious" ( I think? ) . Pakistan and India are mult-ethnic , multi-religious, mult-lingual nations. Bangladesh is a mono-cultural, mono-lingual nation.

So what is so special about India ?

Politically, today's India is as defined by our official map, but culturally it covers the entire subcontinent. This is because we have many Indians who are originally from West and East Pakistan regions. We have had many prominent Sindhis (Advani, Ram Jethamalani), people from West Punjab (Manmohan Singh), people from KPK (Dilip Kumar, Raj Kapoor) and so on. Even our national anthem has following lines, "Punjab Sind Gujarat Maratha Dravida Utkala Bang ..." . See, Sindh finds a mention in our anthem too.

"Unity in Diversity" may not be an official motto, but we have learnt it since childhood.
All people are proud of their country and consider it special in some way, and so do we Indians as well. I would not call Pakistan as truly 'multi-religious' for 2 reasons. One - your minorities are very insignficant in number. Two - you define yourself as Islamic country and not a secular one. There are many fundamental anti-minority laws in Pak (eg. constitutionally a person from minority cannot be PM, President, Army Chief etc).

 

[magra]

I agree Indians have no confusion on their identity, and you have my congratulations on that.
An Indian must be a Hindu and vice versa ( never mind what the Nepalese think ). The land of India is a "Punya Bhumi" gifted by the Gods to Hindus, and only Hindus can be Indians and none others. Muslims are mleches or invaders and foreigners and that goes for Christians and Jews too. There is one nation for Hindus which is India.
The only problem I see in your India, Bharat, or Akhand Bharat, is the geographical definition of the boundaries. Your geographical definition is vague, raising questions like why is Bangladesh NOT a part of India ?

I am not sure if you are being ignorant or sarcastic here. India means 'Hindu' and vice versa if false. People like Abdul Kalam, Shah Rukh Khan, Ghulam Nabi Azad, Owaisi are as much Indian as others. And people like Prachanda, Tulsi Gabbard are not Indians.
There are far too many prominent non-Hindus in India to list. Tatas are Parsis, Sam Manekshaw was a Parsi, JFR Jacob was a Jew, far too many Sikhs have held prominent positions (incl. Prime Minister, Army Chief etc). We only want one thing. That people of any faith should consider the land of India as their motherland, as this is where they have been born. We do feel irritated that some people consider invaders as their heros. For example, Ghazni, Ghori were invaders as they came, looted our wealth and went back. Mughals were not invaders as they settled and merged with us. In fact, Emperor Akbar is widely respected. (You have seen Jodha-Akbar, right?)
We have reconciled to the partition and acknowledge the realities of Pakistan and ofcourse Bangladesh. We have no intention of re-merging them with us. Fringe groups calling for Akhand Bharat does not mean that this is the predominant national sentiment or desire.

 

[magra]

Have already answered that question that Khybar Pakhtoon Khwa, Sindh, Baluchistan, and Punjab are not within the territory of "present day India", so obviously there is very little or no connection. There is a minuscule population of Pakistanis on this forum (and within Pakistan) who originate from many parts of pre-partition India ( wonder why you mentioned only Bihar and Haryana). The old generation that migrated out is dead. The ones on this forum are second and third generation persons, who only know their origins as "somewhere from CP & Berar". They neither know or care that "CP & Berar" no longer exists as a state and has been divided into Madhya Pradesh, and Chattisgarh.
That is all they know. Since you mentioned it, some of those from Bihar don't even pronounce the word Bihar correctly instead term it as "Bahar" confusing it with the word for the season of Spring . This is because the way the word is written in Urdu can be mispronounced unless tutored. Urdu is a non-phonetic script like English ( where the combination of letters "th" can be pronounced differently). Who cares if the name Bihar comes from the term "Vihara " or monastery . It is a different place in a different land. Those of Irish origin in the USA rarely know or care which part of Ireland they came from. They are Americans first. Similarly Pakistanis of immigrant origin are Pakistanis first. They intermarrying and merging into the populations where they reside. They have undergone a cultural transformation. A tiny residual interest in their origins remain but this will be gone soon.

