Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
First as I said clearly, Nation is a union of People of different Opinion, Faith and religions . the main reason nations were created from tribal and nomad past is our sense to unity. We made families then clan and this union progressed towards society and finally nations. so Nation signifies the progression of human unity and not the contrary .
Now has that progression or evolution stopped ? No.. evolution is natural and the perception shall be based on this trend of evolution and not the pessimistic assumption of future or momentary bitterness .
Culture is never stagnant . it has always changed or evoled and with this evolution our sense of understanding ourself has changed .. more we communicate better is our sense of unity .
We have made nations because of our sense of unity and this sense will keep on evolving and future is always optimistic then Past.Please see our human history .
We have travelled half distance .
Pakistan as an Idea , originated as sense of segregation from the Other which is contrary to sense of unity .
Every Idea has an underlying philosophy .. and if Nations has the philosophy of Unity Pakistan have this philosophy of segregation
A handful of token reprimands and punishment is not sufficient for washing away the blood of tens of thousands of innocents who have died at the hands of the Indian Army.The reason that Pakistan has used the brainwashed extremist to take on this terrorism is that they can evade the responsibility of being answerable to humanity .
While every incident of Indian soldiers wrong doing has been reported investigated and punished .
Lol , Yes you are moderator of this forum so you can filter the expression , which suites you .
This is an example of Pakistani obsession with India .. all those charges are without any evidence or fact . Can you please show me any evidence to support these charges ? .
1971 was not creation of India . it was the policies of Pakistan and their inability to accept and respect Bengalis . Sheikh did what Jinnah Taught him differences can exploited . ( it was lack of maturity of Pakistan to accept that difference in cultural background )
No one is justifying secessionist ideology - Pakistan was never a part of any "One India" that it would "secede" from. The people of Pakistan simply saw themselves as a nation distinct from Bharat, as did the people of Afghanistan, China, Iran, France etc.Just by adding millions you cant justify any succesioniost or extremist ideology .
There were millions who supported Hitler too .
The truth is it was an extremist ideology (which always exist in every society ) and jinnah exploted it .
And the fallacy of this excuse that muslims didnt share a "social consciousness" with Indians, is exposed by existence of the millions of Muslims who decided to stay in India .
This acceceptence itself that humanity is divided is quest of unity ..
this is so funny , the whole energy and effort of Pakistan is to disprove the secularism and democracy in India . because accepting India as secular is acceptance that Idea of Pakistan was wrong . People of different faith can live together . and this obsession to prove the authenticity of their own existence has led Pakistan to always see everything with the narrow perception of jealousy .
On the contrary, there are many on this forum who advocate a "secular" Pakistan, just as there are many who argue for an "Islamic Pakistan". Its part of having "many opinions within a nation". We do not see secularism as making "Pakistan wrong" - secularism is not making the US merge into India, or Western Europe into the US or vice versa - and whatever form of government Pakistan evolves into, its identity will remain Pakistani because the people view themselves as Pakistani, not because of what form of government we have.
Again, you will find that most of those who question India's secularism and "equality of rights for all" do so only because Indians point out the flaws in Pakistan and swagger about as if India has none itself. Now there are some who do so just because they have a profound dislike for India, just as there are those Indians who have a profound hate for Pakistan, and would like nothing better than to see it destroyed.
To us, it is Indians who just cannot "accept" Pakistan, because they just can't let go of a mythical idea of "Akhand Bharat".
AM, you talk about the atrocities by Indian soldiers but don't you think you take an easy way out regarding the 1971 events (which were on a much bigger, almost unimaginable scale) by trying to point out some mythical disputes between some unspecified historians (as though it disproves all the events that took place). Even though, I believe even your own Hamidur commission accepted that there were widespread atrocities and Niazi used to ask questions like: "How many Hindus did you kill today?".
The point here is that we all make our convenient arguments to support our positions. You are absolutely convinced that Pakistan (and Pakistanis) were never part of India and you are entitled to that view.
