Partition was a mistake

[Malang]

Unfortunately for you that majority of Baloch people don’t want to separate.

Unfortunately for you I don't believe this information. But whether they do or not, the ones who want to should be allowed their own country by partitioning Balochistan.

Muslims of India too didn’t want to separate but they were forced to do so by not giving their proper representation.The mentality to take revenge of 1000 years slavery had forced them to gain independence.

I think what you believe is that like Pashtunwali, Indians were taught to take revenge for the wrong.
but the fact is Hindus have received a raw deal from fellow Hindus too and the philosophy of Karma allows everyone to be a bit of fatalist rather than a bloodthirst revengeful man.

If you have visited different forums over the internet you must have seen many Indians using vulgar language against Muslims and they are not few.

I haven't and I haven't.. I have also heard a lot of Pakistanis make fun of other religions insensitive to Pakistani minorities...
It is not surprising when a Pakistani Muslim teenagers abuses an Indian Hindu teenager's religion, the reply to trashes the religion.

 

[salman nedian]

Unfortunately for you I don't believe this information. But whether they do or not, the ones who want to should be allowed their own country by partitioning Balochistan.

It doesn’t make any difference wather you accept this information or not. You have never been to Balochistan so you should say any thing about it. Self illusion is not reality.

It not about the ones who want, its majority and a very vast majority don’t want to separate and the rest only wants provincial autonomy not independence b/c they are already independent.

 

[Flintlock]

Anyways, in the context of this discussion, I came upon something interesting. I am keen to know the reactions of the members here:

From Wikipedia:
In 1936, a Bharat Mata temple was built in Benaras by Shiv Prashad Gupt and was inaugurated by none less than Mahatma Gandhi. The temple is dedicated to Mother India and not any member of the Hindu pantheon. The temple contains no image of any deity. It has a huge relief map of the Indian sub-continent showing all its rivers, mountains, and pilgrimages. Mahatma Gandhi said, "I hope this temple, which will serve as a cosmopolitan platform for people of all religions, castes, and creeds including Harijans, will go a great way in promoting religious unity, peace, and love in the country." In the Mahatma's speech we see a concern for the universal mother, not restricted to the mother that is India but the mother that is the earth.

 

[Malang]

Malang:

First off - I have not argued that Pakistan is a nation while India is not. I have argued that there was no such thing as a "One India nation" prior to 1947.

What is your definition of a nation?
AM you are venturing into a philosophical realm...

All descriptive names given by historians to a region. Nothing that validates a single nation. The Roman, Greek, Mongol and Islamic empires stretched far as well - but that cannot be used as justification for "one nation" constituting the lands that one comprised those empires, unless the people of those lands agree to such unions.

again Nationalism and nation are concepts which are ambiguous and open to critique...
For me India was always a nation.

Provinces do not have their own kings emperors and Armies that go to war with each other to destroy the other and expand an empire. The British created adminsitrative units and sub-units just like teh Greeks did. Neither of the two empires is justification of any single nation on the lands they encompassed.

Why is that? It was always the Kings who wanted to expand power, even today the provinces and the regional leaders try to assert themselves.
Nationalism, Regionalism etc. are all very abstract concepts and apply to each individual selectively.
Like you cannot fathom India to have been a nation using your intellect the same way an Indian possibly cannot fathom why Hindus on conversion to Islam felt themselves to be a different nationality?

That is the logic you are using to justify "one historical India". I am arguing that Pakistan and India were created out of the union of many peoples, combined into two large entities. Empire or colonial administrative units do not define "one nation" in my book - they merely constitute the occupation and subjugation of a people through force.

as I have said Nationalism as a doctrine is open to interpretation what makes Pakistanis Pakistani? what makes Indian Indians? why an Indian is more attached to his motherland though he may be born somewhere else?
These are abstract concepts and have subjective application even on an individual level.

