Pakistanis are obsessed with Islam, Kashmir & Hindus -- Sheikh Mujib's speech

[Bengal71]

You do since you're making a fuss over it.



Ghazni and Lahore both acted as his capitals on rotation throughout the year (Lahore in the colder months, Ghazni in the warmer ones).



Pakistan itself only came into being in 1947. Our heroes from prior to that time would be the Muslim empires of the region since they are the reason Pakistan exists, and because so many of us are related to them.



You dumb fisherman, the first person to envision Pakistan was Ahmed Khan, who came from Delhi when it was still under Mughal rule (he also came from a long line of Mughal aristocrats).



Exactly, and since so many of us are Pashtun, our heroes will naturally overlap with Afghanistan's.



6 people is a far cry from the warzone you were describing.

None of those Muslim empires belonged to you guys, they are not your heros, you are borrowing heros from others since you have none. Stop being wannabe Afghans, turks, turko-mongols and arabs. Have an identity of your own.

 

[padamchen]

The idea of Pakistan predates their involvement.



Nah, they'd probably want to split from you over some stupid language controversy like they did with us.

We've had verious way more militant language movements in India.

Across racial cleave planes.

The Bangalis are racially no different to the the of the surrounding areas of India.

Compared to the Dravidian Tamilians.

There was only one split that worked. And that paved the way for the lesser split.

Cheers, Doc

 

[PakSarzameen5823]

If the Hindu Kush were to have been a civilizational boundary, the Persian empire and the present Iranic peoples of Pakistan would not have extended for most of history till the Indus River.

Which has always been a racial cleave plane.

@Indus Pakistan

Cheers, Doc

Agreed, the Indus River has always been the cut-off between the Iranics and the Indics.

However, the Iranics and Indics living close to this boundary are similar in many ways. The amount of Iranic ancestry among Punjabis and Dardics is far higher than with other Indics, and the amount of Indic ancestry among Pashtuns near the river is also far higher as compared to other Iranics.

 

[TMA]

None of those Muslim empires belonged to you guys, they are not your heros, you are borrowing heros from others since you have none. Stop being wannabe Afghans, turks, turko-mongols and arabs. Have an identity of your own.

Pakistan is the largest Afghan nation in the world, by Afghan I mean the original meaning, which is Pukhtoon.

 

[Bengal71]

Sure fair enough but maybe things weren’t so bad that he wasn’t killed by west Pakistan.. genocide numbers have been greatly exaggerated even by your own accounts.. still don’t understand the brotherly love at display hugging etc between mujib and Bhutto in 74 oic meeting if things were so bad between them.. just food for thought

Number of people killed maybe debatable but it took place regardless. Point is the under what kind of difficulty Mujib had to operate to achieve success, that needs to be taken into consideration to assess the greatness of his achievements.

Mujib and Bhutto both were politicians, it wad diplomatic etiquette.

 

[bluesky]

Mujib talking about Islam?!?!?

Kargalar bile guler - even crows will laugh...

No, Mujib was talking about the Pakistani-style Islam. Well, he told the truth. Pakistanis are showing love for Islam by destroying its very humanistic component through extreme measures. Fanatism has no place in the present world.

Open your eyes to see how you are being left behind. Your Mullahs are asking people to produce more children so as more Muslims can pray and thank Him. What an idea!!

I believe in the thinking of PM Imran Khan. Hope, he will change the country for the better. But, the number of Mullahs I see even in this Forum including an ignorant asshole like you, I fear for his precious life.

 

[Fortress]

I'm not going to get into semantics since my comment was purely retaliatory in nature, but if you insist then I suggest you read up about how Islam views separatism based on ethnic identity and how many of those killed from 1971 actually came from Muslim backgrounds.

That's precisely why I have been critical towards Pakistanis because of the sheer prevalence of tribal and sectarian politics. I wasn't born before 71 so I never engaged in any sort of Bengali ethnocentrism. I am alive now and in BD there's no tribalism and sectarian violence.


It's also why I look at the whole Pakistan-India partition in a negative light. From my perspective: millions of Muslims fought and died for control of Delhi and North India over centuries, so why the hell would we tuck our tail and do the opposite. And it was a failed project from the beginning.
(1.) There is no logical way that the entire population can leave their home and cross the border trekking such a long distance, especially when there exist plenty of people who were never targeted in ethnoreligious violence.
(2.) The religious scholarly centers of Sunni Islam, i.e., Deoband and Bareili were located in North India, so that is like cutting the head from the body. But not surprising when you realize that the Pak movement was heavily led by Shia and secularists so from their perspective this was never a concern.
(3.) East Pak and West Pak are not even connected, and Muslims are effectively divided along three separate polities. United we are strong, divided we are weak and that's what happened. Muslims would have been a third of the population today in a united subcontinent, and that's all you need for 'critical mass'.

Hindus never fought for their independence, they begged for it.... This phobia of Hindus like they are even capable of doing anything to Muslims once we have our numbers straight was paranoia, and I suspect politicians took advantage of it. There could have been entire states run by Muslims, both in the western and eastern ends, and that would have given Muslims immense leverage.

 

[TMA]

If the Hindu Kush were to have been a civilizational boundary, the Persian empire and the present Iranic peoples of Pakistan would not have extended for most of history till the Indus River.

Which has always been a racial cleave plane.

@Indus Pakistan

Cheers, Doc

True racial cleaves do not always respect geography....
So we can say than the Indus River is the boundary in the West...but what is in the East now?
And racially even Bharat is diverse...

