Pakistan 'in' South Asia

[SQ8]

Something like an Perso-Afghan Pakistan and an Indian Pakistan, with only Islam connecting the two as a nation state?

Can we then say that the conflict within Pakistan stems more from a clash of people and bloodlines and less from religious differences per se, as a significant half of Pakistan seems disconnected from the Indian half and sees themselves as essentially different?

In effect, a sociocultural buffer zone between the ancient Persian and Indian civilizations?

Possible, but currently one identity is winning over the other due to being more organized and that would be the Perso_afghan Pakistan.. It has due to its cultural similarities with the Arabs "trademarked" Islam in Pakistan and uses this to exert influence over the other side. And while the Disconnect is not as such , the dis-balance of influence on Islam in Pakistan is.
There are also many cultural activities in Pakistan that have nothing to do with Islam and go against it , yet are carried out on the shrines of sufi saints..such activities are culturally descendant from the people and their pre-Islamic heritage and earn the ire of many Pakistani Muslims.
Again, without a centres that guide Islamic thought in Pakistan..such issues will only grow.

Moreover.. apart from Islam there are other identity forces at play based on the age old sub-continent issue of caste and creed.
And the two cultural sides you have defined(loosly) are usually at angst over each others assumed "pride" in their heritage.

 

[Roybot]

Pakistan is more like Eastern Europe.

 

[angeldust]

That a very insightful remark. It is why the Egyptians, the Iraqis, the Iranians can all be proud of their past(there are no other claimants either to that culture or religion) but Pakistanis find it difficult. Even in the case of the IVC, Pakistanis feel the need to separate it from any aspect of Indian culture (thereby deny Indians any claim) or religion (have to completely ignore & rubbish even what are very remote Hindu connections). Little wonder most remain confused on their historical identities.

Equally insightful. Where do you think the Hindus succeeded where the Zoroastrian Persians and Egyptians failed?

Was it distance (separation from the Arabian peninsula)?

Was it strength of their ancient culture and faith?

Was it simply size?

Was it the Hindukush?

Was it military strength?

Was it the absence of an effective Arab navy?

 

[SQ8]

That a very insightful remark. It is why the Egyptians, the Iraqis, the Iranians can all be proud of their past(there are no other claimants either to that culture or religion) but Pakistanis find it difficult. Even in the case of the IVC, Pakistanis feel the need to separate it from any aspect of Indian culture (thereby deny Indians any claim) or religion (have to completely ignore & rubbish even what are very remote Hindu connections). Little wonder most remain confused on their historical identities.

Which is Ironic..
Since one of the most important occasions in the life of any Human being in Pakistan.. Marriage

Has much more in common in terms of culture with what happens across the border

Then what happens in a Peninsula across the Arabian Sea

 

[Shahin Vatani]

Equally insightful. Where do you think the Hindus succeeded where the Zoroastrian Persians and Egyptians failed?

Was it distance (separation from the Arabian peninsula)?

Was it strength of their ancient culture and faith?

Was it simply size?

Was it the Hindukush?

Was it military strength?

Was it the absence of an effective Arab navy?

I believe it to be mainly distance. Same reason why Alexander of Macedon failed to capture India. By the time they got there, they where already spent and tired, longing to go home.

 

[zip]

A small plant grows to become big tree but still maintains its character ..likewise pakistan is nothing but extended arab ideology ..arabians physically, philosophically, culturally extended their territory and we call it pakistan ..there is no doubt that their identity rests with arabs ..denying it is denying the truth ..

 

[angeldust]

I believe it to be mainly distance. Same reason why Alexander the Great failed to capture India. By the time they got there, they where already spent and tired, longing to go home.

I am surprised to find any Iranian or Zoroastrian who would suffix "great" to Alexander.

Anyways, I got your point.

But Alexander's armies, those of the Huns/Mongols, as well as the Arabs, all reached India from different distances. I think it has more to do with the Hindukush on a poorly (by today's standards) equipped expeditionary force.

Where the Arabs (and later Mongol/Turks) succeeded in India was when they set root.

And then the snowball effect of the faith they brought with them on the local populace.

I still believe that the British were both a blessing as well as a disguise for Islam in undivided India.

It brought a permanent end to what was left of Muslim rule.

But equally it ensured that invader's Islam got a breather by breaking a large chunk of the faith away from its roots.

