The Defence Day of Pakistan; Ideology and Strategy

[Zarvan]

Being the only nation-state in the world made on the basis of ‘ideology’ is a unique phenomenon that needs to be understood.

After the two World Wars, when the cabal of the imperialist was on its breaking, was the time when most sections of humanity that had been living under suppression and hegemonic control for centuries, stepped forward to re-define their identities, upon which they aspired to be made into independent states in the near coming future. Before this era, humanity had been largely living under empires and kingdoms, as provinces or vassals; men did not have the privilege to ask for freedom just upon their creed or because their ancestors had been living in a land. But as this new wave of independence swept around the world, extending upon the Westphalian idea of sovereignty, nations sorted out their identity based on the oneness or closeness of their ethnicities, languages, cultures etc.

And as humanity was taking a turn into this new era of awareness the Muslims of the Indian Subcontinent united upon the idea that they want a sovereign state not for a creed, ethnicity, language or culture but for only one thing – ‘Islam’. This is precisely the notion for which they struggled and sacrificed, even when half of them knew that maybe they would never be a part of that wonderful land they are striving for with their resources and lives.

What was gained in love, aspiration and belief upon a wider worldview, was defended by the same zeal of resilience. As the Hindu-majority India suddenly turn from an occupied nation struggling for freedom into an imperialist wanting full control of all land that surrounds it, war upon war was imposed on the land of Pakistan, a land that was the promise of freedom, uprightness and peace for the people of this ideological nation.

War is not always inflicted upon a nation by direct attacks; when India forcibly occupied a province that the people of Pakistan rightfully thought of as their own, then directly or indirectly India planted the tree of permanent discord between its people and ours, as in our sight India would always stands our criminal. And when India has made a theft of a whole province of our country, any act in the struggle to regain that land cannot be amounted to crime; thus the Operation Gibraltar.

Wars should not be ranked by the measure of their success or lose, they must be ranked for the justness of their cause and the courage of a people in standing for the right. In this prospect Pakistan had won this operation, right when it had drew its intention for it, regardless of the consequences. Therefore the righteousness in attempting a daring attempt of somehow trying to rescue and secure Kashmir from the clutches of enslavement and tyranny was a win-win for Pakistan in terms of human virtue.

This very standing of a people, for a righteous cause, is truly the miracle of conscious life, for when men stand for battle, it is their physical endurance, their integrity as individuals, their nerves and their belief that is on the test, and the Pakistani Army has proven itself of being belief-strong. It is this belief that wins battles over stronger looking, more lavishly decorated armies, and the Pakistan Army has proven this belief with their readiness to obey command, their volunteering to step on the path of martyrdom and their willful giving of their blood and soul for every inch of land that has been labeled with the title of ‘la illaha illal lah’.
The Defence Day of Pakistan; Ideology and Strategy | PKKH.tv

 

[M.harris]

 

[jetti]

nation state based on ideology is dumb idea.

pak is occupying landin P0K and GB which was signed by its owner in 1947 to india
the princely states did not come under British so had the right to self determination

 

[Panther 57]

nation state based on ideology is dumb idea.

Pakistan was made on two nation theory. Initially Quide-e-Azam was in favour of undivided subcontinent after departure of British. Only when he realised, based on prevailing practices and situation, that muslims of subcontinent will not have equal opportunity in one unit, he struggled for partition. He wanted to have a country where muslims are not suppressed, other religions should also be able to freely practice their religion and be part of all activities related to Pakistan. Therefore, Pakistan was made on the concept of two nation theory and not Islamic ideology. Yes, as it Pakistan was envisaged to be a muslim majority country, state religion was declared to be Islam.

 

[jetti]

Pakistan was made on two nation theory. Initially Quide-e-Azam was in favour of undivided subcontinent after departure of British. Only when he realised, based on prevailing practices and situation, that muslims of subcontinent will not have equal opportunity in one unit, he struggled for partition. He wanted to have a country where muslims are not suppressed, other religions should also be able to freely practice their religion and be part of all activities related to Pakistan. Therefore, Pakistan was made on the concept of two nation theory and not Islamic ideology. Yes, as it Pakistan was envisaged to be a muslim majority country, state religion was declared to be Islam.

actually does your constitution state that pak is founded on religious ideology?
unfortunately jinnah's idea was crushed by his own juniors like LAK after he died and even towards the end of his life,

 

[Zarvan]

Let me share a small personal experience of the 1965 war !