Rubbish - if there were no Muslims in the sub-continent then who knows what shape history would have taken. What if there were no Hindus in the subcontinent? You cannot merely remove one enormous chain of events from history and come to whatever fanciful conclusion fits your whims.

Let me rephrase it, Partition happened because of religious affiliation/loyalty.

Cultures and people evolve - there is nothing unnatural about it, it is how the world works, and in the subcontinent this led to its own set of events.

Agreed but the unique thing about India is that it is able to assimilate foreign influences, modernity yet retain an Indian character. (Famous authors say this line often).

And I clarified at the beginning that my reference to the non-existence of an Indian nation only refers to the subcontinent pre 1947.

Please refer to above. Nation, Nationalism are philosophical doctrines fundamentally.

The provinces of Pakistan represent different peoples - when they chose to join Pakistan they became part of one nation.

Different peoples? I think not there is a similarity of tribes, castes, cultures.. there may be variations in language and a few customs but they have a lot of similarity.

I have discussed a few quotes posted by Samudra elsewhere - they constitute nothing more than pandering to a ruling elite and providing divine justification for conquest and enlargement of empire to me.

?

Muslim philosophers and thinkers also postulate Ummah and a pan-Islamic State on similar grounds - both ideas are flawed, so long as the people of the nations concerned do not agree.

The fundamental question is, is religious loyalty/affiliation enought to unite people irresp of their origin in totality.

Rubbish again, so now any community that acts to protect its interests is "elitist" and "egoist". The elitists I see are the ones who come up with fantastical arguments in support of a mythical "one nation" to justify expansionist ideas and land grabbing.

I still don't see poverty being eradicated in any country and the demographic profile suggests that Mohajirs belonged to elite classes even supporters of Pakistan were the Muslim elites.
Sir Syed Ahmed Khan couldn't believe that the subcontinent would not be ruled by Muslims.
Even in the movie Khuda Kay Liye, the actor said we built Taj Mahal, We ruled India for 1000 years, we ruled spain..
who is we? I don't think his ancestors were monglo-turkic.... His identity is Islam and not the land of Pakistan, Pakistan could be anywhere for him.

I would actually look at France, Italy, Germany etc. representing the nations that comprised the subcontinent. The Punjabis, Pashtun, Baluchi, Sindhi, Tamils and Bengalis represent the European States. And these people united to form two large entities of India and Pakistan.

Even in France and Germany you have further subdivisions of peoples.. Punjabis, Sindhis, Mohajirs, Pashtuns and Baluchis are ethno-linguistic groups..

Logic here was making a case earlier of an Indian nation stretching to Indonesia, so he may definitely have shed some tears.

That is his opinion... but that was never the Indian nation..
India to me geologically is all landmass under the Indian tectonic plate(aka the Indian subcontinet) which is different from Eurasian tectonic plate

 

[Vinod2070]

Even in the movie Khuda Kay Liye, the actor said we built Taj Mahal, We ruled India for 1000 years, we ruled spain..
who is we? I don't think his ancestors were monglo-turkic.... His identity is Islam and not the land of Pakistan, Pakistan could be anywhere for him.

A great quote. I actually lost all sympathy for the bugger after he mentioned this line in the movie.

I don't see how the Arabs or Turks being colonial occupiers of some unwilling foreign countries for 800 or 1000 years is a great thing for him (personally).

His forefathers more likely were the ones vanquished and just by changing religion he can't change his core identity. If he tries that it will be only a confused identity that he can have.

So you have him singing Indian classical music (with Krishna and Gopis et al being mentioned if I am not wrong) and trying to pass it off as Pakistani music! Was that music coming from Arabia too?

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

most pakistani's are from monglo-turkic, persian, arab descent. I think that's where the superiority complex comes in, unfortunately.

however, some pakistani's do have the base to claim that. my ancestry goes back hijaz to abu bakr siddiq through Qasim bin Muhammad bin abi Bakr. I'm sure someone's heard of the Shaikh Siddiqui family from Badaun in UP.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

fortunately for stealth assassin viewing this thread right now, i don't claim superiority and rule over hindu's for a thousand years, do I?
P.S. It's a joke, by the way.

