Pakistan should be named 'People's Republic of Pakistan'

[Kompromat]

So there was an idea of Pakistan and India in their ( Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, Mangal pandey ) minds when they died fighting against the British Raaj ?

I like to think that they were fighting for a territoriality undefined moral cause, therefore i hold respect for them.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

I mentioned % to convey that we are an overwhelming demographic majority, which means that our democratic opinions and aspirations will decide the fate of our culture and country. The 3% minorities have all due rights in our constitution (and i am not saying that they are treated constitutionally, that's a different debate.). What they can't do is to tell the majority to give up its very identity. Not happening!

Don't get me wrong
I totally support your stance. I totally understand that having a different name of State will be an unprecedented attack on the identity of the majority. And I am completely with you.
My second question is does 86% also count as an enabled majority? By enabled majority I mean the kind that can say the rest 14% to "go smoke bong"? Just to clarify...thanks in advance.

 

[Kompromat]

Except that your founding fathers were pretty comfortable with the idea of the Brits hanging around.

They were just playing politics, buying time. And the final battle against the British was fought by Muslims, so were many of the mutinies started by Muslims.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

u know what i kinda agree 100%.
i had already mentioned pakistani indepence n the indian independence are different.
but even after i agree with ur conclusions , new doubts wud arise

-- if minorities in pak didnt do anything for pak indepence, they can "have bong" (lucky fellas), so how about india's minorities , particularly , muslim, who supported the pakistani cause, and thereby, directly went against the indian state ??

should we tell them to "have bong" , as they didnt just play spectator (like minorities in pak), but went against the state of india.

two points should be cleared btw
--- ppl , irrespective of religious and regional background, helped in the india's independence.
--- just like india is a collection of states and not a state of its own, pakistan is also a collection of states. she is a regional identity at the very best, just like india. the only thing diffrent in both the cases ---- india is hindu and pak is muslim (and contrary to many beliefs this side of the border, we are as fundamentalists as you guys are, if not more.)

lastly we can get enough bong for 20% minorities.

"should we tell them to "have bong" , as they didnt just play spectator (like minorities in pak), but went against the state of india."
Our stupidity should not be their benchmark. We should have sent anyone doing that to Pakistan - no questions asked. Besides, the fact that Muslims played an insignificant role in Indian independence is beyond dispute.

I am enjoying this debate.

They were just playing politics, buying time. And the final battle against the British was fought by Muslims, so were many of the mutinies started by Muslims.

Yes, all a pre-planned two century long conspiracy

 

[toxic_pus]

They were just playing politics, buying time.

Aha. The Jalal syndrome.

But can you elaborate so I can learn and possibly rectify my mistake in assessment.

And the final battle against the British was fought by Muslims, so were many of the mutinies started by Muslims.

Final battle? What final battle?

And the mutinies were not against British colonialism.

 

[Kompromat]

u know what i kinda agree 100%.
i had already mentioned pakistani indepence n the indian independence are different.
but even after i agree with ur conclusions , new doubts wud arise

if minorities in pak didnt do anything for pak indepence, they can "have bong" (lucky fellas), so how about india's minorities , particularly , muslim, who supported the pakistani cause, and thereby, directly went against the indian state ??

Sir, what you do in India is not my problem. My problem is what is/will happening/happen in my land and to my people.

should we tell them to "have bong" , as they didnt just play spectator (like minorities in pak), but went against the state of india.

That's a decision for you to make, not for us. We will tell them to go and smoke bong if they started this stupid debate on name and so on. We can just defeat them in a democratic referendum by sheer votes.

two points should be cleared btw
ppl , irrespective of religious and regional background, helped in the india's independence.

Thats true for Pakistan to the extent of Ahmadis.

just like india is a collection of states and not a state of its own, pakistan is also a collection of states. she is a regional identity at the very best, just like india. the only thing diffrent in both the cases ---- india is hindu and pak is muslim (and contrary to many beliefs this side of the border, we are as fundamentalists as you guys are, if not more.)

I will repeat that what you do in India is your issue. You should serve your national interest and we shall serve ours.

lastly we can get enough bong for 20% minorities.

We'll open the transit to Afghanistan for you to import train loads of pure hashish.

 

[ShahidT]

i know the OP can't reply my points since he has been kicked off the thread, but I'd still like to make them.

Why do you see it as necessary to draw parallels between the system Bangladesh adopted, and that of Pakistan? We went our separate ways, however unfortunately or unamicably, and hence any comparisons seem quite feather brained.

At the risk of insulting you guys, Bangladesh was created on the basis of ethnic nationalism which is one of the worst things in Islam, and explicitly as one of the types of fitna. Its the very antithesis of Pakistan, which is based on Muslim unity and the very principles of Islam which you shunned when you became an atheist secular 'people's' republic.

Our ideology and thinking is of a different kind, and if you have objections to a genuine Islamic system implemented properly (which is something every Muslim should relentlessly strive for til death) then I have nothing left to say to you.

Remember you're suggesting this to a nation whose father penned the following:

Aik Hon Muslim Haram Ki Pasbani Ke Liye
Neel Ke Sahil Se Le Kar Ta Bakhak-e-Kashghar

May the Muslims unite in watching over the Shrine,
From the banks of the Nile to the deserts of Kashghar.

 

[baajey]

"should we tell them to "have bong" , as they didnt just play spectator (like minorities in pak), but went against the state of india."
Our stupidity should not be their benchmark. We should have sent anyone doing that to Pakistan - no questions asked. Besides, the fact that Muslims played an insignificant role in Indian independence is beyond dispute.

dada,
humbly, but very firmly, i do not agree.
however insignificant or small the contribution is, it did help the cause.
morever, lots of ppl were either too hungry(dalits/muslims) or too greedy (baniyas, not all of course), to take take time off ther daily lives to contribute to the freedom struggle.