 

[PakSarzameen5823]

None of those Muslim empires belonged to you guys

You're just repeating the same points without actually proving them, in spite of the evidence I have given which contradicts them.

Stop being wannabe Afghans, turks, turko-mongols and arabs

We have the largest population of Afghans in the entire world (the word Afghan has historically been an ethnonym for Pashtuns), we've got Hazaras who are Turco-Mongols and other people (e.g Mughals) who have Turco-Mongol ancestry, and we have Syeds, Qureshis, Ansaris, Awans, etc who all have Arab ancestry. In fact, you should check this out:

https://www.harappadna.org/2012/05/harappaworld-admixture/

This is the Harappa admixture sheet. You will find that Muslims from Pakistan and north-west India have higher amounts of SW Asian (i.e Arab) ancestry than their non-Muslim counterparts from the same ethnic group. The only exceptions are a few of the Sikh populations, which would be expected since many Muslims did convert to Sikhism (since Islam was already pretty firmly established in the Punjab at that time).

I'll give you some examples:

Kashmiri Paharis (overwhelmingly Muslim): 2% SW Asian admixture
Kashmiri Pandits (overwhelmingly not Muslim): 0% SW Asian admixture

Punjabi Arains (overwhelmingly Muslim): 2% SW Asian admixture
Punjabi Muslim Jatts: 2% SW Asian admixture
Punjabi Brahmins: 0% SW Asian admixture

Gujarati Muslims: 4% SW Asian admixture
Gujarati Patels (overwhelmingly not Muslim): 0% SW Asian admixture

Our country has been the target of many conquests and migrations, so all of this isn't surprising. What is surprising is how you feel confident enough to make such incorrect statements.

There was only one split that worked. And that paved the way for the lesser split.

Cheers, Doc

Perhaps, but I'm sceptical.

 

[padamchen]

Agreed, the Indus River has always been the cut-off between the Iranics and the Indics.

However, the Iranics and Indics living close to this boundary are similar in many ways. The amount of Iranic ancestry among Punjabis and Dardics is far higher than with other Indics, and the amount of Indic ancestry among Pashtuns near the river is also far higher as compared to other Iranics.

And that (a rump state of two sister Aryan civilizations, cobbled together by a Semitic faith) is what makes Pakistan a natural nation state.

Personally, Bangladesh is not. It was just the natural split superimposed on the first split.

Do you agree with my postulated sequence now?

Cheers, Doc

 

[PakSarzameen5823]

Have an identity of your own.

We do. We are Muslims who inhabit the Indus. That's our identity, plain and simple.

 

[TMA]

That's precisely why I have been critical towards Pakistanis because of the sheer prevalence of tribal and sectarian politics. I wasn't born before 71 so I never engaged in any sort of Bengali ethnocentrism. I am alive now and in BD there's no tribalism and sectarian violence.


It's also why I look at the whole Pakistan-India partition in a negative light. From my perspective: millions of Muslims fought and died for control of Delhi and North India over centuries, so why the hell would we tuck our tail and do the opposite. And it was a failed project from the beginning.
(1.) There is no logical way that the entire population can leave their home and cross the border trekking such a long distance, especially when there exist plenty of people who were never targeted in ethnoreligious violence.
(2.) The religious scholarly centers of Sunni Islam, i.e., Deoband and Bareili were located in North India, so that is like cutting the head from the body. But not surprising when you realize that the Pak movement was heavily led by Shia and secularists so from their perspective this was never a concern.
(3.) East Pak and West Pak are not even connected, and Muslims are effectively divided along three separate polities. United we are strong, divided we are weak and that's what happened. Muslims would have been a third of the population today in a united subcontinent, and that's all you need for 'critical mass'.

Hindus never fought for their independence, they begged for it.... This phobia of Hindus like they are even capable of doing anything to Muslims once we have our numbers straight was paranoia, and I suspect politicians took advantage of it. There could have been entire states run by Muslims, both in the western and eastern ends, and that would have given Muslims immense leverage.

The days of Muslim rule were smashed by the British. Quaid e Azaam was initially for unity but he spent time in Congress and realised that Muslims will be marginalised and also he was heavily influenced by Allama Iqbal.
Also Bangladesh was never meant to be part of Pakistan. Quaid E Azaam reluctantly agreed due to the heavy involvement of Bengali Muslims despite knowing the vast differences. Allama Iqbal never mentioned Bengal in his talks about a separate Muslim homeland.
Chandry Rehmat Ali also had Pakistan as West Pakistan only. The name P A K (I) S TAN. There is no Bangla in it.

I disagree 33 % would not be enough for critical mass.
Plus the Subcontinent of India has been separate states for most of History. Unity is actual the exception to the rule...even if Islam had not come, the Indus region is different to the Gangetic region. It is unfortunate that Pakistan could not get the whole of what the Pakistan movement wanted....

 

[PakSarzameen5823]

Do you agree with my postulated sequence now?

I understand what you're trying to say, that's never been an issue. I'm just a little sceptical of the whole idea.

 

[padamchen]

True racial cleaves do not always respect geography....
So we can say than the Indus River is the boundary in the West...but what is in the East now?
And racially even Bharat is diverse...

The Indus was more a tacit hands-off civilizational cleave line between two sister Aryan faiths with a serious fundamental split in antiquity .... with natural genetic osmosis on both sides.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Max]

Yeah righly so, we consider obsession of lowly ganga subhuman with Pakistan dengerous and it have it's own history, Kashmiris are our Kin, half is with us and half is resisting against lowly occupiers. As for religion, well we have all kind of people, practicing, non practicing, radicals etc.