 

[Flintlock]

I still don't see poverty being eradicated in any country and the demographic profile suggests that Mohajirs belonged to elite classes even supporters of Pakistan were the Muslim elites.
Sir Syed Ahmed Khan couldn't believe that the subcontinent would not be ruled by Muslims.
Even in the movie Khuda Kay Liye, the actor said we built Taj Mahal, We ruled India for 1000 years, we ruled spain..
who is we? I don't think his ancestors were monglo-turkic.... His identity is Islam and not the land of Pakistan, Pakistan could be anywhere for him.

Yeah, that's quite common. I see a lot of Pakistanis claiming to be the inheritors of the mughal empire and such.
They tend to forget that the mughals were central asians, and Pakistanis were also ruled by the same foreigners.

 

[Flintlock]

most pakistani's are from monglo-turkic, persian, arab descent. I think that's where the superiority complex comes in, unfortunately.

however, some pakistani's do have the base to claim that. my ancestry goes back hijaz to abu bakr siddiq through Qasim bin Muhammad bin abi Bakr. I'm sure someone's heard of the Shaikh Siddiqui family from Badaun in UP.

Really? I thought the people of Pakistan were the descendents of vedic aryans or whatever?

Is Roadrunner here to substantiate this claim?

 

[Flintlock]

fortunately for stealth assassin viewing this thread right now, i don't claim superiority and rule over hindu's for a thousand years, do I?
P.S. It's a joke, by the way.

Oh, I am ever so fortunate, my liege!

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

Really? I thought the people of Pakistan were the descendents of vedic aryans or whatever?
some are, some aren't. i hope you're not denying my history, are you?

Is Roadrunner here to substantiate this claim?

I don't think Roadrunner denies there are central asian descendants in pakistan. The land, that is known as Pakistan, was populated by vedic aryans or whatever? I don't know as much as Roadrunner, but I'm willing to hear what he has to say.

 

[Flintlock]

I don't think Roadrunner denies there are central asian descendants in pakistan. The land, that is known as Pakistan, was populated by vedic aryans or whatever? I don't know as much as Roadrunner, but I'm willing to hear what he has to say.

I seriously, seriously doubt that any significant chunk of the Pakistani population has central asian (i.e. Mughal) descent.
Have you ever seen Uzbek and Khazak peoppe? They look nothing like Pakistanis.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

I seriously, seriously doubt that any significant chunk of the Pakistani population has central asian (i.e. Mughal) descent.
Have you ever seen Uzbek and Khazak peoppe? They look nothing like Pakistanis.

they don't have to. When i speak of descent, most likely my own, I mean from the male side. You can see indonesians of arab descent, today they look no different from the indeginous popu. We've mananged to retain a large family tree, even when we arrived in south asia during the rule of Ghauri from Baghdad-Kabul-Bareilly.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

What is your definition of a nation?
AM you are venturing into a philosophical realm...



again Nationalism and nation are concepts which are ambiguous and open to critique...
For me India was always a nation.



Why is that? It was always the Kings who wanted to expand power, even today the provinces and the regional leaders try to assert themselves.
Nationalism, Regionalism etc. are all very abstract concepts and apply to each individual selectively.
Like you cannot fathom India to have been a nation using your intellect the same way an Indian possibly cannot fathom why Hindus on conversion to Islam felt themselves to be a different nationality?



as I have said Nationalism as a doctrine is open to interpretation what makes Pakistanis Pakistani? what makes Indian Indians? why an Indian is more attached to his motherland though he may be born somewhere else?
These are abstract concepts and have subjective application even on an individual level.

An argument based on "for me India is always a nation" is no argument at all. You might as well say you live on Mars.

Since there is no empirical evidence for a "one India" (pre 1947), the only issue that remains is, as you said, nationalism on the basis of various commonalities and similarities amongst various peoples, as a union or individually. In the case of the people who chose Pakistan, that nationalism arose based on faith, cultural similarities and common interests that they felt would be safeguarded by creating a nation called Pakistan.