Sir, what you do in India is not my problem. My problem is what is/will happening/happen in my land and to my people.



That's a decision for you to make, not for us. We will tell them to go and smoke bong if they started this stupid debate on name and so on. We can just defeat them in a democratic referendum by sheer votes.



Thats true for Pakistan to the extent of Ahmadis.



I will repeat that what you do in India is your issue. You should serve your national interest and we shall serve ours.



We'll open the transit to Afghanistan for you to import train loads of pure hashish.

points taken.
and thanks for the transit, we shall make sure that you (i mean the gov) get handsome compensation.

 

[Not Sure]

The British Empire.

What kind of history lesson do they give you over there? From Syed Ahmad Khan - the first proponent of two nation theory, to Muhammad Ali Jinnah... None of them went to jail for protesting against the Britishers.

But what does it matter, the history taught to you is in complete contradiction with the history the rest of the world learns. Nothing matters more.

 

[maxpayne]

Pakistan may be Muslim majority country but it doesn't endorse Sharia. So, why the name Islamic Republic of Pakistan? Pakistan's founder Jinnah never actually wanted Sharia in Pakistan. Even Ayub Khan named the country 'Democratic Republic of Pakistan' but some Mullahs later changed it to 'Islamic Republic of Pakistan'. Tell me one Muslim country which is following Sharia and there is peace and peace everywhere. Turkey is a secular country even though it is Muslim majority country. Bangladesh is founded on secularism hence its name is 'People's Republic of Bangladesh'.

Pakistan should be named 'People's Republic of Pakistan'.

People's Republic of Pakistan - Can We? by Sonia Ahmed

People from all walks of life - irrespective of caste, colour or creed - joined the Hindu community to celebrate the colourful festival of Holi at the Lakshmi Narayan Temple on Sunday. PHOTO: ATHAR KHAN/EXPRESS

Can I dare say The People's Republic of Pakistan? Can it ever be possible? Mohammad Ali Jinnah created just Pakistan, but then the later voting seeking politicians changed it to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Today this very Islamic Republic of Pakistan, is a great example of the Sunni-Shia wars, the Mohajir- Punjab War, India-Pakistan War, Minority Killing Wars, Media wars, self appointed Pseudo-Intellectual leader wars!

Why did we not keep Jinnah's name - "Pakistan?" Why did we have to make a nation Islamic. Jinnah never said that the minorities will be not be given importance, in fact the flag has a white color representing the minorities, then making the whole of Pakistan Islamic is already discriminating the minorities.

Well people, welcome to my Pakistan and my Pakistan has the teachings of Jinnah and the other person included is President Musharraf minus all his advisors. He just needs to be told that he can do without his advisors.

Rest then an appeal to the people of Pakistan, to the youth of Pakistan, and that is to keep Jinnah alive to bring back the Pakistan for the people of Pakistan. Pakistan is not Islam, people are not Islam, we are all humans first and Islam is a great religion and it is a part of us. But we are Pakistanis and humans first. Keeping aside the cast, creed, color and religions, WE ARE PAKISTANIS FIRST! PEHLE PAKISTAN! PAKISTAN ZINDABAD!

Sonia Ahmed- President of Miss Pakistan World: People's Republic of Pakistan - Can We? by Sonia Ahmed

How weird....a non-pakistani stating us to change our name!!!

 

[baajey]

Of course, but I don't count the Khilafat Movement as an 'Indian Freedom' struggle
Secondly - I am from Mattan, JnK (Yeah I know my name is just an alias).

noooooo !!!! this is not fair.

Nevertheless, I agree that there has been a minute Muslim support to the Indian freedom movement. But even then we did not have any right to appease them for decades.

bang on target ..... fully agree.
i also think that this appeasement has led to the overall undergrowth of the muslim community and resentment among the hindus.

 

[qamar1990]

Good answer. Inspired.
@IamBengali - Just as @Aeronaut stated above - you must be having a problem with the 'Muslim way of life'. The minorities of your country as well as the liberals should just stick to being 'Islamic'. Islamic country...Islamic rules.

This line is really lovely -

@levina

happens in every country not just pakistan. its natural the the majority will get their way.

 

[baajey]

How weird....a non-pakistani stating us to change our name!!!

forgive him....
in PDF suggestions run amock....

 

[qamar1990]

Does this hold true for all minorities or just the minorities of Pakistan?

Just curious.

all minorities.
in india hindus get their way , in pakistan muslims get their way.

 

[Indischer]

Because Pakistan was not a republic until 1956. Until then we were under the british crown. The name Islamic republic of Pakistan was chosen in the constitution of 1956 when Pakistan a republic.

The Bottom line is, that Pakistanis will decide what our country would become. Majority of Pakistanis desire a functional Muslim state. We may become communists, secularists or a Sharia state, its no one's business. This is our country and we will decide its future.

Lastly, since Muslims are the majority, our laws and way of life will prevail. Millions of our ancestors paid with their blood, wealth and honor so we could have a choice they didn't have. If 3% minorities have a problem with our country's name, it means that they have a problem with Muslims, our way of life aspirations and Islam.

If they have a problem with the majority and their aspirations, the majority can tell them go and smoke bong! - just because we 'can'. The Christians and Hindus didn't have any significant role in our freedom movement, they paid no price for our freedom. They got it as a result of the blood sacrifice of our forefathers....and whoever has the power to give also reserves the right to 'take it back'.

With respect to the bolded quote, do you mean to say that the Hindus, Sikhs and Christians of Pakistan did not take part in the freedom struggle?