Pakistan’s identity crisis!

[taimur12]

We are of mixed Indo-Aryan race. Neither are we true natives of India, nor are we Arabs. We have more things in common with Aryans (Iranians, Afghans, other Central Asians) than Hindus or any Arab sand dwellers!

and monkeys. you forgot to add that.

 

[Hiptullha]

What???

We once placed greater importance on the scholars, poets, and thinkers of Islamic India who emphasized pragmatism, religion to be seen as something personal, and for Muslims to pursue greater knowledge of the world. How can such an ideology not be able to evolve as Bang Galore says? It was molded in a time of radical change and change is part of its essence. The problem is, that ideology has been suppressed and we place less focus on our thinkers and more focus on the conquerors and invaders who showed no mercy.

 

[vsdave2302]

What? Pakistan has the Turkic flag on their currency?

Why?

Yes, It is there.

Why?>>> I do not know. Ask some pakistani member if they have any idea?

 

[taimur12]

We once placed greater importance on the scholars, poets, and thinkers of Islamic India who emphasized pragmatism, religion to be seen as something personal, and for Muslims to pursue greater knowledge of the world. How can such an ideology not be able to evolve as Bang Galore says? It was molded in a time of radical change and change is part of its essence. The problem is, that ideology has been suppressed and we place less focus on our thinkers and more focus on the conquerors and invaders who showed no mercy.

that was not the case at all. you are picking and choosing now. there were two schools of thought one was that you mentioned but there were also those people that despised everything foreign. inclduing english language, english education, english customs. and that was somewhat prevalent.

and we were never in a renaissance. the picture you're trying to paint.

 

[Norwegian]

yes definitely, people that are muslim in punjab definitely are arabs. they speak arabic, eat arabic food, wear arabic dress. their national identity is arab muslim. not pakistani muslim.

Hahaha! Good one!

What we now have is a distaste for democracy due to Ayub, an irrational hatred of Indians due to Bhutto, an insurgency crisis spawning from 30 years of mismanagement by the government.

Ayub had no need be there he was, had it not been the fault of consecutive civilian governments that fell before he came along. If you read history of Pakistani politics, you will find how unstable political climate in those days before Ayub had to jump in, in order to "fix" civilian governments' mess!

In 1956, the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan approved a constitution that ended Pakistan's status of an independent Dominion of the British Empire, to create the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Maj. Gen. Iskander Mirza, the last Governor General of Pakistan, simultaneously became the state's first president. However, the new constitution was followed by political turmoil in Pakistan, which saw a succession of four prime ministers - Chaudhry Muhammad Ali, Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy, Ibrahim Ismail Chundrigar and SirFeroz Khan Noon - in a period of two years. There was already a precedent in Governor General Malik Ghulam Muhammad dismissing prime ministers and ruling by decree, and many viewed Mirza as manipulating the constitution and instigating ousters of governments. The One Unit scheme amalgamating the provinces of Pakistan into two wings - West Pakistan and East Pakistan - was politically controversial and proving difficult to administer. The quick succession of prime ministers fostered the view within the military and in the public that Pakistani politicians were too weak and corrupt to govern effectively, and that the parliamentary system was flawed.

1958 Pakistani coup d'état - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So stop blaming Ayub for the coup. It was all our so-called democratic leaders fault that military men had to jump in to save the country!

Hardly the failure of an ideology, but the collective failure of a number of governments.

True, if by governments you mean civilian governments. Our civilian leaders are are too incompetent to govern a country, yet alone managing it!

Just to be clear, I wasn't trolling there. Hinduism/Islam/Christianity/whathavyou... I don't care for any religion and hate all forms of religious extremists and terrorists equally but Pakistan seems to be in a vicious grip of these crazy mullahs and radical violent Islam.

LOL! Bro, it was a compliment and not a critique of what you wrote. I agreed 100 % with what you had to say there!

I'd like to remind you that Bhutto was the man who included the clause in the constitution stating that Ahmedis were not Muslims.

He did that. But WHO brought him to power but Great Ayub Khan himself after deposing an incompetent civilian ruler such as Sikandar Mirza?

and monkeys. you forgot to add that.

Unfortunately, we have evolved from monkey culture.

 

[Hiptullha]

So you are basically an Islamist or a supporter of Zia? Zia's forced Islamization led to Pakistani civil society's downfall today because it was full of contradictions:
Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Zia enforced Hudood laws, Sharia laws, all imported from Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Of course none of them ever worked in a pseudo-secular society of Pakistan that struggled with chronic corruption in law enforcement and judiciary since its inception!

