Pakistan's Identity Crisis: Can it explain itself without India?

[Bawag]

I have explained the answers in detail and you simply repeated the same things adding words like imposed, invaders. It's not an argument simply conjecture showing the general lack of understanding among you and the extreme identity crisis as the op itself explains.

One of the benefit your nation enjoys; it is called 'Population Dividend'. In political terms, a large majority of people they find a "feel good" statement, agree on it and start considering it a fact. Later, those sentiments are used to change constitution, history and identity. Same happened with "own identity" and the "identity crisis of neighbours".

No wonder, conquered people are changing the names of their cities, towns, and roads. But I would say it is a good start

 

[Chhatrapati]

One of the benefit your nation enjoys; it is called 'Population Dividend'. In political terms, a large majority of people they find a "feel good" statement, agree on it and start considering it a fact. Later, those sentiments are used to change constitution, history and identity. Same happened with "own identity" and the "identity crisis of neighbours".

No wonder, conquered people are changing the names of their cities, towns, and roads. But I would say it is a good start

More explaining on what and how we feel instead of addressing your own issues. Why do you desperately try to explain away how and what India feels instead of addressing your own issues. We dont rename cities we put the old names back. Why are so invested in our internal politics? That in itself shows your identity crisis, this is not your country so you dont need to be outraged by events in India. The op trying to stop you is the entire premise of the thread.

 

[SIPRA]

Countries do not have ideological foundations. People do. States may have them. Officially, India is not Hindu Republic, and historically wasn't [Ashoka wasn't Hindu]. It's not a matter of simply declaring Hindu. To have Vedic rule, you need Kshatriya, Brahman, Vaishya, and Shudra in that order. To have Hindu rule, you need Brahman on the top. Do you think India can organise itself like that? There was even a war in the past between worshipers of Shiva and Vishnu. The rise of the Hinduism as we know started around 300 CE and according to Nehru the word Hindu first appeared in local wriiting only around 8th century.

My post was not with respect to some ancient or medieval historical perspective. It pertains to the current religious identities, as they are.

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

My post was not with respect to some ancient or medieval historical perspective. It pertains to the current religious identities, as they are.

Look at the case of Nepal: "The Nepalese Civil War in the 1990s and early 2000s resulted in the establishment of a secular republic in 2008, ending the world's last Hindu monarchy."

Nepal needed a monarchy to be Hindu where the King was probably subservient to the priest. Modernity doesn't lend itself to an ancient system. How do you think India will organise itself. Declare the Prime Minister and other top positions for a Hindu in a mirror reflection of how Pakistan works? Affirming two nation theory? The next question is what kind of Hindu. But I am for it if they stop lynching Muslims. Can they?

 

[FuturePAF]

Mughals were Turkic, and we are not, barring some of our population (Chughtais, Parachas, etc.). I do not understand the hesitancy of embracing our pre-Islamic past with more zeal and zest. If we do that, we would own the achievements of our ancestors rather than others who came to our land as outsiders and, with time, subsumed (just like Anglo Saxons were in England). Of course, the Mughal era is an integral part of our history but seeing ourselves as a successor state of an empire reigned over much of the subcontinent is a far cry. The fact that few of our founding fathers composed the anthem in Persian (Quaid, I believe, had asked someone else, perhaps a Hindu, to write the anthem in Urdu) shows they too carried the same baggage. Why is Pakistan a successor state of the Mughal empire and not the Uzbeks? Similar questions have been raised concerning the Mongol empire, Mongolia, and China.

Here is that Urdu anthem we never had

How many generations does one’s people have to live in a place for them to be recognized as a native? You in your own explanation said the Indians claim a Central Asian Aryan culture blending with the culture of the people of the India valley to constitute a Vedic culture. The Muslims that came to the area so in a similar manner. Be the Arabs that came all the way up to my Multan, from whom I trace my lineage, to the central Asian Muslims that came through and mixed with my ancestors.

If I understand you correctly, I think you think we should be emphasizing our history from the point of view of the Indus Valley civilization much the same way the Egyptians put emphasis on the Ancient Egyptians, as a distinct people, that saw wave upon wave of other migrating through, and today, are the people we see before us. While there is nothing wrong with with that, it all comes down to the narrative arc that unites us as a nation.

