Questions about Pakistanis, Indian Muslims and Bangladeshis

[TMA]

Sir their are nakli pashtuns in KPK let alone far far away Lucknow, any tom dick and harry can attach the name khan and claim afghan ancestry, for heaven sake even babar ghauri claims to be yousafzia pashtun lol


What would you suggest persian or arabic

Dari. The language of Iqbal's highest poetry.

Yes of course... we dont need any foreign language... and Urdu is foreign aka Farsi+ Hindustani.. we must adopt any of our regional language as National language... dont make big one bcoz it will make differences between Big ethnic groups.. what about Hindko,or GIlgiti or maybe brahvi as our National language? clean from Farsi or any thing else if i am not wrong...

So if Pakistan uses a small native language it probably would avoid linguistic clashes however Muslim history is preserved best in Persian in the subcontinent. Also Persian is highly developed in all facets of human endeavor.
Not only this but Persian would connect Pakistan with our Muslim neighbors to her West.

 

[haviZsultan]

Sir their are nakli pashtuns in KPK let alone far far away Lucknow, any tom dick and harry can attach the name khan and claim afghan ancestry, for heaven sake even babar ghauri claims to be yousafzia pashtun lol


What would you suggest persian or arabic

I don't understand this policy of declaring people with pashtun ancestry non pashtuns. First I felt it was an attempt to cut off patriotic Pakistani pashtuns like the Niazis and Tareens and Jadoons but now I notice it is something else. I don't understand even if we have limited pashtun ancestry then what is the logic of calling us non pashtun? The larger growth in pashtun ranks should be appreciated as beneficial for the pashtuns in terms of greater numbers mean greater rights.

In my humble opinion, this attitude is based on incorrect presumptions. Reason for the 1971 debacle was not that Two Nation Theory was wrong. Pakistan was supposed to be a Federation, such as the US. Indian politicians were sagacious and they adopted a constitution as early as 1949.

Gandhi asked a Dalit, Dr BR Ambedkar (aka Babasahib) to write Indian Constitution so that minorities should not feel deprived. Indian constitution was adopted in November 1949 with India becoming a Republic on Jan 26, 1950. It is a different matter that now BJP (a high caste party) wants to amend the constitution to minorities’ disadvantage.

Sadly Muslim League comprised mainly of landed Muslim gentry who are by nature autocratic. We had to wait unit 1956 for a constitution and to this day smaller provinces feel short changed. East Pakistanis also felt at a disadvantage. One must not forget that Mujib did not ask for Independence. His famous 6 points were:

1. The constitution should provide for a Federation of Pakistan in its true sense on the Lahore Resolution and the parliamentary form of government with supremacy of a legislature directly elected on the basis of universal adult franchise.

2. The federal government should deal with only two subjects: Defence and Foreign affairs, and all other residuary subjects shall be vested in the federating states.

3. Two separate, but freely convertible currency for two wings should be introduced; or if this is not feasible, there should be one currency for the whole country, but effective constitutional provisions should be introduced to stop the flight of capital from East to West Pakistan. Furthermore, a separate banking reserve should be established and separate fiscal and monetary policy be adopted for East Pakistan.

4. The power of taxation and revenue collection shall be vested in the federating units and the federal centre will have no such power. The federation will be entitled to a share in the state taxes to meet its expenditures.

5. There should be two separate accounts for the foreign exchange earnings of the two wings; the foreign exchange requirements of the federal government should be met by the two wings equally or in a ratio to be fixed; indigenous products should move free of duty between the two wings, and the constitution should empower the units to establish trade links with foreign countries.

6. East Pakistan should have a separate militia or paramilitary forces.


Accepting the above meant that Pakistan would have become a Confederation of two wings with a weak Centre. Governor of East Pakistan, Vice Admiral Ahsan was strongly against the military action and resigned in protest.

By saying that West & East Pakistan should never have been one country you are indirectly implying that India should not been partitioned at all. There was a strong Unionist movement in Punjab, NWFP under Bacha Khan wanted to remain in India and Jamiat Ulema Hind as well as Jamaat Islami were also against partition. Without the combined effort of Muslims of India including the Bengali Muslims; India would not have been partitioned; hence no Pakistan and no Bangla Desh.

Bengal is clearly an example of a situation that was bad but was turned worse by our military and our politicians. Other than Bhutto Yahya Khan, Niazi and Tikka Khan should have been hanged for their attrocities against Bengalis. And we still haven't accepted those Bengalis and Biharis who still believe in Pakistan.