It's not that I deny Zia played a part in the radicalization of Pakistan, it's that I'm frustrated at the central role he's been given when the rise of militancy has been a collective failure.

that was not the case at all. you are picking and choosing now. there were two schools of thought one was that you mentioned but there were also those people that despised everything foreign. inclduing english language, english education, english customs. and that was somewhat prevalent.

and we were never in a renaissance. the picture you're trying to paint.

And the main proponents of the ideology I'm putting forth, who would go on to influence Jinnah in the foundation of Pakistan were the ones who told us to abandon our prejudice for all things Western.

 

[taimur12]

And the main proponents of the ideology I'm putting forth, who would go on to influence Jinnah in the foundation of Pakistan were the ones who told us to abandon our prejudice for all things Western

did you just......................

influence Jinnah

abandon our prejudice for all things Western.

really. you just said that.....

 

[Hiptullha]

So stop blaming Ayub for the coup. It was all our so-called democratic leaders fault that military men had to jump in to save the country!

That's funny. Ayub "saving" the country from politicians by taking power and ruling for almost 10 years in the best interests of the people. No matter how you try to portray it, his actions became a precedent for successive dictatorships in the country.

did you just......................
really. you just said that.....

What's the problem?

 

[Proudpakistaniguy]

Jinnah and Iqbal both wanted Muslim majority areas merged together into a state where Muslims and all religious minorities would have equal rights as citizens. The quest for Pakistan has been misinterpreted as a quest for Islam. The slogan: “Pakistan ka matlab kya? La illaha illallah”(what is the meaning of Pakistan? There is no God but Allah) has been misapprehended as intending to put religious institution at the top of the state or to patronize religion based nationalism. But it simply meant to give a message of peace, tolerance and universalism.

However this perception led to the contradiction over Jinnahs promise of protecting rights of minorities in Pakistan and birth of the fundamentalist call for an ‘Islamic’ state (which was indeed nothing more than a specific interpretation of Islam and entirely contestable).
This was the beginning of religious conflict in the state. Then with the 1973 constitution the state taking the definition of ‘Muslimhood’ in its hands was a “dangerous and divisive development” with both civilian and militant governments producing their ‘Islamic reforms’. Overtime, use of religion to define state ideology created confusion in the minds of ordinary Pakistani and eventually Zia-ul-Haq taking the tinkertoy in his hands and imposing his prescription of Islamic identity pitted the different sects, puritans and folk religionists against each other; created intolerance and extremist views; and hindered the development of a “genuinely unifying national identity”.

Other conflicts arose in the form of cultural disputes. Though Muslims were different from Hindus but within the Muslims there are many diverse ethnic groups. This could be understood by the fact that the present day Pakistan is a product of many struggles and invasions in this region. It saw the Arian, Persian as well as Greek invasion; a period of political dominance of Turkish, then Arab Muslims, and then finally the rule of British Raj and its downfall followed by migrations from India in 1947 and Afghan refugees in 1980. Thus the Pakistanis trace back their ethnicity from many different origins such as Mongals, Afghan, Persians, Arabs and then Sindhi, Punjabi, Pathan and so on.

Pakistanis are multilingual and have many different cultures and tradition within the domain of Pakistan. Rather than bringing the people under an umbrella of a unifying national identity that of a ‘Pakistani’, these attempts brought the ethnic divide and also led to the independence of East Bengal indicating the lost identity.

The question to be asked here is what drives the strong fidelity of the people for their own ethnic group more than that for their country? The concepts of superiority and inferiority, race and origins are embedded in the minds of Pakistanis.

 

[Norwegian]

It's not that I deny Zia played a part in the radicalization of Pakistan, it's that I'm frustrated at the central role he's been given when the rise of militancy has been a collective failure.

Can't you understand how Zia played a central role in radicalization of Pakistani society? Then I invite you to read this:

The "primary" policy, or "centerpiece" of Zia's government was "Sharization" or "Islamization".

In 1977, prior to the coup, the drinking and selling of wine by Muslims, along with nightclubs, and horse racing was banned by Prime Minister Bhutto in an effort to stem the tide of street Islamization. Zia went much further, committing himself to enforce Nizam-e-Mustafa ("Rule of the prophet" or Islamic System, i.e. establishing an Islamic state and sharia law), a significant turn from Pakistan's predominantly secular law, inherited from the British.

