The second coming of a Quaid

[Vinod2070]

Why do Pakistanis feel compelled to deny the existence of the Indian nation before 1947!

You chose to go your separate way in 1947 because of the two nation theory (TNT). That theory said that Hindus and Muslims are separate nations. That they had fundamental differences and they can't live together.

Of course the continuance of such a large Muslim population in India seriously compromises that theory. But notwithstanding that, your highest thinkers of TNT (Jinnah and Iqbal) were staunch Indian nationalists for most of their lives and turned to partition only much later in their lives.

Even they never questioned the reality of India being an ancient nation. They knew it and they loved and accepted it. Partition for most Indians is a sad event but one that is over and done with. As much as you want India to accept it, you also need to accept the reality and the reasons for the partition.

Like much else, this is a post facto thinking of some Pakistani friends. Like their sudden embrace of the little known IVC while trying to be blissfully vague about the rest of the Indian history. What if new research proves strong linkage between IVC and the Vedic/Hindu civilization? Would you still be as enthusiastic about it?

 

[RescueRanger]

Though I do not have sufficient inputs to comment on this, it does not seem likley. In any case it is of no relevance who the principal proponents were, the fact that the partition is done & over with is enough.

Vish,
You appear to be young man, it is natural to feel the way you do. Sons & brothers cannot live off the same family house & kitchen forever. When families grow sometimes seperation is better to ensure harmony & family ties. Unfortunately the haphazard manner of seperation is the bane in our case. Not that there is a soloution/ manner to undo or rectify it now. The ans is to accept & move on.

Brothers rarely have probs left to themselves, it is only when ladies ( wives) come into the frame do things start to slip. In our case , even at the risk of starting a feud, I'd like to compare our respective religions with our wives, we must love, respect & cherish them but keep them in the right place & perspective ( without chauvanisitc insinuations).

My view is that the God we pray to,the food we eat, the clothes we wear,the upbringing we give our children & the lifestyle we keep are very personal issues. We can neither be judgemental on others on these nor can we impose our styles on others.

Thank you for a very balanced post. Appreciated!

 

[RescueRanger]

Why do Pakistanis feel compelled to deny the existence of the Indian nation before 1947!

You chose to go your separate way in 1947 because of the two nation theory (TNT). That theory said that Hindus and Muslims are separate nations. That they had fundamental differences and they can't live together.

Of course the continuance of such a large Muslim population in India seriously compromises that theory. But notwithstanding that, your highest thinkers of TNT (Jinnah and Iqbal) were staunch Indian nationalists for most of their lives and turned to partition only much later in their lives.

Even they never questioned the reality of India being an ancient nation. They knew it and they loved and accepted it. Partition for most Indians is a sad event but one that is over and done with. As much as you want India to accept it, you also need to accept the reality and the reasons for the partition.

Like much else, this is a post facto thinking of some Pakistani friends. Like their sudden embrace of the little known IVC while trying to be blissfully vague about the rest of the Indian history. What if new research proves strong linkage between IVC and the Vedic/Hindu civilization? Would you still be as enthusiastic about it?

Poor Show and sweeping generalization, I am a Pakistani and I do not doubt the existence of "United India" pre partition, refer to my previous post. Secondly any educated Pakistani with a glimpse of knowledge will say the same. However it is sad that this post too has become "INDIA" "INDIA" INDIA" whereas it’s actual motive was very different as I understood it to be.

I am sure we can be civil about all this, now let’s come to the issue of us “embracing” the Indus Valley Civilization? Do you know of Gandhara? If so then you must be aware that it existed well before the Indus Valley Civilization starting as early as 6th century BC under the Buddhist Kushan Kings. The people of Gandhara were settled since Vedic times (another fact you overlooked when making your comment), furthermore texts recovered from the site include Vedic form of Sanskrit.

I don’t know what you have been told, taught or read but to us Farsi ban Pathan the Gandhara civilization is an important part of our cultural history, for in fact the historic Gandhari town of Pushupura is none other then Peshawar.

And I can go on but I just wanted to make a point and I am sure if you seek you will find sources to support my claims!

Regards,

 

[Vinod2070]

RR, that post was not particularly directed at you. If you study the many history threads here (and even this one) you will find that my observations about many Pakistanis denying the very existence of India as a nation before 1947 is not wrong. And that includes people who are otherwise very moderate and knowledgeable.

Again I see a bit of a disconnect between my post and your reply. You may wish to read the post again. I have not made any sweeping generalizations as you allege. I just tried to be factual. As with any facts these don't apply to 100 % of the people but they do to many, right here on this forum.

