The Construction of a New Pakistani Identity

[Pak_88]

Right, do excuse me but I've been giving this a bit of thought recently, especially in light of recent events.

Do we need to construct a new identity for ourselves as Pakistanis?

As I understand, following independence, Pakistan, in an attempt to build its own identity, clung to a strong Islamic identity in order to protect what may be seen as a very uniquely inorganic state - after all ethnically, there are no Pakistani people in the same fashion as there are Punjabis, Sindis and so forth. We are a people not bound collectively by anything except for a majority religion (of varying interpretation throughout), and a language (native to a very small minority). It developed into a very pan-Islamic interpretation of a nation, something which was greatly accelerated in the 1970s and 1980s, where, for many, a Muslim and Pakistani were (and continue to be) essentially one and the same. Has this led, by any means, to any degree of segregation on grounds of questionable interpretation?

In my mind's eye, I do not see Pakistan making any degree of progress without society becoming inclusive and homogenous, free of prejudice of religion or caste, which is our case today.
Pakistan was, after all, not meant to be a theocracy. Does our identity as Pakistanis not lie in our desire and love for freedom from an oppressive majority (as in pre-partition India)? Have we not become those whom we despised, and strove hard to be freed from? Was our desire for freedom not borne out of an oppressive and unjust majority which subjugated us (something we thought as unjust and wrong)? Have we not become those whom we hated all those years ago?

I do hope that this can be a topic we can discuss seriously.
@Indus Pakistan. @Zibago. I'd like your views.

 

[Zibago]

The interests of the state are above all things China followed it look where it is now

 

[TheNoob]

From my view.

Pakistan's lack of identity and its identification with the religion has been mostly because the nation has nothing to pride itself upon.

Sure. We might have the military but the end of the day.
One or two institutional or private ventures aren't enough.

If we're to develop a new identity, As Pakistanis.
One where we do not need to drop our association with islam.

Is to develop ourselves further through infastructure, social values and freedom.
Enforcing the rule of law, less crime rate. Private ventures and good educated workforce are just some of them.
Until we see the change in ourselves, Pakistan will always be stuck with the empty mind between religion and reality.
The recent attempts can be seen from this prespective that they do not want Pakistan to have an identity and thus keep dropping us in the dilemme regarding one or two laws or sentiments regarding our religion.


Pakistan must move forward irrespective of religious bigotry and develop itself further so the people can pride themselves with associating with the country.

They need to see how far we've come and how effective we can be. (If we look past our differences)
Once this religious obstacle has been overcome, We MIGHT be able to work towards an identity.

Until then.
We're stuck, this is the stagnation point of our society.

I want to write it in a more detailed manner, I'll see if I can do it once im back home.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

not meant to be a theocracy

Tell me please, if you claim a country to be made in name of Islam, not be a theocracy? If you claim a country is made in name of religion you are giving the reason for it's existence down to theology. Thus it follows it ought to be a theocracy. And since this the theology behind Pakistan was Islam naturally the Mullah steps forward. Had it been Christianity then priests would have stepped forward.

very uniquely inorganic state

Disagree and can't see the import of this anyway. I want you think of British India for a second. Tell me how organic it was? Tell me what was reason for it's existence. And then note it lasted 98 years in coterminous Pakistan [1849-1947] whereas the first Islamic Repubic lasted 24 years [1947-1971] when part of it fell apart - Bangla. I want you to think about the 98 years of Raj and then compare 24 years. Please think about this because much of the answer will cover the question you pose.

And may I commend you on a very. very important and valid subject considering what is happening right now.

 

[VCheng]

Do we need to construct a new identity for ourselves as Pakistanis?

The Objectives Resolution clearly defines the foundation for the country. There can be no new identity that clashes with that foundation.

 

[Jugger]

One where we do not need to drop our association with islam.

You have dropped the A Bomb here dude.
Tread carefully..!
People have been butchered for saying anything against Islam in Pakistan.

 

[Imran Khan]

pakistan ab itna.badnaam ho chuka hai.we have to.rename Pakistan and follow.our indus valley identity

 

[AHMED85]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1117782555064528

 

[AHMED85]

pakistan ab itna.badnaam ho chuka hai.we have to.rename Pakistan and follow.our indus valley identity

نہ بدنام کرو
نہ بدنام ھو

 

[Imran Khan]

نہ بدنام کرو
نہ بدنام ھو

Ab to jo hona tha ho gya 40 saal se . Ab koi nya kam karo

 

[AHMED85]

Ab to jo hona tha ho gya 40 saal se . Ab koi nya kam karo

سر آئی ایم ویری سوری
To say

You need loyal peoples to win but you does not possessed good peoples in politics & most of the institutions.