Zia established "Sharia Benches" in each High Court (later the Federal Sharia Court) to judge legal cases using the teachings of the Quran and the Sunna, and to bring Pakistan's legal statutes into alignment with Islamic doctrine. Zia bolstered the influence of the ulama (Islamic clergy) and the Islamic parties. 10,000s of activists from the Jamaat-e-Islami party were appointed to government posts to ensure the continuation of his agenda after his passing. Conservative ulama (Islamic scholars) were added to the Council of Islamic Ideology.

On December 2, 1978, General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq delivered a nationwide address on the occasion of the first day of the Hijra calendar. He did this in order to usher in an Islamic system to Pakistan. In the speech, he accused politicians of exploiting the name of Islam, saying that "many a ruler did what they pleased in the name of Islam."

After assuming power the task that the government set to was its public commitment to enforce Nizam-e-Mustafa (Islamic System) a 180 degree turn from Pakistan's predominantly Common Law. As a preliminary measure to establish an Islamic society in Pakistan, General Zia announced the establishment of Sharia Benches. Speaking about the jurisdiction of the Sharia Benches, he remarked, "Every citizen will have the right to present any law enforced by the government before the 'Sharia Bench' and obtain its verdict whether the law is wholly or partly Islamic or un-Islamic."

But General Zia did not mention that the Sharia Benches' jurisdiction was curtailed by the following overriding clause: "(Any) law does not include the constitution, Muslim personal law, any law relating to the procedure of any court or tribunal or, until the expiration of three years, any fiscal law, or any law relating to the collection of taxes and fees or insurance practice and procedure." It meant that all important laws which affect each and every individual directly remained outside the purview of the Sharia Benches. However, he did not have a smooth sailing even with the clipped Sharia Benches. The Federal Sharia Bench declared rajm, or stoning, to be un-Islamic; Ziaul Haq reconstituted the court, which then declared rajm as Islamic.

Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Islamization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So it was Zia, that bolstered clerical influence in Pakistani civil society by appointing some 10,000 clerics from extremist and anti-Qadiani party Jamaat-e-Islami. It was he who introduced Gun-culture by opening borders of Pakistan, letting millions of Afghan refugees in without taking its long-term consequences in consideration. It was Zia who enacted Hudood reforms and Ordinance XX against Pakistani minorities and women. Yet, you can't understand who is mostly to blame for Pakistani civil society's radicalization?

And the main proponents of the ideology I'm putting forth, who would go on to influence Jinnah in the foundation of Pakistan were the ones who told us to abandon our prejudice for all things Western.

Huh???

That's funny. Ayub "saving" the country from politicians by taking power and ruling for almost 10 years in the best interests of the people. No matter how you try to portray it, his actions became a precedent for successive dictatorships in the country.

So fastest economic growth in the history of our country was not its best interests? Not to mention gigantic mega projects that began and some finished in his tenure like Tarbela Dam, Islamabad, Ayubia and others that served our nation decades to come.

 

[taimur12]

@Hiptullha i understand the essence of your argument, but you are inflating the aspects of that argument. there never was this utopia muslim sufi renaissance you are describing. it was a poverty-stricken lot that got to run its affairs after british ended occuptation, and that's about it.

So fastest economic growth in the history of our country was not its best interests? Not to mention gigantic mega projects that began and some finished in his tenure like Tarbela Dam, Islamabad, Ayubia and others that served our nation decades to come.

it was short sighted. not letting democratic traditions develop and involving military in political affairs have jeopardized the existence of the state itself. civilian institutions have stayed weak. the centralized form of government and controlling through direct or indirect military command has creaed more division between provinces. when you factor in all the negative consequences pakstan has to face due to miliary rule and not to mention breaking the constitution which give rise to lawlessness, has not had a positive influence.

 

[Razia Sultana]

We are of mixed Indo-Aryan race. Neither are we true natives of India, nor are we Arabs. We have more things in common with Aryans (Iranians, Afghans, other Central Asians) than Hindus or any Arab sand dwellers!

Even Hindus claim themselves to be Indo-Aryans and the land was known as Aryavart. As they went southwards they mixed with dravidians and eastwards with mongoloids.. and some maintained the purity of their race like brahmins.

It belong to Hindu Indians before Qasim's Islamization and Arabization of Sindh!

The history belongs to the land and also to the people. So you believe that the history of the land around Indus river before Mohd Bin Qasim is different from the history of the prople who came to settle there. This will prove that the pakistanis are actually arabs or central asians but the language that you speak like punjabi, sindhi disproves it. pretty confusing.