The alternative would have / could have been a more secular sub-continental Islam.

 

[Don Jaguar]

I dont think you have travelled a lot then as such.
All along north to south of Pakistan, there are multiple pockets and groups of people who consider themselves "arab" by taking their "Syed" heritage a bit too literally. Others dont even have lineage to use as an excuse but still end up dressing up like Arabs and imposing draconian restrictions on their families in the guise of Islam and Arabism. With most providing the argument that "because we are Muslims, we are Arabs".

There are three different arguments I have heard from different viewpoints summed together:

First on the basis of genealogy , yes there are many in Pakistan who may consider themselves of Arab "blood" since detailed family tree's and authentic genealogical charts have been recorded as a practice since the times of the Tughlak dynasty.
Many of these Arab lines are from the Sufi Saints that came into India to preach and propagate Islam, for eg the descendants of Moenuddin Chishti of Ajmer carry Arab-Afghan heritage and can through detailed verified genealogical charts..however to consider that for 900 years to this day this bloodline carries only Arab-Afghan blood is to be unrealistic. The number of converts in India grew under these Saints and many married into many local populations in an effort to "integrate" Islam into India(not the opposite).
So yes, there is now a measurable section of both India & Pakistan that is Arab,Afghan and Persian by heritage and lineage...
This means that while they do have a separate identity..it is not Arab or Persian or otherwise.
It was a unique identity of being Indian(pre-partition) Muslims..of being part of the land rather than alien to it...
It had little role to play in politics until the British came along.

However, these people form much less of the actual population of Pakistan and are generally mirrored by many "fake" representations of Arab lineage(which in reality may not even have a single Arab Chromosome in them). And these have mirror counterparts in India as well. These are generally "created" for personal gain rather than identity and should not be taken as an attempt to be more Arab than the Arabs.

Second: are the "urbies" or Wannabe "arabs".. this new phenomenon is the direct result of the interference and influence of the Saud Dynasty into Pakistani society. The introduction of this Modern Arab Extremism has led to a large section of the religious leadership in Pakistan and otherwise to completely consider themselves alien to the rest of South Asia simply based on the fact that their religion is Islam.
So even though a person may be entirely Dravidian by his lineage.. He considers himself a Arab(apparently being Muslim cuts you off from the land) and starts to dress and act accordingly. This conversion varies across the spectrum with various shades of Arabism and Afghan cultural shades appearing within this lot. This does however point more to the nature of the people of this land to adapt to different influences rather than a testament to being separate from the rest of South Asia.
India was able to avoid this phenomenon because the major Islamic education centre's in British India(Deoband,Osmania University, Aligarh University) stayed within India after Partition(although most of Deobands Scholars migrated to Pakistan..and did not take up the Deoband name again.. which means that many of those that consider themselves Deobandis arent exactly following those of the original institution..although this requires more research) and hence the leadership that provides Islamic thought and guidance in India is still fairly controlled through these institutions.
While in Pakistan, there is no centre to "regulate" Islamic thought... its everyone's heyday and interpretation...which when it comes in the hands of the uneducated or unbridled.. results in the disaster we see today.

A third argument is that the area that the Indus River has always been a buffer between South Asia and the Middle east..
The mixpot where hundreds of cultural colors end up mixing and hundreds of different identities exist. And where generally.. the Indus has acted much like a cultural equivalent of a timezone divider. If such is the case, then there will always be an identity issue across Pakistan since it is caught between two differing shades of cultural views.
One in the east that is more colourful and vibrant but varying, and the other in its west that is more Sober and uniform but disciplined. Education may have been one tool to unite these two halves and promote a balanced harmony.. but that never happened.

In my view..the final result is a mixture of all these conditions and perhaps other social phenomenon which history has influenced.

The actual study will require less bias and bigotry than which can be provided by many PDF members in my view.

Brother you have many valid points in your post but let me tell you even majority syeds don't call themself arabs because they are mixed with locals from past 1000 years.

I think i forgot to introduce myself to you.

Don Jaguar : Syed Mohammad Jawad Abidi.

 

[SQ8]

I am surprised to find any Iranian or Zoroastrian who would suffix "great" to Alexander.

Anyways, I got your point.

