PDF Poll: What is the Foundational Narrative for Pakistan?

[Riyadh Haque]

We spend so much time trying to figure out what we were supposed to be, that we forget that we already are and what we should really be focusing on his how to make things better with the hand that we were dealt.

Good point. I think this is exactly what Tarek Fatah was saying to Tahir Gora here:

Pakistan : Islam, Pakistan and it's Ruling Elites by Tarek Fatah - YouTube

 

[Awesome]

The foundations of Pakistan are no longer a concern for present generation of Pakistanis other than for academic interests.

You can't change history now. It was formed as part of a political movement for the injustices that happened to Muslims at that time.

For example for the most part AIML had not asked for a separate country until Nehru broke his word.

AIML just wanted a UNION like structure with a loosely connected center to avoid having biased parties rule over Muslim interests.

Many of these have been corrected in India today, many still exists.

Two Nation, Pan-Islamism or anything else.

Pakistan today has its own issues. Pakistan bana kyun tha? Ji uss waqt zaroorat thi.

If you still require a 'definition' to satisfy your existence I would say we were created for the minorities of India of the time to escape persecution. Largest minority being Muslim, we became a more Muslim country.

 

[Riyadh Haque]

...........The fact that people in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE etcetera treat us like dirt because we are not Arab................

Is that why Pakistani Muslim men are not allowed to marry Arab women in those countries? Because we are not Arab?

I think this interesting point about the Arab Caste System is being covered here: http://www.defence.pk/forums/curren...s-our-caste-system-hindu-jaat-arab-kafaa.html


Reality of Muslim Ummah and Western World. Hassan Nisar - YouTube

 

[Pride]

There are plenty of flaws in above history you quoted. This India-Pakistan is just 65 years old. Indus civilization belongs to India though currently it is part of Pakistan right now. We Aryans just started moving from Indus valley to Gangetic Plain thats it. Just to give a right on that, Every design and way of living is identified as Vedic style in that area. Rest you believe or not depends up to your version of History.

People migrate, shift and then get adjusted to the country then why you want to send those Muhajirs back to India. They are part of Pakistan.

Ummah is a just religious concept and it is better in holy book as it belongs to that place only. Pakistani Muslims cant' live with Afghan Muslims, Shia can't live with Sunni, Iran always fight with Iraq, Saudi Arabia behaves "God-ly" to other Muslim countries, Sudan got divided even though Muslims were in both side, Pakistan got divided while Muslims were on Both side and if you go more deeper, Pakistan's existence itself was against religious value of "Ummah".

 

[Riyadh Haque]

Some Other Theory:
*Democratic Pakistan in which Muslims have right to choose their own people.
*Rights for minorities.
*Rights for freedom of expression.
*Respect for other religions.
*Security of Muslims and other religions.
*Freedom of Islamic and other activities.
*Muslim power.
*Good relation with all countries.
*No extremism and terrorism.

I appreciate your efforts and your sentiments. However, what you are describing is not a National Narrative, but rather a set of conditions that you would like to see prevail in our country.

In fact, in the original post, all the listed theories could satisfy these conditions without any contradiction.

If you reflect upon the point, you will see what I mean.

After all, Pakistan could be an IVC state and still be all the things you say. And Pakistan could also be a TNT state and still be all the things you say. In fact, there is no reason to suppose that accepting the GMU theory would necessarily preclude the things you mention.

Perhaps you could come up with something more concrete in terms of a National Narrative? What is Pakistan? Why was it really created? Why does it exist? What is its story?

How should we frame our history in terms of the National Narrative?

Was Bin Qasim really the first Pakistani? Was Aurangzeb really the greatest Pakistani Ruler? Did Ahmed Shah Abdali burn lahore and massacre our ancestors? Or was he a hero who defeated the Evil Maratha Empire and so saved Pakistan? Should we name our missiles after our closest and dearest friend Mao Zedong, whose friendship with Pakistan was higher than the mountains and deeper than the sea? Did Mao Zedong eat pork & drink alcohol? Did he worship spirits & idols? Should we accept American Aid when it is controlled by the Israeli Zionists? Or should we launch our Nuclear weapons towards Israel to end their oppression of the Muslim world? Here is a discussion of these questions--

Sethi: Murder of History in Pak -1/6 - YouTube

 

[Awesome]

Is that why Pakistani Muslim men are not allowed to marry Arab women in those countries? Because we are not Arab?

