Pakistan was created on the basis of group nationalism and not religion

[alphamale]

The name Bharat is derived from the name of the legendary king Bharata in Hindu scriptures. Hindustan ([ɦɪnd̪ʊˈst̪aːn] ( listen)), originally a Persian word for “Land of the Hindus” referring to northern India and Pakistan before 1947, is also occasionally used as a synonym for all of India

Sindhu is more of a native name for you guys but you preferred to be called what foreigners named you.

the name india had become quite popular all over the world for this part of the world that's why our leaders didn't changed the name. moreover due to secular nature of our country naming it hindustan or bharat could have offended minorities. at that time our leaders did good job by not changing it's name. whether foreign or not we are proud to call ourselves as indians.

 

[harsh1488]

You are beyond any dough pathetic.

The name India is derived from Indus, which is derived from the Old Persian word Hindu, from Sanskrit सिन्धु Sindhu, the historic local appellation for the Indus River.

dont know why you are so obsessed with the name,make pakistan a pak country the we will talk on it
and hindu is based on sanskrit word sindhu

 

[PlanetWarrior]

More than 90% of your posts are in India related threads and "you" are saying this..

Jana's obsession with "Bhrti" "Hindustan" and occassionally India is gone to the point where she now demands that our secular nation stop marriages between Muslims and non-Muslims, that the banning of cow slaughter be uplifted and that Pakistani standards be applied in India Who knows what will be next ? That we allow the USA to start drone bombing our people if they pay us some aid? Or maybe that we allow certain parts of India to be ruled by militant gun-toting Hindu cadres who will be used in our attempts to destabilise Pakistan

 

[Myth_buster_1]

the name india had become quite popular all over the world for this part of the world that's why our leaders didn't changed the name. moreover due to secular nature of our country naming it hindustan or bharat could have offended minorities. at that time our leaders did good job by not changing it's name. whether foreign or not we are proud to call ourselves as indians.

Yes you people preferred to be called what Foreigners named you. Be proud be very proud of it.

---------- Post added at 02:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:29 PM ----------

dont know why you are so obsessed with the name,make pakistan a pak country the we will talk on it
and hindu is based on sanskrit word sindhu

Pakistan is still much more pak then India.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

Yes you people preferred to be called what Foreigners named you. Be proud be very proud of it.

---------- Post added at 02:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:29 PM ----------



Pakistan is still much more pak then India.

Somehow it seems difficult to make you understand that global world history dictates that most nations and states are named by "foreigners" or "invaders". Romans who invaded many places in Europe gave those lands titles by which they are still known today. English who invaded many places in Africa and North America and Asia likewise. Pakistan had the privelige of creating a new name for itself since it was being carved out of an existing nation and was being given nationhood. Stop wallowing with pride in your ignorance

 

[Leader]

Jana's obsession with "Bhrti" "Hindustan" and occassionally India is gone to the point where she now demands that our secular nation stop marriages between Muslims and non-Muslims, that the banning of cow slaughter be uplifted and that Pakistani standards be applied in India Who knows what will be next ? That we allow the USA to start drone bombing our people if they pay us some aid? Or maybe that we allow certain parts of India to be ruled by militant gun-toting Hindu cadres who will be used in our attempts to destabilise Pakistan

you all are here in PDF. meaningthereby, obsessed with PAKistan.

 

[53fd]

And just because you summarily dismissed the NSA Archive documents, I had to make this as a seperate post. This is not political wrangling about what Pakistan did with the Taliban. The National Security Archives is an authentic collection of source reports by the US intellignce and diplomatic community.

Follow these links
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART I:The U.S. Prepares for Conflict, 2001
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART II: Was There Even a Decision?
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART III: Shaping the Debate

and the doucumentary based on the torture memos archives here
TORTURINGDEMOCRACY.ORG

So when they come out with memos about Pakistan's relationship with the Taliban they are pretty credible. As credible as their claims of Bush lying about the WMDs
Pakistan: "The Taliban's Godfather"?

Stop lying man:

Iraq had WMDs (NSA documents):

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/wmd15.pdf

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/wmd14.pdf

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/wmd03.pdf

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/wmd05.pdf

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/wmd06.pdf

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/wmd10d.pdf

There are 10-20 more links from the NSA many years before the Iraq War took place, I just posted these because these were enough. These NSA documents I posted are before & at the time of the Iraq Invasion.

This is how the Iraq WMDs myth were broken in the first place. The NSArchives were the solid proof that Bush administrations had lied about the war. They also were responsible for exposing the Bush torture policy as well.

Stop lying so despicably & shamelessly. You copied links posted later from the NSA, all the posted links from the NSA are from 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002. So the NSA fed the lie that Iraq had WMDs. Surprising they wouldn't think the Pakistani Army has links with the Taliban.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Somehow it seems difficult to make you understand that global world history dictates that most nations and states are named by "foreigners" or "invaders". Romans who invaded many places in Europe gave those lands titles by which they are still known today. English who invaded many places in Africa and North America and Asia likewise. Pakistan had the privelige of creating a new name for itself since it was being carved out of an existing nation and was being given nationhood. Stop wallowing with pride in your ignorance

India was never a "existing nation". It was part of British colony and before that the muslims ruled most part of the subcont.

 

[53fd]

And just to clarify JI-Hind's stand on SIMI because afterall SIMI was a child of JI-Hind's ideology, here is an interview by its head. Note again that Deoband has no ideological or any other linkages with SIMI because of their completely different thought processes. Just quoting the part about SIMI, the rest of the interview can be read at the link.