In 1965, just before the war, my father Major Zaman Hamid was an artillery officer posted in Sialkot. Weeks before the actual war started on 6th September, tensions were high in Kashmir and some troops were already deployed along the working boundary near Sialkot though nobody expected an Indian attack on the city. While my dad was managing the artillery guns deployment, my mother would be alone in the house with my elder sister who was 5 years and me only a toddler at 1.5 years . Our faithful Cocker Spaniel dog Perdy would be the security guard while my mother keeping her .22 rifle loaded all the time in the house. Our house was also very close to the border and every night, my mom would be alone, staying awake all night, holding her two children and the rifle while the dog stayed guard outside the house. All officers and men had gone to the forward areas. In those days, there were blackouts too, so the entire region would be lonely, dark and very scary for a woman and her two kids. But Ammi, stayed on refusing to leave.

On 6th September when the full attack of the Indians came on Lahore and immediately afterwards on Sialkot also, which dangerously exposed our house to the Indian tanks, only then my mother abandoned the house and withdrew back to Pindi in an adventurous train ride which was constantly under threat of Indian air strikes.

All this time, my Dad was delivering hell through our own artillery guns on the advancing Indian tanks to prevent them from entering Sialkot. Abba Jan did not know where his family was and Ammi did not know if he was alive or not. But both stayed firm on their duties.

Then started the biggest tank battle in the world after second world war -- nearly 500 Indian tanks advanced with 50,000 troops on Sialkot but were pushed back and defeated by the defenders of Sialkot alhamdolillah. My father being one of the gunners who blasted the Indian attack and supported the ground troops through artillery fire. On the other front, Lahore was also being defended with equal ferocity by our tigers. Later, Indian army had to suffer huge humiliation in their own country for failing to capture Lahore and Sialkot!

Weeks later, after the war, when my mother came back to Sialkot with me and my sister, there were artillery guns placed all around our house, one even proudly dug in the main lawn as well

Even today, my mother proudly narrates the stories of that amazing war which the entire family witnessed from such a close range. History was repeated again in 1971 also when my father was again posted in Sialkot when the war started and the same saga started all over again -- war, enemy advance, family evacuation, defense of Sialkot..

Alhamdolillah, elders are still alive who have seen those times with their eyes and had seen how the nation gelled into a solid wall of steel to defend our faith, land and ideology. InshAllah, today and in future also, we vow to defend this medina e sani against all enemies, InshAllah.

Yaum e Difaa Mubarak ! Prepare yourself. It is your turn to defend Pakistan now.


Syed Zaid Zaman Hamid [Official]
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...15752775.23119.109463862441767&type=1&theater

actually does your constitution state that pak is founded on religious ideology?
unfortunately jinnah's idea was crushed by his own juniors like LAK after he died and even towards the end of his life,

Yes it does and Jinah was not secular Mr Jinah was not even close to secularism he threw his daughter out because she married a parsi and in many speeches he told Pakistan would be based on principals of Quran and Sunnah

 

[Panther 57]

actually does your constitution state that pak is founded on religious ideology?
unfortunately jinnah's idea was crushed by his own juniors like LAK after he died and even towards the end of his life,

Changes do take place as countries progress. Like initially it was Pakistan, someone decided to call it Islamic Republic of Pakistan and documented it. More recently some people tried to used the term Democratic Pakistan. Yes, present Pakistan has digressed from its original concept. Self serving politicians have neither let it Pakistan, Islamic Republic or Democratic.

Present Constitution of Pakistan was signed in 1973, later there were a number of amendments to it. Some wrong, some right. But these idiots are bent upon bringing it back to original shape, not to for the sake of originality, but for the sake of their personal interest. Man made constitutions and laws are never perfect, requiring fine tuning time and again. Only sincere effort can bring it closer to perfection in accordance with prevailing environment.

 

[jetti]

Changes do take place as countries progress. Like initially it was Pakistan, someone decided to call it Islamic Republic of Pakistan and documented it. More recently some people tried to used the term Democratic Pakistan. Yes, present Pakistan has digressed from its original concept. Self serving politicians have neither let it Pakistan, Islamic Republic or Democratic.

Present Constitution of Pakistan was signed in 1973, later there were a number of amendments to it. Some wrong, some right. But these idiots are bent upon bringing it back to original shape, not to for the sake of originality, but for the sake of their personal interest. Man made constitutions and laws are never perfect, requiring fine tuning time and again. Only sincere effort can bring it closer to perfection in accordance with prevailing environment.

Thanks. Well all constitutions and laws are manmade. why, even the concept of god is manmade.
but i agree that its not only in Pak but also in my country that politicians are ruining the place for the people.

Let me share a small personal experience of the 1965 war !