 

[TMA]

In my humble opinion, this attitude is based on incorrect presumptions. Reason for the 1971 debacle was not that Two Nation Theory was wrong. Pakistan was supposed to be a Federation, such as the US. Indian politicians were sagacious and they adopted a constitution as early as 1949.

Gandhi asked a Dalit, Dr BR Ambedkar (aka Babasahib) to write Indian Constitution so that minorities should not feel deprived. Indian constitution was adopted in November 1949 with India becoming a Republic on Jan 26, 1950. It is a different matter that now BJP (a high caste party) wants to amend the constitution to minorities’ disadvantage.

Sadly Muslim League comprised mainly of landed Muslim gentry who are by nature autocratic. We had to wait unit 1956 for a constitution and to this day smaller provinces feel short changed. East Pakistanis also felt at a disadvantage. One must not forget that Mujib did not ask for Independence. His famous 6 points were:

1. The constitution should provide for a Federation of Pakistan in its true sense on the Lahore Resolution and the parliamentary form of government with supremacy of a legislature directly elected on the basis of universal adult franchise.

2. The federal government should deal with only two subjects: Defence and Foreign affairs, and all other residuary subjects shall be vested in the federating states.

3. Two separate, but freely convertible currency for two wings should be introduced; or if this is not feasible, there should be one currency for the whole country, but effective constitutional provisions should be introduced to stop the flight of capital from East to West Pakistan. Furthermore, a separate banking reserve should be established and separate fiscal and monetary policy be adopted for East Pakistan.

4. The power of taxation and revenue collection shall be vested in the federating units and the federal centre will have no such power. The federation will be entitled to a share in the state taxes to meet its expenditures.

5. There should be two separate accounts for the foreign exchange earnings of the two wings; the foreign exchange requirements of the federal government should be met by the two wings equally or in a ratio to be fixed; indigenous products should move free of duty between the two wings, and the constitution should empower the units to establish trade links with foreign countries.

6. East Pakistan should have a separate militia or paramilitary forces.


Accepting the above meant that Pakistan would have become a Confederation of two wings with a weak Centre. Governor of East Pakistan, Vice Admiral Ahsan was strongly against the military action and resigned in protest.

By saying that West & East Pakistan should never have been one country you are indirectly implying that India should not been partitioned at all. There was a strong Unionist movement in Punjab, NWFP under Bacha Khan wanted to remain in India and Jamiat Ulema Hind as well as Jamaat Islami were also against partition. Without the combined effort of Muslims of India including the Bengali Muslims; India would not have been partitioned; hence no Pakistan and no Bangla Desh.

I am grateful for the Bengali and Bharati Muslims contribution.
What I am saying is that it was unwise to have made them one country even a federation. It was unpractical and would have left the door wide open to فصاد. Bangladesh should have been an independent country from the get go. If Pakistan was more powerful when she came into being and was culturally and linguistically similar to Bangladesh then it would have been practical. Indeed, personally, Bharati Muslims should they want should work for another homeland.
I do not mean that British India should have stayed united as it was a colonial construct.

 

[Max]

So if Pakistan uses a small native language it probably would avoid linguistic clashes however Muslim history is preserved best in Persian in the subcontinent. Also Persian is highly developed in all facets of human endeavor.
Not only this but Persian would connect Pakistan with our Muslim neighbors to her West.

once we adopt one of them it wouldn't be difficult to translate all important Arabic and Farsi books within few years lets say in hindko... so its not a big problem.. i am against Urdu coz it was not originated from our land, by same rule Farsi is also foreign language.. thats why i am against farsi and arabic too.. if u want farsi then why not stick with urdu? why our neighbors in west dont adopt urdu to connect with nearly 2 billion people in their east? are we less then them? Afghan, Iran, Tajik combined can no match to our population..

 

[django]

I don't understand this policy of declaring people with pashtun ancestry non pashtuns. First I felt it was an attempt to cut off patriotic Pakistani pashtuns like the Niazis and Tareens and Jadoons but now I notice it is something else. I don't understand even if we have limited pashtun ancestry then what is the logic of calling us non pashtun? The larger growth in pashtun ranks should be appreciated as beneficial for the pashtuns in terms of greater numbers mean greater rights.


Bengal is clearly an example of a situation that was bad but was turned worse by our military and our politicians. Other than Bhutto Yahya Khan, Niazi and Tikka Khan should have been hanged for their attrocities against Bengalis. And we still haven't accepted those Bengalis and Biharis who still believe in Pakistan.