Regards.

 

[RescueRanger]

RR, that post was not particularly directed at you. If you study the many history threads here (and even this one) you will find that my observations about many Pakistanis denying the very existence of India as a nation before 1947 is not wrong. And that includes people who are otherwise very moderate and knowledgeable.

Again I see a bit of a disconnect between my post and your reply. You may wish to read the post again. I have not made any sweeping generalizations as you allege. I just tried to be factual. As with any facts these don't apply to 100 % of the people but they do to many, right here on this forum.

Regards.

Accepted

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Why do Pakistanis feel compelled to deny the existence of the Indian nation before 1947!

Because it wasn't. It was not a nation in any sense of the word, though various empires have existed throughout history that encompassed large parts of South Asia. Prior to 1947 it was also a British colony created by the conquest of many peoples and Kingdoms.

This is fact, and the attempts by some to conjure up an 'Indian nation' by resorting to subjective arguments like 'shared culture and civilization' is what is beyond me. All of East Asia is not China by a similar yardstick.

 

[DarkStar]

Bhaaratiyas have to keep up this facade of ancient India to keep the fragile nation together. WE all know that bharatiya society is pulling each part of Bhaarat in a different direction.

But it is true, we do live in a paradox. The most visible manifestations of Muslim culture in teh subcontinent are today within the Republic of India, while the Bharatiyas much vaunted Indian antiquity lies within the borders of Pakistan, that is the Harappan civilisation.

 

[Vinod2070]

Because it wasn't. It was not a nation in any sense of the word, though various empires have existed throughout history that encompassed large parts of South Asia. Prior to 1947 it was also a British colony created by the conquest of many peoples and Kingdoms.

This is fact, and the attempts by some to conjure up an 'Indian nation' by resorting to subjective arguments like 'shared culture and civilization' is what is beyond me. All of East Asia is not China by a similar yardstick.

Well, this thinking is unique to Pakistanis, and a very few ones at that.

So the argument is that there was no nation called India and no civilization called Indian civilization but there was something called Pakistan and a civilization called Pakistani civilization (may be under a different nomenclature).

Well, to me this defies logic and common sense. And of course it defies history.

May be you may answer that complete post instead of just picking on the one line.

Frankly I can't think of this line of reasoning as anything but absurd and a novelty, a bidat you know. And I am sorry for using somewhat strong words here.

 

[Vinod2070]

I have mentioned it a couple of time earlier too. Too much is made of the geography of Pakistan and that Harappa and Mohanjodro are located there.

To me it is so obvious that it doesn't matter. Pakistan is not about geography, its not about a particular location. Its about an ideology. The ideology of being a Muslim nation in the subcontinent. Its location was just the outcome of that ideology.

If the Muslims were a majority in South India instead of North-West and North-East India, Pakistan would have been located there. Is that so difficult to understand?

The majority of Pakistanis were in Eastern Pakistan in 1947 and up to 1971. No Pakistani leaders up to 1947 even talked of the IVC, just of Islam and the Muslims of India.

If Pakistan was about location, why would there be so much massacre and population exchange?

If the British had not discovered IVC for you, what identity would you be having? Just because it was discovered and is sufficiently vague (with even its writings not read till now), and because it is no longer fashionable to be following the Arabs (they being the vanquished now for centuries rather than the imperialists earlier and because little Israel is rubbing their nose in dirt), some people are feeling the need to assume another identity.

Why did none of your leaders or people ever talk of that civilization for so long? Why this afterthought suddenly?

And that includes people who are so obviously Indian Mohajirs and descendants of invaders. Just because they happen to be settled in a location now where remnants of an ancient Indian civilization were discovered!

 

[third eye]

Bhaaratiyas have to keep up this facade of ancient India to keep the fragile nation together. WE all know that bharatiya society is pulling each part of Bhaarat in a different direction.

But it is true, we do live in a paradox. The most visible manifestations of Muslim culture in teh subcontinent are today within the Republic of India, while the Bharatiyas much vaunted Indian antiquity lies within the borders of Pakistan, that is the Harappan civilisation.