I think this interesting point about the Arab Caste System is being covered here: http://www.defence.pk/forums/curren...s-our-caste-system-hindu-jaat-arab-kafaa.html


Reality of Muslim Ummah and Western World. Hassan Nisar - YouTube

We were going to get off topic so I answered this here: http://www.defence.pk/forums/curren...stem-hindu-jaat-arab-kafaa-2.html#post3324666

 

[Riyadh Haque]

The foundations of Pakistan are no longer a concern for present generation of Pakistanis other than for academic interests. You can't change history now.....

I agree with you that we must not live in the past. That is a dangerous habit. We must move on.

But this thread is not about the past. Perhaps I should have phrased the title of the thread differently. I should have said:

"What is the Existential Narrative for Pakistan Today?"

OR

"What is the National Narrative in Pakistan Today?"

Every State has a Narrative. This is what is taught to children in schools. So Pakistan must have one. But it just seems to me that we do not as yet possess such a clear National or Existential Narrative. That is why I tried to get this discussion going to see where the majority stands. I was trying to see if we can take all the different views and adjust them so as to make them compatible or at least non-contradictory to each other.

If you still require a 'definition' to satisfy your existence I would say we were created for the minorities of India of the time to escape persecution. Largest minority being Muslim, we became a more Muslim country.

This is the essense of the TNT.

However, the minority-fear was an issue largely in the Muslim-minority provinces which are part of India today. As far as I know, 93% of the Muslims in those provinces remained in India and are still living in India. The 7% who moved to Pakistan from the Muslim-minority provinces are called the Muhajirs.

So if Pakistan was created for the safety of the Muslims of the Muslim-minority provinces, then why does Pakistan not allow the minority-Muslims of India the unconditional, undeniable and immediate constitutional right to immigrate to Pakistan at any time?

This is a widely-recognized the problem with the TNT.

 

[Riyadh Haque]

I never said anything negative about Jinnah. But Pakistan was based on theories by Iqbal which were implemented and acted upon by Jinnah.

Everyone has their own views. I believe Iqbal has greater role than others.

I agree with you that there are a lot of different views. The idea of this thread to get people to put these views forward so that we can have a discussion that might lead to some sort of consensus.

For example, my personal experience and observations lead me to believe that:

(1) Many Punjabis & Sindhis like the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) theory, especially as they have deep historical ties to the rivers. The Muhajirs seem to hate it, possibly because they have no historical connection to the rivers. Most Pashtuns & Baloch don't think too much about it either way.

(2) Many Muhajirs like the Two-Nation Theory (TNT), although they cannot accept the new view that Pakistan was created "only" for the Muslims of the Muslim-majority provinces. They will always insist it was created for all Muslims of India. Many Nationalist Punjabis, Sindhis & Baloch (i.e. "Sons of the Soil") hate this theory.

(3) Many radicalized Pashtuns and religious Punjabis in the North support the Global Muslim Ummah (GMU) theory and dream of a Global Khilafah. However, there is not much support for this amongst the more-secular Baloch & Sindhis in the South.

To All Thread Posters: What are your experiences and observations? Have you noticed something similar? Or have you noticed something altogether different? What about the people in Balawaristan/Northern Areas? What about the Hindowans? Which theory do you think they prefer? Or do they have their own theory?

 

[FaujHistorian]

..................


Foundational narrative has been there all along. Why are we trying to develop consensus when it should have been there all along.


Here it is:

No constitutional plan would be workable or acceptable to the Muslims unless geographical contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary. That the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in majority as in the North-Western and Eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute independent states in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign

AND

That adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards shall be specifically provided in the constitution for minorities in the units and in the regions for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights of the minorities,



That means

1. United Provinces of Pakistan (UPP) and not Islamo-fascist Repudiated place.
---- This will protect smaller provinces from the large behemoth.

2. UPP will have a new constitution where every Beduin clause will be removed
--- This will protect all minorities.


Any Pakistani who is not familiar with the highlighted text, needs to go back to the elementary school history.


Peace.

 

[Riyadh Haque]

..................

Foundational narrative has been there all along. Why are we trying to develop consensus when it should have been there all along.

Here it is:

No constitutional plan would be workable or acceptable to the Muslims unless geographical contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary. That the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in majority as in the North-Western and Eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute independent states in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign

AND

That adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards shall be specifically provided in the constitution for minorities in the units and in the regions for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights of the minorities

That means

1. United Provinces of Pakistan (UPP) and not Islamo-fascist Repudiated place.
---- This will protect smaller provinces from the large behemoth.

2. UPP will have a new constitution where every Beduin clause will be removed
--- This will protect all minorities.

Any Pakistani who is not familiar with the highlighted text, needs to go back to the elementary school history.