In 1965, just before the war, my father Major Zaman Hamid was an artillery officer posted in Sialkot. Weeks before the actual war started on 6th September, tensions were high in Kashmir and some troops were already deployed along the working boundary near Sialkot though nobody expected an Indian attack on the city. While my dad was managing the artillery guns deployment, my mother would be alone in the house with my elder sister who was 5 years and me only a toddler at 1.5 years . Our faithful Cocker Spaniel dog Perdy would be the security guard while my mother keeping her .22 rifle loaded all the time in the house. Our house was also very close to the border and every night, my mom would be alone, staying awake all night, holding her two children and the rifle while the dog stayed guard outside the house. All officers and men had gone to the forward areas. In those days, there were blackouts too, so the entire region would be lonely, dark and very scary for a woman and her two kids. But Ammi, stayed on refusing to leave.

On 6th September when the full attack of the Indians came on Lahore and immediately afterwards on Sialkot also, which dangerously exposed our house to the Indian tanks, only then my mother abandoned the house and withdrew back to Pindi in an adventurous train ride which was constantly under threat of Indian air strikes.

All this time, my Dad was delivering hell through our own artillery guns on the advancing Indian tanks to prevent them from entering Sialkot. Abba Jan did not know where his family was and Ammi did not know if he was alive or not. But both stayed firm on their duties.

Then started the biggest tank battle in the world after second world war -- nearly 500 Indian tanks advanced with 50,000 troops on Sialkot but were pushed back and defeated by the defenders of Sialkot alhamdolillah. My father being one of the gunners who blasted the Indian attack and supported the ground troops through artillery fire. On the other front, Lahore was also being defended with equal ferocity by our tigers. Later, Indian army had to suffer huge humiliation in their own country for failing to capture Lahore and Sialkot!

Weeks later, after the war, when my mother came back to Sialkot with me and my sister, there were artillery guns placed all around our house, one even proudly dug in the main lawn as well

Even today, my mother proudly narrates the stories of that amazing war which the entire family witnessed from such a close range. History was repeated again in 1971 also when my father was again posted in Sialkot when the war started and the same saga started all over again -- war, enemy advance, family evacuation, defense of Sialkot..

Alhamdolillah, elders are still alive who have seen those times with their eyes and had seen how the nation gelled into a solid wall of steel to defend our faith, land and ideology. InshAllah, today and in future also, we vow to defend this medina e sani against all enemies, InshAllah.

Yaum e Difaa Mubarak ! Prepare yourself. It is your turn to defend Pakistan now.


Syed Zaid Zaman Hamid [Official]
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...15752775.23119.109463862441767&type=1&theater

Yes it does and Jinah was not secular Mr Jinah was not even close to secularism he threw his daughter out because she married a parsi and in many speeches he told Pakistan would be based on principals of Quran and Sunnah

Mr , did he not say that muslims will cease to be muslims if the country went according to his vision? Jinnah wanted a secular Pak, the other people did not. In effect you are not following your own creator.

 

[Imran Khan]

defense say my back sharam to nhi ati defense day manany waloon ko ? if you guys have little shame left go and die defense day huh

 

[Panther 57]

Mr , did he not say that muslims will cease to be muslims if the country went according to his vision? Jinnah wanted a secular Pak, the other people did not. In effect you are not following your own creator.

I think there is misconception between being muslim and secular. An academic definition of secularism may be different, but what is perceived in modern time is "the right to freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon the people within a state"

Most of the people interpret secularism to be unislamic. in my point of view the best example of a secular society under islamic law was at the time of Holy Prophet PBUH. Where other religions were given full and equal protection by the state. Islam clearly states that there is no forcing in religion. In His time all the religions coexisted and Wars which were fought by Muslims were in defence, except one, which was for liberation of Muslims of Mecca from tyranny of Kuffar-e-Mecca. No war was waged to force people to change their religion.

 

[jetti]

I think there is misconception between being muslim and secular. An academic definition of secularism may be different, but what is perceived in modern time is "the right to freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon the people within a state"

Most of the people interpret secularism to be unislamic. in my point of view the best example of a secular society under islamic law was at the time of Holy Prophet PBUH. Where other religions were given full and equal protection by the state. Islam clearly states that there is no forcing in religion. In His time all the religions coexisted and Wars which were fought by Muslims were in defence, except one, which was for liberation of Muslims of Mecca from tyranny of Kuffar-e-Mecca. No war was waged to force people to change their religion.

About Secularism - My understanding is that secularism is a concept that talks about freedom of religion and state. Various countries have their own interpretaion and implementation of this. In India, it just says that people will not be discriminated and state will not bother about an indivuduals religion. France has a a slighlyt different flavour.
Secularism basically provides equal oportunity to everyone in a state irrespective.
I am not aware of how other religions were treated during those times, but the very fact that non-mslims have to pay a kind of tax and muslis have to pay a different tax, a non-muslm will not have the4 opportunity to become head of state and so on and so forth gives the impression that this religon is not secular. your thoughts?