But Alexander's armies, those of the Huns/Mongols, as well as the Arabs, all reached India from different distances. I think it has more to do with the Hindukush on a poorly (by today's standards) equipped expeditionary force.

Where the Arabs (and later Mongol/Turks) succeeded in India was when they set root.

And then the snowball effect of the faith they brought with them on the local populace.

I still believe that the British were both a blessing as well as a disguise for Islam in undivided India.

It brought a permanent end to what was left of Muslim rule.

But equally it ensured that invader's Islam got a breather by breaking a large chunk of the faith away from its roots.

The alternative would have / could have been a more secular sub-continental Islam.

The greatest effect it had was after the 1857 Mutiny.. When Muslims were more or less singled out due to their leadership status during those times.. that single isolation led the Muslims to consider all other their enemies.

 

[Shahin Vatani]

I am surprised to find any Iranian or Zoroastrian who would suffix "great" to Alexander.

Anyways, I got your point.

But Alexander's armies, those of the Huns/Mongols, as well as the Arabs, all reached India from different distances. I think it has more to do with the Hindukush on a poorly (by today's standards) equipped expeditionary force.

Where the Arabs (and later Mongol/Turks) succeeded in India was when they set root.

And then the snowball effect of the faith they brought with them on the local populace.

I still believe that the British were both a blessing as well as a disguise for Islam in undivided India.

It brought a permanent end to what was left of Muslim rule.

But equally it ensured that Islam got a breather by breaking a large chunk of the faith away from its roots.

Duly noted and edited to Alexander of Macedon.

Another point may be that India, being a largely peaceful nation, never had as many enemies as Iran/Persia.

For example Persia and Greece where warring with each other for Centuries before Alexander showed up. The rivalry was really intense and there was extra incentive for Alexander to conquer Iran. The same was not true for India.

Now for the Arabs/Muslim conquests, you must remember that they where increasing their empire westwards and not just eastwards. Therefore they didn't have enough resources at their disposal necessary enough to invade India, while still concentrating on North Africa and Southern Europe.

 

[angeldust]

Duly noted and edited to Alexander of Macedon.

Another point may be that India, being a largely peaceful nation, never had as many enemies as Iran/Persia.

For example Persia and Greece where warring with each other for Centuries before Alexander showed up. The rivalry was really intense and there was extra incentive for Alexander to conquer Iran. The same was not true for India.

Now for the Arabs/Muslim conquests, you must remember that they where increasing their empire westwards and not just eastwards. Therefore they didn't have enough resources at their disposal necessary enough to invade India, while still concentrating on North Africa and Southern Europe.

Appreciate the correction.

Good point regarding Islam's 360 degree spread, but the timelines do not exactly coincide right?

I mean in terms of Africa, Spain etc. vis a vis the first waves that hit India. 500 odd years (I suck at history and dates)?

 

[SamranAli]

One big truth for indians.

I am 22 born and raised in Pakistan met thousands of people travelled from north to south, And i never met a single Pakistani who calls himself arab.

Please tell me whenever you find anybody im yet to see a pakistani calling himself arab, indian persian etc.

 

[ajtr]

I dont think you have travelled a lot then as such.
All along north to south of Pakistan, there are multiple pockets and groups of people who consider themselves "arab" by taking their "Syed" heritage a bit too literally. Others dont even have lineage to use as an excuse but still end up dressing up like Arabs and imposing draconian restrictions on their families in the guise of Islam and Arabism. With most providing the argument that "because we are Muslims, we are Arabs".

There are three different arguments I have heard from different viewpoints summed together:

First on the basis of genealogy , yes there are many in Pakistan who may consider themselves of Arab "blood" since detailed family tree's and authentic genealogical charts have been recorded as a practice since the times of the Tughlak dynasty.
Many of these Arab lines are from the Sufi Saints that came into India to preach and propagate Islam, for eg the descendants of Moenuddin Chishti of Ajmer carry Arab-Afghan heritage and can through detailed verified genealogical charts..however to consider that for 900 years to this day this bloodline carries only Arab-Afghan blood is to be unrealistic. The number of converts in India grew under these Saints and many married into many local populations in an effort to "integrate" Islam into India(not the opposite).
So yes, there is now a measurable section of both India & Pakistan that is Arab,Afghan and Persian by heritage and lineage...
This means that while they do have a separate identity..it is not Arab or Persian or otherwise.
It was a unique identity of being Indian(pre-partition) Muslims..of being part of the land rather than alien to it...
It had little role to play in politics until the British came along.