Peace.

I have highlighted 2 words in your post (Bold, Red).

When we use the words independent and sovereign, the word autonomous is superfluous.

Are you saying that Bangladesh v/s Pakistan should have been constituted as separate Independent, Sovereign States in 1947?

Or are you saying that Sindh, Balochistan, Jinnapur, Punjab, Pashtunistan, Balawaristan should be turned into separate Independent, Sovereign States in 2012?

Please clarify the meaning of your post......

 

[FaujHistorian]

I have highlighted 2 words in your post (Bold, Red).

When we use the words independent and sovereign, the word autonomous is superfluous.

Are you saying that Bangladesh v/s Pakistan should have been constituted as separate Independent, Sovereign States in 1947?

Or are you saying that Sindh, Balochistan, Jinnapur, Punjab, Pashtunistan, Balawaristan should be turned into separate Independent, Sovereign States in 2012?

Please clarify the meaning of your post......

It is not upto me dear Sir.

"Independent" refers to Pakistan.

Autonomous refers to Sindh, Punjab, KpK, Balochistan and perhaps Kashmir. (Yes E. Bengal should have been autonomous, but it is too late to talk about it).

Autonomy was envisioned by our forefathers in the following way:

1. Each province will have their assemblies, and they will manage their own finances and laws.

2. Federal government will take care of the national defense (military), and foreign affairs. And perhaps inter-province commerce rules and tax rates etc. (the last one is mine).


Bottom line:

Pakistan was offering these states that Hindus of Indian were not.

However when Pakistan became independent, economic and social pressures from outside and within forced the early rulers to make federal government more powerful than it was supposed to be. In fact we started ruling these provinces just like Indians were doing. And this was wrong. utterly wrong.

We didn't want to live like Indians and within Indian political system, so therefore we took the route for the separate independence.



So the easiest thing is to let the provinces levy taxes, manage their own laws, education etc. and let the feds in Islu manage military and foreign affairs.

But most importantly, we must provide constitutional protections for the equal status of our minorities. This thing must be done via federal constitution to make sure every province becomes a tolerant place for our minorities.


Happy Eid to everyone.

May peace prevail in Pakistan and the world.

 

[skydrill_2]

it has been more than 66 years, pakistan was founded and they are still wondering why they did so???

 

[Riyadh Haque]

.................

1. Each province will have their assemblies, and they will manage their own finances and laws.

2. Federal government will take care of the national defense (military), and foreign affairs. And perhaps inter-province commerce rules and tax rates etc. (the last one is mine).

So the easiest thing is to let the provinces levy taxes, manage their own laws, education etc. and let the feds in Islu manage military and foreign affairs.

Happy Eid to everyone...............

What you are describing looks like a set of Political Conditions that you would like to see implemented. This does not appear to be a National or Existential Narrative.

The things you describe, while commendable, can easily be implemented regardless of whether the National Narrative is "IVC" or "TNT" or "GMU" or possibly some other narrative.

So which National or Existential Narrative do you prefer? TNT, IVC, GMU etcetera? Ascertaining this is the objective of the thread.

Happy Eid to you too.

...............Bottom line:

Pakistan was offering these states that Hindus of Indian were not.

However when Pakistan became independent, economic and social pressures from outside and within forced the early rulers to make federal government more powerful than it was supposed to be. In fact we started ruling these provinces just like Indians were doing. And this was wrong. utterly wrong.

We didn't want to live like Indians and within Indian political system, so therefore we took the route for the separate independence..............

I could be wrong, but I think the system you are describing has already been implemented in India. For example, unless I am mistaken, the old question of cultural permissibility of Cow Slaughter is considered a State Law issue and Cow-Slaughter is perfectly legal in Kerala, Goa, West Bengal, Manipur, Nagaland, Jammu & Kashmir, Arunachal Pradesh, & Mizoram. To my understanding, each state in India raises its own taxes and manages its own finances. The Union Goverment's tax revenue goes largely for (1) Interest on Union Debt, (2) Union Defence, (3) National-level Tertiary Education & Intra-state Infrastructure and (4) Block Grants or Transfers to States.

Is this the system that you think should be implemented in Pakistan?

But then if Pakistan is just going to copy India's political system, why are we a separate country in the first place? TNT? GMU? IVC? Other? We must have different National or Existential Narrative. But what is it? That is what we are discussing in this thread to see if we can arrive at some consensus as to how our National or Existential Narrative is different from that of India......