 

[Panther 57]

Secularism basically provides equal oportunity to everyone in a state irrespective.
I am not aware of how other religions were treated during those times, but the very fact that non-mslims have to pay a kind of tax and muslis have to pay a different tax, a non-muslm will not have the4 opportunity to become head of state and so on and so forth gives the impression that this religon is not secular. your thoughts?

This is exactly what i said that academic definition may be different.

As regard you point on head of state, every country has a right to make rules pertaining to their head of state. Some openly do it some follow it in an implied fashion. There may be few exceptions, which are negligible in quantity.

Now coming to tax part. Tax is imposed by all the government. Again all the governments do it, irrespective of religion they follow. Muslims have been subjected to Zakat, which is not a charity but tax, as religious obligation. If Zakat is imposed on Non-Muslims, they are under no religious obligation to pay it therefore a different name has been given which is Jazia. Against this tax state provides security and other such services to them. Do you think there is anything unfair with non-muslims? I don't think so. In my opinion, a very difficult matter has been dealt very prudently and amicably.

 

[Syed Naved]

Strategy Of Bd And Pakistan Against Them Would Be Peace Within & Peace Without. If they attack us, we must stand against em unitedly like 65.
Pakistan Zindabad,Pakistan Paindabad

 

[jetti]

This is exactly what i said that academic definition may be different.

As regard you point on head of state, every country has a right to make rules pertaining to their head of state. Some openly do it some follow it in an implied fashion. There may be few exceptions, which are negligible in quantity.

Now coming to tax part. Tax is imposed by all the government. Again all the governments do it, irrespective of religion they follow. Muslims have been subjected to Zakat, which is not a charity but tax, as religious obligation. If Zakat is imposed on Non-Muslims, they are under no religious obligation to pay it therefore a different name has been given which is Jazia. Against this tax state provides security and other such services to them. Do you think there is anything unfair with non-muslims? I don't think so. In my opinion, a very difficult matter has been dealt very prudently and amicably.

I think that if the government decides that opportunies on a people will be impacted on the basis of religon, then its not a secular setup. I am not arguinf for or against it, but just giving my opinion on what is and is not secular.
So if india Govt says that a certain community cannot aspire for a certain post, then its not secular.
Why should non-muslims and muslims pay different taxes? What would have been secular is, everyone pays a uniform tax and on top muslims are voluntarily asked to pay zakt.
I believe that in Pak, during the time of Ramzan large withdrawals are made so that the forced zakt is not applied. is that true?

 

[Panther 57]

Why should non-muslims and muslims pay different taxes? What would have been secular is, everyone pays a uniform tax and on top muslims are voluntarily asked to pay zakt.
I believe that in Pak, during the time of Ramzan large withdrawals are made so that the forced zakt is not applied. is that true?

Cheating God does not absolve people from discharging their religious obligation. BTW Zakat is not voluntary obligation, which has to be met. As regard withdrawal from banks is concerned before Ramadan. It is because of flaw in law. If they do not withdraw their total amount in the bank will be subjected to 2.5% deduction, which is not correct. Even a deposit which is done two days earlier or salary transfer will also be subjected to deduction, which is contrary to the concept of Zakat. Zakat is on savings which are not used for full one year is subjected to Zakat.

It is upon an individual to decide his or her calender year for which calculation of Zakat should be done and the same calender year is to be followed through out life. eg. a person decides 1st Jan 31st dec as the calender yer. If an amount of 100 is deposited in the bank or set aside as saving on 1st Jan. Later during the year other deposits or savings are added and total rached 1000 on 31st Dec. Zakat become obligatory on only 100 which completed 1 year. Therefore, fixing 1st Ramadan as zakat deduction date by govt is wrong. Secondly deducting it on complete amount on 1st Ramadan is also wrong, because it does not segregate duration of deposit or saving. Third, Zakat is an obligation which is not discharged unless it reaches the rightly deserving person. Deduction from bank cannot guarantee that, because political favourism in distribution cannot be overruled. Evidences are available where it has been misused also. Fourth, first right of Zakat is deserving person within immediate family (parents cannot be given Zakat), then farther family, then neighbours, then city and so on.
I am just giving an overview for you. It is a very comprehensive system, which if implemented properly will eliminate poverty all together. It will ensure that wealth remains in circulation, thus help a healthy GDP, lower inflation and interest rates and more economic activity.