The political elite of congress and Gandhi had their chance to try and convince the diverse peoples inhabiting the subcontinent to unite to form one single union - it was an argument that failed, and rightly so.

Let me rephrase it, Partition happened because of religious affiliation/loyalty.

Everything happens because of a cause.

Nationalism can find its basis in many things. The religious change in the subcontinent was part of the evolution of human society and culture that occurs everywhere. I fail to see why you you attribute any import to this - its pat of life.

Agreed but the unique thing about India is that it is able to assimilate foreign influences, modernity yet retain an Indian character. (Famous authors say this line often).

Cultures almost everywhere assimilate and share traits and absorb foreign influences - that is hardly a unique phenomenon.

One could argue that Western Culture is, bar some minor differences, identical, and countries in the West retain strong racial homogeneity as well. Yet nationalism within those nations remains extremely strong.

Different peoples? I think not there is a similarity of tribes, castes, cultures.. there may be variations in language and a few customs but they have a lot of similarity.

I would put them in the same category as the Europeans, Canadians and Americans - there is racial homogeneity, strong similarities in culture and language - yet the individual nationalism of each nation is strong and vibrant.

The fundamental question is, is religious loyalty/affiliation enought to unite people irresp of their origin in totality.

It depends upon the peoples involved. Every situation has different dynamics and undercurrents. The people of Pakistan had three main issues - faith, similar cultures and safeguarding their common interests.

I still don't see poverty being eradicated in any country and the demographic profile suggests that Mohajirs belonged to elite classes even supporters of Pakistan were the Muslim elites.
Sir Syed Ahmed Khan couldn't believe that the subcontinent would not be ruled by Muslims.

Even in the movie Khuda Kay Liye, the actor said we built Taj Mahal, We ruled India for 1000 years, we ruled spain..
who is we? I don't think his ancestors were monglo-turkic.... His identity is Islam and not the land of Pakistan, Pakistan could be anywhere for him.

Everyone identifies themselves on different levels. One can be a Christian, an American and a Hispanic all at the same time. Depending upon what the context is, you could relate to events as a Christian, as an American or as a Hispanic.

Perhaps his context was that of Muslims in South Asia.

India to me geologically is all landmass under the Indian tectonic plate(aka the Indian subcontinet) which is different from Eurasian tectonic plate

Mere opinions don't count, nor does mere "faith".

I have as of yet seen nothing but extremely tenuous arguments for a "one India", which seemed mostly contrived as the citizens of the contemporary Indian political entity try and ground themselves in some sort of historical nationhood to justify and solidify (unnecessarily) their modern nationhood.

I believe a strong part of this revisionism comes from dynamics similar to those in political Islam that argue for a untied Ummah and pan-Islamic State - its just couched in terms of "civilizational commonalities", as well as a strong animosity towards Pakistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Yeah, that's quite common. I see a lot of Pakistanis claiming to be the inheritors of the mughal empire and such.
They tend to forget that the mughals were central asians, and Pakistanis were also ruled by the same foreigners.

A great quote. I actually lost all sympathy for the bugger after he mentioned this line in the movie.

I don't see how the Arabs or Turks being colonial occupiers of some unwilling foreign countries for 800 or 1000 years is a great thing for him (personally).

His forefathers more likely were the ones vanquished and just by changing religion he can't change his core identity. If he tries that it will be only a confused identity that he can have.

So you have him singing Indian classical music (with Krishna and Gopis et al being mentioned if I am not wrong) and trying to pass it off as Pakistani music! Was that music coming from Arabia too?

I mentioned this to Malang as well.

One can relate to many different identities at the same time - Pakistani, Pashtun, Muslim etc. - it depends upon the context in which you are making the comment.

The Khuda Kay Liye comment was probably in the context of being a Muslim, or a Muslim in South Asia to be exact.