DS,

What are the determinants of a fragile nation ? To my mind some of these may be relevant :

1. Has the geographical boundaries of the nation changed since its inception ?
2. Is the manner of governance ( the Constitution) in force , are changes made to it with consensus or arbitrarily by some tin pot dictator / regieme ?
3. It it capable of servicing its national debts ?
4. Does it have to borrow or seek aid to make ends meet or prevent defaulting on its loan repayments ?
5. Are investors from overseas willing to risk investing money there ?
6. Do other countries issue instructions to avoid traveling there ?
7. Do diplomats send their families back & make that country a " non family" posting due to troubled internal situations ?
8. Are elections held regularly ?
9. Does the threat of military takeover & abrogation of the constitution loom large every day or, does a state of emergency have to be declared to run / stabilise the country by the Army ?
10. Is the nation capable of handling internal economic & political problems ? Does the nation come to a standstill ?
11. Are national institutions formalized ?
12. Can the Govt in the capital run its writ within the political boundaries of the nation ?
13. Do the people have the right to express themselves & fundamental rights upheld ?
14 Is the budget balanced , is there transparency in spending is one sector getting more fund allocation at the cost of others ?

I may have missed out a few others. But I'd request all to measure their respective nations on these parameters & take a look in the mirror before commenting on others.

 

[RescueRanger]

In the end both Pakistan and India now exist are formally recognied nations under the UN charter and regardless of how we feel personally that is not going to change anytime soon.

So lets move on as we are getting a bit off topic now!

 

[Vinod2070]

Its a bit (well more than a bit actually ) funny how the Pakistanis accuse Indians of not accepting their nationhood and then actually acting exactly the opposite. Not that it matters.

We are not insecure about our identity. We don't need certificates from people who are!

We don't look to foreigners like Turks or Saudis or Malaysians (lets leave out China for the time being here) with "Ummid bhari nigahen" every now and then. We are consistent about the Indian civilization being a a shared legacy before 1947.

I think its not India and Indians that some people want to deny and denigrate, its their own past and their own previous identity. That is what troubles them and they share this aspect in common with some others. Its their own self created identity crisis.

Some good articles on that identity crisis:

Pakistan’s Identity Crisis Qurratulain

Pakistan's Identity Crisis - Council on Foreign Relations

Though Pakistan was created as a homeland for Muslims, those who demanded the state were secular minded. And early death of Pakistan’s founder, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, left the question of Islam’s role in society unresolved. Pakistan’s rulers and military have frequently used religion to define state ideology and Ayesha Jalal, professor of history at Tufts University’s Fletcher School says this has led to Islam actually becoming a “divisive force in so far as it is being utilized by the state to deny people’s rights or even to deny diversity.” Research fellow at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, Hassan Abbas, explains how religious extremism used by the state to counter threat perception from India has come back to haunt it and so far the state has failed to deal with it effectively.

Identity may be defined as a distinctive characteristic of an individual or a particular group of individuals. For one’s survival in this world it is very crucial to maintain his identity. If we expand the criterion of ‘identity’ to national level it is of utmost importance because it is nation’s identity which distinguishes its people from the rest of the world. The importance of national Identity can be better analyzed by the fact that it is the base of all the policies, i.e. domestic and foreign policy and hence the social. economic cultural and ethical development of any country partly depends upon its national identity. In other words actions of a nation are determined by its identity. As far as Pakistan’s identity is concerned, it may be divided into three phases, i.e. pre-partition, post partition and present day. Pre-partition era dates from the Muhammad Bin Qasim’s invasion and conquest of Sind. Muslim identity bore, grew and passed through different stages during this era. The second phase of Pakistan’s identity started with the establishment of Pakistan and the third phase is present day scenario. This ‘identity’ faced variety of crisis in each phase.

The term ‘identity crisis’ is used to denote a particular situation where by an individual, group of individuals or a nation faces conflicts regarding its identity. These conflicts occur when one’s ideological basis and prevailing circumstances contradict in such a way that the prevailing circumstances dominate the ideological basis. With reference to Pakistan the history of ‘identity crisis’ have its roots in the late Mughal dynasty. The comfort-loving attitude of the rulers, bloodsheds for the throne, abandoned faith, mismanagement of domestic economic and political matters, absence of updated foreign developments and other moral, ethical and social weaknesses were the major forces which contributed in the identity crisis of the Muslims of South Asia.

 

[RescueRanger]

You see this is my exact point, until we keep exchanging blows in a childish match of mine is bigger then yours, this discussion can go on until the cows come home. But my point still remains that please can we stick to the topic.

Thank you.

 

[third eye]

You see this is my exact point, until we keep exchanging blows in a childish match of mine is bigger then yours, this discussion can go on until the cows come home. But my point still remains that please can we stick to the topic.

Thank you.

... & about time too.

 

[Ali.009]

Whatever the case maybe, our leader was way better then Ghandi, who was a racist of the first order. Kindly read Ghandi's letters to his friend Hitler.

Oh, everyone was comparing, so i thought to add my part too.