سر میرا دماغ اک منٹ کے لیے گھوم جاتا ھے جب مجھے کسی رشوت کا پتا چلتا ھے پھر مے حالات دیکھتا ھوں اور ملک کو بے بس دیکھتا ھوں لوگوں کے حالات، عادات اور ڑیلنگ دیکھتا ھوں تو میری انٹیلیجنس کہتی ھے یہ تو ہونا ہی تھا ھم اپنے سٹرکچر مے پھنسے ھوئے ھیں جہاں سے کوئی نہیں نکال سکتا جب تک ہر فرد مخلص نہ ھو۔

سیاست دانوں کو گولی مارو مے ان کے بارے مے بات نہیں کرنا چاہتا

ھمارہ اپنا قصور ھے ھم چلتی گاڑی سے گند باہر پھینکنے مے کوئی شرم نہیں کرتے کیوں کے پرواہ نہیں جبکہ اپنے کمرے کو صاف ستھرا رکھتے ھیں یہ ہیں ھماری اپنی کمزوریاں۔

 

[AHMED85]

 

[Pak_88]

Tell me please, if you claim a country to be made in name of Islam, not be a theocracy? If you claim a country is made in name of religion you are giving the reason for it's existence down to theology. Thus it follows it ought to be a theocracy. And since this the theology behind Pakistan was Islam naturally the Mullah steps forward. Had it been Christianity then priests would have stepped forward.

Well, that's the thing. One of the reasons as to why the mullah exherts such strong influence is because he has forced us to believe that Pakistan was made on the name of Islam, where, naturally, he has the monopoly over everything. That is the current situation with KHR and his fellows. After all, of Pakistan was truly made in the name of Islam, is it not the mullah who should be the PM, CJP, COAS etc.?
In this regard, I respectfully disagree. I believe Pakistan was made for the Muslims of South Asia. It wasn't made as a bastion of Islam (the details of which are reserved for a completely different thread), but rather to allow the Muslims of South Asia to live their lives free from the persecution of a powerful majority. This does not in any way, shape, or form mean that the minorities should be treated differently to Muslims, let alone be treated poorly (ironically unislamic). We were not made as a Muslim Israel. In my humble opinion, Pakistan was created by the Quaid to promote and firmly establish what he could not do in India. That is, "You are free, free to go to your temples, free to go to your mosques.......".
After all, the Quaid remained throughout his life the "Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity". Even as late as 1945 he was willing to forego partition altogether, provided the rights of Muslims were protected.
He even wanted the sikhs on his side in 1947!
Therefore, I believe that there was no inconsistency on the Quaid's part.

This has resulted in 2 huge problems:
I. The mullahs on the right have hijacked the concept of Pakistan to mean something different from what it was meant to be, because, they reserve the monopoly in such a case (naturally).
II. The equally idiotic left now believe that the birth of Pakistan was a confused one - without a clear understanding of our direction. In my view, the direction given by the Quaid could not be clearer. It was those who hijacked it who are to blame (coincidentally, these were the very people who admittedly "abstained from the sin of creating Pakistan").

This, I think, has created a great deal of confusion in the mind of the average Pakistani who's either unsure as to the real reason behind Pakistan's birth, or rather misguided.

Disagree and can't see the import of this anyway. I want you think of British India for a second. Tell me how organic it was? Tell me what was reason for it's existence. And then note it lasted 98 years in coterminous Pakistan [1849-1947] whereas the first Islamic Repubic lasted 24 years [1947-1971] when part of it fell apart - Bangla. I want you to think about the 98 years of Raj and then compare 24 years. Please think about this because much of the answer will cover the question you pose.

Oh, India was (and is) as inorganic as it gets. India has always been a collection of nations. If anything, had the Hindu population been more dilute, I think they really would have achieved the still utopian wish of "unity in diversity" - though, I can't claim to be an authority on such a complex matter.
But Pakistan was still inorganic - though admittedly not any more than the USA for example.

 

[El Sidd]

The forum plays host to direct mutiny against the Objective Resolution.

Project ''Balkanization of Pakistan''

Fault Lines - Ethno fascists and religio fascists combining for a singular cause.

Expected to bear fruit - 2019-20

Conclusion _ Utter Humiliation in defeat.

 

[GHALIB]

The interests of the state are above all things China followed it look where it is now

China is successful because religion is not the ruling gradient in road to success