He didn't preach any of it. He was a Muslim nationalist and you need both in this ideology.

How can you have both Islamic nation and a secular nation within one geographical boundary? Again confusing.

Pakistan went from being a secular republic into something failed Arab Islamic country. All thanks goes to the great Zia ul Evil!


Urdu is a language of northern India. It was spoken mainly around Delhi and was considered language of Indian Muslim elite. Its embarrassing that it was taken as national language of Pakistan when almost no one spoke this language here Still, only 8 % of Pakistanis natively speak this language including Muhajirs from India. A totally failed policy, even after 67 years of independence!

Good thing about it is that you can enjoy the rich urdu literature and bollywould movies.

Personally, it feels like it was ambitions of that era's Muslim Indian community to form their own homeland while having zero experience to rule such a country!

Pre independent India had some 500 odd states and most pakistan rulers belonged to those feudal families, so you can not claim that you did not have experience in governance.

Jinnah and Iqbal both wanted Muslim majority areas merged together into a state where Muslims and all religious minorities would have equal rights as citizens. The quest for Pakistan has been misinterpreted as a quest for Islam. The slogan: “Pakistan ka matlab kya? La illaha illallah”(what is the meaning of Pakistan? There is no God but Allah) has been misapprehended as intending to put religious institution at the top of the state or to patronize religion based nationalism. But it simply meant to give a message of peace, tolerance and universalism.

However this perception led to the contradiction over Jinnahs promise of protecting rights of minorities in Pakistan and birth of the fundamentalist call for an ‘Islamic’ state (which was indeed nothing more than a specific interpretation of Islam and entirely contestable).
This was the beginning of religious conflict in the state. Then with the 1973 constitution the state taking the definition of ‘Muslimhood’ in its hands was a “dangerous and divisive development” with both civilian and militant governments producing their ‘Islamic reforms’. Overtime, use of religion to define state ideology created confusion in the minds of ordinary Pakistani and eventually Zia-ul-Haq taking the tinkertoy in his hands and imposing his prescription of Islamic identity pitted the different sects, puritans and folk religionists against each other; created intolerance and extremist views; and hindered the development of a “genuinely unifying national identity”.
Sounds very genuine.
Other conflicts arose in the form of cultural disputes. Though Muslims were different from Hindus but within the Muslims there are many diverse ethnic groups. This could be understood by the fact that the present day Pakistan is a product of many struggles and invasions in this region. It saw the Arian, Persian as well as Greek invasion; a period of political dominance of Turkish, then Arab Muslims, and then finally the rule of British Raj and its downfall followed by migrations from India in 1947 and Afghan refugees in 1980. Thus the Pakistanis trace back their ethnicity from many different origins such as Mongals, Afghan, Persians, Arabs and then Sindhi, Punjabi, Pathan and so on.

Pakistanis are multilingual and have many different cultures and tradition within the domain of Pakistan. Rather than bringing the people under an umbrella of a unifying national identity that of a ‘Pakistani’, these attempts brought the ethnic divide and also led to the independence of East Bengal indicating the lost identity.

The question to be asked here is what drives the strong fidelity of the people for their own ethnic group more than that for their country? The concepts of superiority and inferiority, race and origins are embedded in the minds of Pakistanis.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

A waste of time. Pakistan was not built to introspect, but to create a nation where Muslims are in the driving seat. Leftists writers like these are better of as Indians.

 

[Devil Soul]

This is interesting. My question is, does Iranian see themsevles as Iranians first or Muslims first? How about Pakistan?

i dont wanna hurt someones feeling, but what i've observed, they consider themselves "SHIA Muslims" 1st...

EDIT: Majority

 

[suresh1773]

Jinnah and Iqbal both wanted Muslim majority areas merged together into a state where Muslims and all religious minorities would have equal rights as citizens.

It is true Jinnah wanted Muslim majority areas merged together,why did he refuse to exchange Kashmir with Hyderabad & Junagadh. Kashmir had 95% Muslim population with a Hindu Prince while Hyderabad & Junagadh had 90% Hindu population with a Muslim Nawab. It is said that Hyderabad was one of the richest province while the Nizam was one the wealthiest person in the world,loosing Hyderabad was like a loosing a golden goose. Even Karachi had a 51% Hindu majority population during 1947. In that case Karachi should have gone to India or atleast 50% of Karachi.