First how do you know folks like Babar Ghauri are Pashtuns, even if they did have limited Pashtun ancestry which you cannot possibly ascertain , they are as much Pashtun as those Afro-Caribbeans in Jamaica who have limited British ancestry, they have a completely different appearance and dont understand a word of Pashto, I have many Pashtun friends who refer to other darker folks as tora (black), what makes you think they acknowledge folks like Saulat Mirza and Babar Ghauri as one of their own.

 

[Samandri]

There are many pashtun born people in Lucknow-we don't have any proven ancestry but some of us could have been pashtun along with our ancestors. Fatehpur is full of pathans and Rohillas also dominate UP-the only difference is our people have forgotten the gift of pashto. Saif Ali Khan and Shahrukh Khan are proven pashtuns. Other actors with khan surname are unproven ones but are suspected to have pashtun background.

Jinnah intended us to merge with local ethnic groups when we came to Pakistan so I believe merging as a pashtun can be a solution to our ethnic problem and since I have had more exposure to pashtuns-I'd like to become a pashtun.

I don't understand this policy of declaring people with pashtun ancestry non pashtuns. First I felt it was an attempt to cut off patriotic Pakistani pashtuns like the Niazis and Tareens and Jadoons but now I notice it is something else. I don't understand even if we have limited pashtun ancestry then what is the logic of calling us non pashtun? The larger growth in pashtun ranks should be appreciated as beneficial for the pashtuns in terms of greater numbers mean greater rights.


Bengal is clearly an example of a situation that was bad but was turned worse by our military and our politicians. Other than Bhutto Yahya Khan, Niazi and Tikka Khan should have been hanged for their attrocities against Bengalis. And we still haven't accepted those Bengalis and Biharis who still believe in Pakistan.

Pashtun would be some one who speaks Pashto as his/her mother tongue, thats the common view here in Pakhtunkhwa. Thats why when some one says he is Pashtun, we converse with him in Pashto and show our surprise when he doesnt know it. There is interview of Iqbal Khan Niazi, author of "Tarikh-i-Niazi Qabail" uploaded on youtube (watch it here) , who is saying that during his army career, some Pashtuns of Dargai showed such surprise when he and his Suddhan fella introduced themeselves as Pashtun but couldnt speak Pashto. It offended him and motivated him to learn Pashto and write book on history of Niazis.

In my opinion , these descendents of Pashtuns across the Pakistan or India , are part of our history. But are they part of Pashtun qaum? nope. Quran clearly says humans are divided into tribes and nations for the purpose of identity. You are not Pashtun among humans if you can not be identified as a Pashtun.

 

[insight-out]

This thread is a good example of the phenomenon known as narcissism of small differences. You will find it pretty much everywhere, including the US and Canada. It even exists within countries (think Punjabi/Pathan) and within ethnic groups (think zaat). To people outside the group the differences are so small that they are not always noticeable. But to individuals within the group, the differences are magnified.

Narcissism of Small Differences - Wikipedia

 

[Hussain Farooqui]

Ayub Khan badly ignored the problems of the former East Pakistan and let the Bengalis suffer from countless problems. His successor was a playboy general Yahya Khan. He also failed to compensate the negligence of Ayub which then finally resulted into disasters. He further aggravated the situation which finally resulted into the division of Pakistan.

 

[Jaam92]

Get a grip brother, we are not a Desi country, don't insult me and my nation with that word and no we don't give two hoots about Indian Muslims, they are culturally, linguistically different and are illegitimate children of turco Afghans


I have no love for afghans too regardless if they are pro or anti Pak, I share much with them from same culture to language to history but they see me as an outsider as a Pakistani and i see them through the same lense as they are outsiders and Afghans for me.

Afghans are not just generally anti Punjabi but more anti Pukhtoon as we have showed them a middle finger and called ethnic groups of Pakistan as our kith and kin.

Muslims follows only culture of Islam not liberal people or democracy or culture of hindu

 

[ghilzai]

Muslims follows only culture of Islam not liberal people or democracy or culture of hindu

We follow the culture of Pakistan and most importantly the culture of our forefathers who were and we are turco iranic people, Pukhtoons we were all that before Islam and we are still that after Islam.

We consider ourselves devout Muslims but we also consider ourselves unique and have strong heritage that is in no way a Islamic culture.

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

Islamic societies have many guidelines which go against modern secularism.
They don't allow criticism of the religion( at least in practice), people can't leave the religion out of their free will, people aren't allowed to marry interfaith( girls in particular), girls don't have leadership roles on the religious side.
These are in addition to the lack of sexual freedom that you mentioned.