 

[Riyadh Haque]

For example, my personal experience and observations lead me to believe that:

(1) Many Punjabis & Sindhis like the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) theory, especially as they have deep historical ties to the rivers. The Muhajirs seem to hate it, possibly because they have no historical connection to the rivers. Most Pashtuns & Baloch don't think too much about it either way.

(2) Many Muhajirs like the Two-Nation Theory (TNT), although they cannot accept the new view that Pakistan was created "only" for the Muslims of the Muslim-majority provinces. They will always insist it was created for all Muslims of India. Many Nationalist Punjabis, Sindhis & Baloch (i.e. "Sons of the Soil") hate this theory.

(3) Many radicalized Pashtuns and religious Punjabis in the North support the Global Muslim Ummah (GMU) theory and dream of a Global Khilafah. However, there is not much support for this amongst the more-secular Baloch & Sindhis in the South.

To All Thread Posters: What are your experiences and observations? Have you noticed something similar? Or have you noticed something altogether different? .......

To elaborate further, we can differentiate between three kinds of States:

1) Nation-States: These States are typically associated with Nations, with a Nation being sometimes defined as people who speak the same language or at least similar (dialect) languages.

Examples: France, Germany, Japan, Bangladesh, South Korea, Vietnam etcetera.

Nation state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2) Civilization-States: These States are typically associated with living Civilizations, with a Civilization being sometimes defined as something essentially non-derivative, although it may well be syncretic and composite, and one which posseses more than one language (whether indigenous or imposed)

Examples: China, India, Iran etcetera.

Civilization State - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3) Buffer-States: These States are typically an accident of History, with their historical basis being the carving out of territories from either (1) or (2) in order to suit some political purpose of an external (or foreign) power.

Example: Afghanistan (Buffer between Russian Empire & Bristish Empire), Thailand (Buffer between British Empire & French Empire), Mongolia (Buffer between Russian Empire & Chinese Empire) etcetera.

Buffer state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: A fourth kind of State is the Assimilative-Immigration States with artifically-created Indentities, but such States are restricted to the New World (Australia, Americas etc) and so they are not relevant to Pakistan in the Old World.

******************

To All Thread Posters: What kind of State do you consider Pakistan to be? Or what kind of State would you like Pakistan to be or become?

1) A Nation-State. For Pakistan to become a Nation-State in the future, Urdu will have to displace and eventually wipe out all other languages to become the sole national language of Pakistan as needed for a True Nation State.

2) A Civilization-State. Here we are faced with 3 choices--

(a) Complete Civilization-State (UNIQUE): This is the essense of the IVC Theory.

(b) Subset Civilization-State (EAST): This is the TNT, with Pakistan being a subset civilization of the greater or wider Indian Civilization in the East.

(c) Subset Civilization-State (WEST): This is the GMU theory, with Pakistan being a subset civilization of greater or wider "Islamic" Civilization towards the West.

3) A Buffer State. This actually implies that Pakistan was a British creation designed to guarantee them access to Central Asia and the Soviet Empire. This also implies that Pakistan now serves the political purpose of the Anglo-American New-World-Order, just as its creators served the British Empire's political purposes in the period leading up to it's creation.

After looking at the issue of developing our National Narrative in the light of the above definitions & decriptions, what do you think? What is Pakistan? What is our National Story?

All thoughts, comments and opinions would be helpful.

 

[Riyadh Haque]

.............Autonomy was envisioned by our forefathers in the following way:

1. Each province will have their assemblies, and they will manage their own finances and laws.

2. Federal government will take care of the national defense (military), and foreign affairs. And perhaps inter-province commerce rules and tax rates etc. (the last one is mine)..............................

This may be a good idea, but what about the common military? What if they did a Coup and took over all power from all the provinces and changed the constitution by diktat? How would the provinces get their powers back? After all, we know that they can do it, because they have done it in the past (Ayub, Yahya, Zia, Musharraf) to the whole federal structure.

Here are some Pakistani-Americans & Pakistan-Europeans discussing these issues. You can also see the type of comments people make (below the video) when these views are freely discussed.

Is pakistan going to break again?/God forbid. - YouTube

I used to delete these comments. But time has come that we took a look at it, so, I am going to publish it on my facebook page and muslim jutt can go there explain himself. So, what is it? Anyone who puts "p_aki" or "muslim" with his name, uses this kind of language. Either all "Pakimuslims" immediately talk about their own genitals or your genitals. What is it? God forbid where did mothers in Pakistan go wrong? I mean who taught this guy to use private parts in every sentence?

ShaziaNawazsays - YouTube