However, these people form much less of the actual population of Pakistan and are generally mirrored by many "fake" representations of Arab lineage(which in reality may not even have a single Arab Chromosome in them). And these have mirror counterparts in India as well. These are generally "created" for personal gain rather than identity and should not be taken as an attempt to be more Arab than the Arabs.

Second: are the "urbies" or Wannabe "arabs".. this new phenomenon is the direct result of the interference and influence of the Saud Dynasty into Pakistani society. The introduction of this Modern Arab Extremism has led to a large section of the religious leadership in Pakistan and otherwise to completely consider themselves alien to the rest of South Asia simply based on the fact that their religion is Islam.
So even though a person may be entirely Dravidian by his lineage.. He considers himself a Arab(apparently being Muslim cuts you off from the land) and starts to dress and act accordingly. This conversion varies across the spectrum with various shades of Arabism and Afghan cultural shades appearing within this lot. This does however point more to the nature of the people of this land to adapt to different influences rather than a testament to being separate from the rest of South Asia.
India was able to avoid this phenomenon because the major Islamic education centre's in British India(Deoband,Osmania University, Aligarh University) stayed within India after Partition(although most of Deobands Scholars migrated to Pakistan..and did not take up the Deoband name again.. which means that many of those that consider themselves Deobandis arent exactly following those of the original institution..although this requires more research) and hence the leadership that provides Islamic thought and guidance in India is still fairly controlled through these institutions.
While in Pakistan, there is no centre to "regulate" Islamic thought... its everyone's heyday and interpretation...which when it comes in the hands of the uneducated or unbridled.. results in the disaster we see today.

A third argument is that the area that the Indus River has always been a buffer between South Asia and the Middle east..
The mixpot where hundreds of cultural colors end up mixing and hundreds of different identities exist. And where generally.. the Indus has acted much like a cultural equivalent of a timezone divider. If such is the case, then there will always be an identity issue across Pakistan since it is caught between two differing shades of cultural views.
One in the east that is more colourful and vibrant but varying, and the other in its west that is more Sober and uniform but disciplined. Education may have been one tool to unite these two halves and promote a balanced harmony.. but that never happened.

In my view..the final result is a mixture of all these conditions and perhaps other social phenomenon which history has influenced.

The actual study will require less bias and bigotry than which can be provided by many PDF members in my view.

As Hasan nisar sarcastically says-"saare arab ki abaadi se jada syed hamare yahan hain."

 

[Ticker]

Some brilliant parts highlighted!

Yes you are not arab. Unfortunately a good part of your population is confused about that.

No you are not successors of Indus Valley, you share the history of Indus Valley along with India. Unfortunately a good part of your population is also confused about this.

You are not even close to being the strongest Muslim country! Stop deluding yourself.

Some of us are of Arab descent, Turkish descent, Central Asian descent etc etc.

Large part of us are the descendents of the Indus Valley Civilization.

Because the current Indian Hindus did not have a identity since thousands of years. And because they occupied Delhi, which for some part of history was the center of Indian ruler, thought that they are by default the owners of whole of Muslim or British India. It was not true in 1947 when current state known as India was formulated and is not true even now.

We the people of Pakistan are the scions of and hold the cradle of Indus Valley Civilization and have done so since thousands of years. The current majority who hold the cradle of Indus Civilization are the true scions and nobody else.

The current Indians, because we ruled them as scions and holders for thousands of years were our subjects. How can now, the subjects seek to be the owners of what we held for thousands of years.

Ye log hamaray kammi kameen thay - ab kaisay sahab ban saktay hein. Na pehlay thaty na ab hein aur na hi kabhi hongay.

Pakistan is one of the strongest nations of not even South Asia but West Asia and Middle East as well. India ke identity-less and identity-seeking Hindu upstarts se hamein kisi kisim ki acknowledgment nahin chaihiye.

 

[SamranAli]

But India is not Hindu. India comprises a majority of Hindus but also has almost a huge number of Muslims, Christians, Budhists, Aethists, etc.

We are declared and fully so a secular country.

On the other hand, in Pakistan, its a race to see who is more Muslim. they donot like multiculturalism.

Secular india where minorities are constantly under attack. They have no voice.