This is why, like it or not, Pakistan is the expression of a United Muslim led state on these lands, and the last time Muslims of this region were United under was the Mughals. In a similar way as to how the Turks have to recognize the Ottoman Empire as an evolutionary step in their national identity, we too can not avoid the last Muslim state under which we were unified. Just like the Turks, we don’t have to embrace all the empire did. We don’t need a king nor a similar style of government. This is why we should be studying the culture that was naturally evolving before the British took over. The different view points and sub-cultures (of the decedents of the IVC peoples) that we’re going on under the Mughals.

Mughals were a garbage civilization compared to the names he mentioned

One must stop sniffing the butt of these Turko-persian-hindustani empires for a while and look beyond to a wider world

There's a certain class difference here, if you read history it'll be blasphemy to compare the legacy of the two...

Garbage or not, they were the last unified Muslim state on our lands. Please elaborate on the class difference changing the perspective.

 

[magra]

Officially it is also called India; an identity given by the invaders to the people of a region:

• India/Indos: European Given/Imposed Identity
• Hindustan: Persian later Turkic Given/Imposed Identity
• AL-Hind/Hind: Arab Given/Imposed Identity
• Bharat: The Snatam-Dharam's Given Identity

Bharat is NOT equal to India. It is just a shameful acceptance of conquerors' given identity via constitutional amendment because White is Right and, for sure, nobody is going to call you by your ancestral identity.

Fun Fact: European gave identities to native people in different conquered regions (e.g., Americans, Australians). You guys were no exception

This land was called India by the Europeans since much before they thought of invading it. Through the Europeans, later Americas and Africa also started calling this land as India. Since most of the world knew this land as India, it was convenient to not discard this name post independence.

 

[magra]

You are mistaken. I have not said that India has no ideological foundation. It has, and that is Hindu identity. Some reveal and proclaim it, like Mahasabha, RSS, BJP etc; while some like Congress conceal it, under a garb of secularism. Since, Muslims could not ascribe to that identity; so, they went for their own political path in the British India. Demography of British India allowed them to have their own Muslim-majority state, that is Pakistan.

Hinduism was never a 'my way or high way' kind of culture. It accepted and assimilated foregin cultures with ease - Greeks, Parsis, Buddhism, Jainism etc. Before Britishers came, the fight in the subcontinent was not even religion based. Hindus at times faught against Hindus in alliance with Muslims and vice versa.

The religious identities hardened only in the 20th century due to clever British machinations. Sadly the extremists on both sides used this to sell their narrative successfully and this locked us into this multi-generational conflict whereas the masterminds (British) flew away to their comfortable life.

 

[Muhammad Saftain Anjum]

Hinduism was never a 'my way or high way' kind of culture. It accepted and assimilated foregin cultures with ease - Greeks, Parsis, Buddhism, Jainism etc. Before Britishers came, the fight in the subcontinent was not even religion based. Hindus at times faught against Hindus in alliance with Muslims and vice versa.

The religious identities hardened only in the 20th century due to clever British machinations. Sadly the extremists on both sides used this to sell their narrative successfully and this locked us into this multi-generational conflict whereas the masterminds (British) flew away to their comfortable life.

Partition was the best solution of conflicts b/w Muslims and Hindus.
Just think Pakistan and India fight after so many years like
48_65 17 years distance between conflict
65-71. 6 years gap
71-99. 28 years gap
99-19. 20 years gap

This gap will only increase in future.
While if we had opted to live with hindus,then our future was like a dead body of Assamese Muslim, on the chest of which hindus would have been practicing their jumping competitions.

 

[Maula Jatt]

Thier are way too many Indians on this thread...
Weird to discuss something like this

 

[FuturePAF]

Partition was the best solution of conflicts b/w Muslims and Hindus.
Just think Pakistan and India fight after so many years like
48_65 17 years distance between conflict
65-71. 6 years gap
71-99. 28 years gap
99-19. 20 years gap

This gap will only increase in future.
While if we had opted to live with hindus,then our future was like a dead body of Assamese Muslim, on the chest of which hindus would have been practicing their jumping competitions.

If the partition was not along religious lines, I could see dissolution of the entire setup along ethnic lines. There would not be a Pakistan nor an India, but a return to the pre-British warring states. Considering the circumstances, Jinnah got the best deal he could get, because the British were not going to hand over a fully functioning state, after they knew they were leaving.

 

[El Sidd]

If the partition was not along religious lines, I could see dissolution of the entire setup along ethnic lines. There would not be a Pakistan nor an India, but a return to the pre-British warring states.

feudal god kings.