Jamaat-e-Islami Hind: Ameer-e-Jamaat on Terrorism, SIMI & politics in India



Q: What do you feel about the charges about the banned Students' Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) being behind these blasts? After all, at one time, the SIMI was the youth wing of the Jamaat-e Islami.

A: It should be clear that SIMI was never a wing of the Jamaat. Jamaat has its own wing, the SIO (formed in 1982). In 1992, the Iqdam-e-Ummat conference was organized by SIMI in Mumbai. There the SIMI activists used intemperate language. Then the Jamaat-e Islami Hind decided that henceforth no Jamaat representative would attend any SIMI meetings. This was done to emphasize the Jamaat's stand that the language used by Muslims must be proper and balanced. Prior to this, we had tried to make the SIMI realize that their immature approach was wrong, and under the circumstances it was unrealistic and impractical as well and not in accordance with the Islamic temperament.

However the ground reality is that even before the ban on the SIMI, its influence was rather limited. It was not the hugely influential movement that the media makes it out to be. Moreover as journalists such as Ajit Sahi of Tehelka have shown, no case of SIMI activists being involved in any illegal or disruptive acts has ever been proved in any court. If SIMI was really wedded to terrorism, as is being alleged, then why is it that when it was not banned it did not engage in such activities, and that after the ban, when its wings were clipped, its offices sealed, many of its activists arrested and others who had been associated with it closely watched by intelligence agencies, it was allegedly able to mastermind all these deadly blasts across the country? This question must be asked, but, of course, the media is not asking it.

Q: But surely the SIMI's radical rhetoric was inflammatory and pernicious. Its call for armed jihad, its visceral hatred for and opposition to democracy, secularism and the concept of the nation-state and its appeal for establishing a Caliphate in India naturally made it seen by many Indians, including Muslims, as very dangerous. In this sense, it was akin to some extreme radical Islamist groups in the Arab world. What do you have to say about this sort of approach?

A: Any immature approach is of course wrong and completely impractical and, moreover, it is counter-productive. However, you must realize that much of the SIMI's rhetoric was limited to raising slogans. Islamic movements across the world have increasingly begun to avoid empty rhetoric. They know that any immature action leads to harsh suppression. Islamic movements in various countries are clearly realizing that the only practical avenue before them is through peaceful mass movements which could engage in democratic politics and in elections to present their agenda and win public support. Well-known Islamic parties such as the Jamaat-e Islami of Pakistan and Bangladesh, the Ikhwan ul-Muslimin in Egypt, the Refah Party in Turkey and so on are routinely taking part in elections and seeking peaceful means to come to power. They de facto recognize the existing secular and democratic Constitutions, even though they may not be Islamic Constitutions. Seeking to gain public acceptance and support by participating in elections and using peaceful means is their method.

Q: So, are you suggesting that the radical approach of extremist groups such as Hizb ut Tahrir in the Arab world and Central Asia or the SIMI, which aimed to capture political power through violence to establish what they call an Islamic state, is wrong?

A: To shun peaceful mass movement and adopt coercion is entirely impractical and counter-productive, as I earlier mentioned. As I said, only through peaceful means one may seek to bring about the desired change. However your perception that SIMI aimed to capture power through violence is entirely wrong. Participating in democratic elections is certainly one possibility before the Islamic parties. It is a different matter that when in some countries an Islamic party wins the elections the West (which otherwise keeps harping about democracy) makes sure that such a party does not actually come to power. The instances of Turkey and Algeria can be seen in this context. But even if this happens, there is no practical alternative to the peaceful movement method. After all, how long can the West succeed in denying Muslim masses the regimes that they democratically wish to elect?

Mullah Omar has even said he doesn't oppose girls schools & girls education in Afghanistan. This is how much these interviews mean.

 

[Leader]

India was never a "existing nation". It was part of British colony and before that the muslims ruled most part of the subcont.

even if we take his argument as a justification, still India was never a nation, and it still isnt. what bounds them as one? just a word, a descriptive word for a piece of land used by foreigners? I see big time identity crisis coming their way...

 

[Leader]

by the way we can start a new thread with name "Identity crisis in modern day country called India"

 

[Myth_buster_1]

even if we take his argument as a justification, still India was never a nation, and it still isnt. what bounds them as one? just a word, a descriptive word for a piece of land used by foreigners? I see big time identity crisis coming their way...

Bollywood and cricket bounds them together and i am serious.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

even if we take his argument as a justification, still India was never a nation, and it still isnt. what bounds them as one? just a word, a descriptive word for a piece of land used by foreigners? I see big time identity crisis coming their way...

Identity between its inhabitants who live together as one nation with pride. On diverse occassions the country which we hold as India was a united nation under various kings. Hence the average Indian's attitude that Pakistan was an Indian gift to its Muslim breathen.

What binds together people of different faiths, cultures and languages ? It is their love for their land and their country. The USA is an example. I guess that in your mind there is an id crisis in the USA ?

By the way sahib, what makes Pakistan a "nation"? Is it the various tribes who love Islam? Then again which blend of Islam do they love ? Perhaps you should search within for an id crisis and not pass the buck to your neighbour

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Identity between its inhabitants who live together as one nation with pride. On diverse occassions the country which we hold as India was a united nation under various kings. Hence the average Indian's attitude that Pakistan was an Indian gift to its Muslim breathen.

With pride? Does that include majority of Kashmiris Assamis etc?
And when exactly when was India a united nation with such diverse ethnicity culture language and religion?

 

[srsrsr]

"Group nationalism" argument is crap. This is very evident when Pak was created along with Bengal, where except religion there's no group characteristics.

Pakistan was created to help Muslim majority, Period, irrespective of the type of government ( islamic, non-islamic or mixup of boths doesnt matter)