Many Indian reject this argument and feel that religious separatism and bigotry led to the partition and they have their own valid arguments. And I don't think there is any one "right" argument. These are ingrained feeling on both sides and one has to move beyond them and think of the future. There is a fundamental difference in the respective positions and it just can not be reconciled, but it does not have to lead to persistent hatreds.
I hope the countries can just have normal relations without the historical baggage. There is no need for excessive sentimentalism either. Just normal, healthy, neighborly relations will do.
If Pakistan should be secular, then what differentiates India and Pakistan as concepts?
What is the clinching reason for the existence of Pakistan as a separate entity?
If Pakistan gives up the word "islamic" in its constitution, I'm afraid that it will lead to a huge identity crisis among Pakistanis.
The European Union exists because European countries have several commonalities. If Pakistan becomes a secular state, I think we have begun a process which would ultimately lead to the unification of South Asia on EU lines.
That we are Pakistani is what differentiates us.
I have often said that Pakistan is what Pakistanis will make it. There is going to be no "sudden" shift to a "secular Pakistan" If it happens, it will come over time, as attitudes and beliefs among Pakistanis evolve towards that particular form of government. This evolution in though will occur within the context of being Pakistani, and therefore will not lead to any sort of "identity crisis" among the majority of Pakistanis who support such an idea (it would have to be a majority for such a change to take place and last). There might be some within the minority at that time that does not support the "switch", but they will be the ever shrinking minority, and hence of minor consequence.
I, Neo and others are firm believers that a secular Pakistani State is the best way to go, and let me assure you that we have absolutely no "identity crisis".
Personally what I believe will happen over the next few decades is that Pakistan will remain an "Islamic State" whose laws are modified to be more and more "equal for all ethnicities and faiths", something I believe Islam advocates anyway.
Pakistan will continue to remain a Muslim Society and will therefore have no interest in merging with a "non-Muslim" India, though we may form a trading block.
No one is justifying secessionist ideology - Pakistan was never a part of any "One India" that it would "secede" from. The people of Pakistan simply saw themselves as a nation distinct from Bharat, as did the people of Afghanistan, China, Iran, France etc.
So if suppose, that the animosity between the two nations ends somewhere in the future, and Pakistan is a secular state.
In such circumstances,
1. Will Pakistan try to resist the forces of globalization, which are making national boundaries irrelevant and nationalism a thing of the past?
2. Will Pakistan continue to exert itself as a counterweight to India? I am not concerned abut what you and Neo think. I am concerned about people like dimension117, who are stuck with the notion of Pakistan as a haven for muslims who have been persecuted. Will their conception of Pakistan change?
I am not assuming anything. I put qualifiers in there. Muslims are turning to faith and arguing for Shariah because their existing systems of government have failed, and faith provides solace and political Islam combines faith and the promise of a better government to come across as an attractive option, but only so long as traditional governments continue to fail.You have assumed that in the fight between secularization and Islam, Secularism will come out on top.
Reality indicates otherwise. Muslims all around the world are turning more religious.
Also, it isn't necessary that Pakistan will become secular only if the majority support it.
The best example is India, where the secular middle class minority calls the shots, and the vast religious majority are still coming to terms with secularism.
The fact is, that at the time of Independence, Pakistan and India were part of a single entity.
Atleast, that is what the national leaders thought at the time.
If Pakistan was never part of "One India", then why need an ideology at all? Why the need to justify separation? If its natural, there is no need to exert it, right?
Absolutely wrong - we were part of the British Empire and a British Colony - you might as well argue for including Hong Kong in India on that basis.
What ideology?
If the intent of the British and Congress was to create a single political entity out of the Myriad nations that comprised the sub-continent, then of course an argument had to be made to point out that such an approach was wrong, that there were peoples who did not consider themselves a part of such a "United India.
ish had managed to capture Afghanistan as well, they would have probably tried to include it in India as well.