Shall be returned to how you were found by Qassem.

 

[magra]

Partition was the best solution of conflicts b/w Muslims and Hindus.
Just think Pakistan and India fight after so many years like
48_65 17 years distance between conflict
65-71. 6 years gap
71-99. 28 years gap
99-19. 20 years gap

This gap will only increase in future.
While if we had opted to live with hindus,then our future was like a dead body of Assamese Muslim, on the chest of which hindus would have been practicing their jumping competitions.

We do not know what would have happened. It might have been better or just delayed the inevitable.

Probably, we would not have fought over Kashmir and it truly would have been the peaceful paradise on earth. Probably, we would not have lost of lakhs of soldiers over the years and crores in poverty due to funds going to military.

The entire conflict over "alleged BD muslims in Assam" would not have had any basis in a united subcontinent.

 

[Muhammad Saftain Anjum]

We do not know what would have happened

Nope we know what would have happened. Hindus are not tolerating 200 million Muslims and you think they would have tolerated 600 million Muslims in subcontinent? No way.

 

[Maula Jatt]

How many generations does one’s people have to live in a place for them to be recognized as a native? You in your own explanation said the Indians claim a Central Asian Aryan culture blending with the culture of the people of the India valley to constitute a Vedic culture. The Muslims that came to the area so in a similar manner. Be the Arabs that came all the way up to my Multan, from whom I trace my lineage, to the central Asian Muslims that came through and mixed with my ancestors.

If I understand you correctly, I think you think we should be emphasizing our history from the point of view of the Indus Valley civilization much the same way the Egyptians put emphasis on the Ancient Egyptians, as a distinct people, that saw wave upon wave of other migrating through, and today, are the people we see before us. While there is nothing wrong with with that, it all comes down to the narrative arc that unites us as a nation.

This is why, like it or not, Pakistan is the expression of a United Muslim led state on these lands, and the last time Muslims of this region were United under was the Mughals. In a similar way as to how the Turks have to recognize the Ottoman Empire as an evolutionary step in their national identity, we too can not avoid the last Muslim state under which we were unified. Just like the Turks, we don’t have to embrace all the empire did. We don’t need a king nor a similar style of government. This is why we should be studying the culture that was naturally evolving before the British took over. The different view points and sub-cultures (of the decedents of the IVC peoples) that we’re going on under the Mughals.


Garbage or not, they were the last unified Muslim state on our lands. Please elaborate on the class difference changing the perspective.

Islam is a big part of Pakistan, no doubt about it

But why did the whole Indus converted to one religion and not say UP cause Sindh didn't face as many invasions as UP faced because of flat lands but are a majority Muslim pop unlike UP, why do y'all have so much interconnectivity, why were your economies dependent on each other as in if Punjab had a crop failure, people in rest of the Indus likely starved, if sindh had a bad harvest, rest of the Indus couldn't get a certain crops,why were the baloch fisherman using Indus to sell fisheries for centeries?, why were you using this river system as a highway, why did most of your saints originated from the wider Indus civilization and not rest of the SC, why did the Kashmiris (again majority Muslim due to Indus connection) migrate to Punjab in winter to sell stuff and than go back, why are the bordering Afghan still so dependant on Pakistan in almost everything



Islam is polar opposite of dharma, this in itself creates a vastly different ways (hindutavas were originaters of TNT while at the same time chanting for Akhand Bharat= so you can guess thier intentions), but what this guy is saying is theres more to it



Like why did you as a country became Muslim in the first place? This question will lead to a realization that your origins are much more fundamentaly sound than that but by ignoring it you're being unfair

You have a much more interconnected, deeper connection to the land you call home, it's the fundamental reason Pakistan even exists in it's current form

Ignoring that part you'll be unfair to your ancestors, to your land

 

[FuturePAF]

You have a much more interconnected, deeper connection to the land you call home, it's the fundamental reason Pakistan even exists in it's current form

Ignoring that part you'll be unfair to your ancestors, to your land

I hope I’m not ignoring it, but realizing we need to form some kind of national indentity that reflects the fact that Islam was the unifying justification for partitioning it from British ruled India.

I have always been an advocate for not only preserving but properly displaying and teaching our history, so we can truly understand where we come from. We should be having people train in Egyptology and learning to apply the same methodologies to our Indus Valley civilization.