Indian society is weakly secular. I would prefer the secularism to be on the lines of western nations.
There is a lot of opposition to the beef ban and personal laws from the liberals in our country. They will be removed in the near future,most likely.

Whatever you said above equally apply to Indian society as well even though you claim to be a secular nation. Are you free to insult and criticise any religion in India? You even put ban on food choices of people because it could offend religious sentiment of majority. Here is Section 153(A) of the constitution which limit the freedom of expression

Section 153A of the penal code says,[3] inter alia:
Whoever (a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or (b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility, . . . shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Are Indians allowed to marry with people of others castes/religion? I can post dozen of such news where people got killed because of doing marriage outside their caste/religion. Is there no honour killing in India? Is open sex/kissing allowed in public places and there is no restriction on sexual freedom? Do people have respect for prostitutes in Indian society? Are dalits and lower caste get equal social statue and opportunities as a Indian citizen ?I have even seen some videos where moral police of RSS was beating young girls and guys for celebrating valentine days which they think is against the values of Indian society. How many People got punishment for leaving their religion in Pakistan ? None. You cannot guess the beliefs of people in order to punish them. Leaving Islam is one thing and to do negative campaign against it (after leaving) another.There are many people who are atheists and living in Islamic societies. You think government keep eyes on every individuals about whether they have believe in existence of Islamic Allah and whether they are offering prayers and doing all others obligatory stuffs. If we talk about converting others then your arya samaj also run ghar wapisi scheme to convert illiterate Muslim villagers after offering them some incentives . Girls dont have leadership role? are you kidding? Bangladesh and Pakistan are Muslim countries where females have been prime/foreign minister and there are many religious woman scholars as well. You see you are looking at Islamic society from your own narrow minded vision of Islam

 

[livingdead]

Selam to everyone,

I have some questions on my mind that I would like to ask but I'm afraid that some might feel insulted.
Anyway, that's not my intention. I apologise in advance if anybody should feel I have insulted them or trodden on their toes. It's just...I don't know much about the identities and cultures in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh. To be honest, some things confuse me.

Last year I met a Pakistani and a Bangladeshi guy at the university. Both super nice, they were real friends. There was no problem at all. Last week I met another exchange student from Bangladesh. As the overwhelming majority of Bangladeshis this guy was polite, nice and intelligent. Unfortunately, at the end of our talk I found out, that he is a real Pakistan hater.

I was like: Whuaaat?!

So, I have tons of questions:

How is the relationship between Pakistanis and Bangladeshis today?

Is Bangladesh pro India?

What (with the exception of the language) are the cultural differences between Pakistani and Bangladeshi societies?

Do Pakistani and Indian Muslims see themselves as a part of one nation divided in two countries?

Is Pakistan a "desi" country? Actually, isn't "desi" a racist label?

I would welcome your response. Please excuse my bad command of English.

1. relation between pakistan and bd is not bad, but not friendly either. They are quite far apart geographically and dont have much to fight about. Its just the history of bangladesh civil war and independence that still influences the relation between them.
2. Current regime of bd(ruled by a party called Awami League) is positive towards India. The previous one(BNP) was not really positive towards India, so relation was not great. Bangladesh has two major parties, so relation with India depends on which one is in power.
As to ordinary bangladeshis, some dislike India and some like. The hatred is more rooted in politics than religion.

3. Bangladesh is quite far from pakistan but as most of south asia has some cultural similarities, But differences are too many, its like saying whats difference between british and spanish.
4. I will let muslims answer that.
5. Desi means native, videsi means foreigner. Not sure if it is offensive to pakistanis, but its not offensive to Indians or bangladeshis, its a catch all term to refer to broader south asian culture.

 

[Hussain Farooqui]

Islamic societies have many guidelines which go against modern secularism.
They don't allow criticism of the religion( at least in practice), people can't leave the religion out of their free will, people aren't allowed to marry interfaith( girls in particular), girls don't have leadership roles on the religious side.
These are in addition to the lack of sexual freedom that you mentioned.

Indian society is weakly secular. I would prefer the secularism to be on the lines of western nations.
There is a lot of opposition to the beef ban and personal laws from the liberals in our country. They will be removed in the near future,most likely.

The teachings of any religion are positive. However, extremism or fanaticism related to any religion is dangerous not for the followers of other religions but the followers of their respective religions also.