I understand that over the years, your migrant population which numbered 7-10 million in 1947, chose to forget their past. May be it was actively encouraged. Your history books too only teach you about regions within present day Pakistan although the pre-partition history is shared. We, in India, are taught history of the entire sub-continent upto 1947. Hence, your cultural diversity has shrunk over the years to now limit yourself to your present day boundaries.
Indians from Sindh origin (or simply Sindhis) are still Indian first, but they never shy away from calling themselves as Sindhi nor talking in their language or following their customs. Thats what preserves our diversity,

 

[magra]

Have already confessed linguistic affinity is our weakness. At this time we have only a partial answer to the blackmail by insisting on speaking in English. So I despise those Pakistanis who accept invitations to Indian TV talk shows, or worse those who would travel to India to participate in literary seminars. These Pakistanis are either traitors or complete fools. Mercifully travel between our countries have stopped and the interaction is through a remote TV guest mode only. Even that has drastically reduced. Now is the time to change . As our children learn Mandarin and we look to developing Saraiki we can realistically look at a timeline for dumping Urdu. Kazakhastan just dumped the Russian Cyrilic alphabet and script. Nations change.

Our fears are not imaginary . Cultural, linguistic affinity between two asymmetrical nations can adversely affect a smaller nation. Nepal has a Hindi Nepalese conflict too. Border area Madhesis speak Hindi and mountain interior people speak Nepalese. The Nepalese speaking population feels culturally and linguistically threatened too.

Continue speaking your language and driving on the left side of the road. We will change.

So do you consider people like Fawad Khan, Atif Aslam, Wasim Akram, cricketers wanting to play IPL as fools? I understand that you may be feeling threatened culturally because the divide (India-Pak) is too artificial. It is very difficult for even Indians and Pakistanis to identify who is an Indian or Pakistani. We are so similar. You have Muslims, we have Muslims. You have Punjabis, we have Punjabis. You and I speak similar tongue. And I can go on and on.
At times, we Indians do feel culturally threatened by West due to our over-reliance on English (see movie Hindi Medium), but that is something we have to manage as well.

Thank you for the compliments.

"severing that connection and adopting a foreign culture."

The connections were severed in 1947 , and our connections with our eastern wing were again severed in 1971. So effectively we are no more South Asian, except linked by language to India. Even the linguistic connection is an artificial one, since the link language is not native ti Pakistan.
We are not adopting a foreign culture but merely cleansing our culture from South Asian influence. We have changed our dress, No more lungis, or sarees. We have changed our cuisine.. We have changed music. The only thing we have not changed is our language. It is about time. We have not changed our link language- yet .

We are not running away from our identities, but merely transforming it.
If you don't blackmail us, our change will be faster.

Forget us. We will forget you.

Good luck if it helps you to transform your identities. We might not be able to forget as we have no reason to. You are free to forget us.

 

[nahtanbob]

We are Pakistan's First ....

It is necessary now as never before to emphasize our identity.

We are Pakistanis, dwellers of Sindh, Baluchistan, KPK, Gilgit, Baltistan, Punjab and Azad Kashmir. We are defined by a common cultural thread of Saraiki linking our provinces and our peoples.
Ours is an ancient culture going back to the dawn of civilization established in the Indus River Valley 5400 years ago. We have evolved over the centuries absorbing other cultures and religions.

Over the last 50 years our cultural and national identity has been transformed and redefined.
We are redefining our cultural traditions to as they were centuries back with deep roots to Central Asia and the Middle East. In dress, language, and cuisine we are now different than we were 50 years back. Few nations in the world have culturally transformed so rapidly.

To further redefine it is necessary to emphasize who we are NOT...
Pakistanis are Not :

1. "Indian" Muslims - We are not part of "India", and yes a majority of our
population is Muslim, but religion is not the only defining feature of our national
identity.
We have no connection with the Muslim population of "India" as defined by its
territory today.

2. "West" Pakistanis - There is no "East" or "West" Pakistan but simply Pakistan.


3. "South" Asians- Pakistanis are Asians and our population similarity is with West or Central
Asia.

What do PDF members think?

Are the other South Asian populations at all relevant to us?

Step one will be write a history book that all Pakistanis can learn their history.

Whether you like it or not Pakistanis are grouped in the same category as Indians whether it is USA, UK or Canada. You are not grouped with Middle Easterners or Central Asians

 

[nahtanbob]

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.

If there is one thing other than Islam that I associate with Pakistanis it is Urdu language