What do Pakistanis have in common?

[Vinod2070]

How many separatist movements are there in India again?

I know that you will know that answer better than me (I really don't know. What I know is the one in Kashmir and some movements in the NE). Many Pakistanis keep a very good count of the separatist movements in India, square them and then multiply by 4 to get a count of 37!

In some of their mind the Tamils are still itching to separate from India, when no one has heard about the issue since the 1950s. I have actually seen some Pakistanis listing the Tamils as having an active separation movement and I was like: which age is this guy living in.

What I can tell you is that there is no danger to India's unity despite these handful separatists. They do not have any mass support anywhere.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

In some of their mind the Tamils are still itching to separate from India, when no one has heard about the issue since the 1950s. I have actually seen some Pakistanis listing the Tamils as having an active separation movement and I was like: which age is this guy living in.

Its sort of similar to Sindh and NWFP separatism being raised by Indians and some westerners when stating that Pakistan is being ripped apart.

 

[Vinod2070]

^^ You don't have a monopoly on warped thinking, you know.

There are other who can have that too.

 

[Malang]

Belief in Jinnah, and enmity with India ??

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Belief in Jinnah, and enmity with India ??

What is that?

 

[Malang]

What is that?

an attempt at humour..
or truth.. :india:

 

[Zyxius]

I got as far as here with this post. There's no mistrust except in a figment of your imagination. That's not to say that people don't have their differences, some of them ethnically based. Like in how they will act.

I wish I were wrong...but the fact is that there are very serious fault lines in Pakistan among ethnicities. Ask any poor Pathan or Baloch what he thinks of Muhajirs of Punjabis and he'll tell you that he doesn't like them and they don''t like him. Ask any poor Sindhi about Punjabis or Mohajirs and they'll tell you they don't like each other. Ask any poor or middle class Muhajir and he''ll tell you that Sindhi and Punjabis don't like Muhajirs and they dont like them either. Its not a figment of imagination...it is very real and all one has to do is go to youtube to see speeches of people like Mahmud Khan Achakzai to see what some of the more moderate voices of the ethnic divide are saying. According to former intelligence officials that I've spoken to, the blast in banaris and orangi town was meant to incite pathan against Muhajir because they all still remember the previous ethnic violence. The recent killing of several MQM activists, PPP activists and blasts in Pathan neighborhoods were meant to exploit these same ethnic divides and blame Al Qaeda for them. According to them, Zardari had received word that his life was in danger which is why he decided to stick around in Dubai for a while. The killing of the chief of security of bilawal house was also based on this quiet ethnic tit for tat that is going on right now. I pray to God that we do not have violence based on these differences, but these people know what they're talking about and it really does make sense. The federation is very weak in Pakistan and we should not kid ourselves and think that this is a figment of the imagination of people who wish the worst for Pakistan...it is an unfortunate reality.

Muse...I take exception to your comment that I am going to give the inevitable answer that Islam is the answer to everything. I never made such a comment or suggestion, but you still just dragged it in as if you were making sure that nobody mentioned the "I" word. I dont want to make an issue of it but I dont think its fair for you to jump the gun like that and speak on my behalf and argue against what you have spoken yourself. Lets just speak for ourselves shall we?

 

[Vinod2070]

What is that?

I think it was an answer to the question asked in the title of the thread.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I think it was an answer to the question asked in the title of the thread.

Absolutely horrible and in poor taste if I may say so.

Some humor just begs to be taken the wrong way...

 

[BATMAN]

I think it was an answer to the question asked in the title of the thread.

try asking same question to ur self!

 

[Malang]

Absolutely horrible and in poor taste if I may say so.
Some humor just begs to be taken the wrong way...

AM,

Belief in Tehreek-e-Pakistan, a divisive philosophy, no matter the pious intent behind it, will invariably lead to communalism, sectarianism, discrimination and inferiority/superiority complex etc.. a classic example is the Hindu Varna(caste) system which classifies humans on the basis of their profession into 4(5) types but today has been corrupted into the form it is in now.
Tehreek-e-Pakistan, Kashmir issue, our past wars, past relations, Bangladesh etc. are all issues which promote enmity rather than peace. I am sure there are quarters in both India and Pak which sought to exploit the very passionate people of both India and Pak to hate each other.

[imo]Admittedly, this is a narrow minded generalisation(enmity with India part) but it is applicable to a section of the Pakistani society from my personal experience. Nothing unites Pakistan more than a war with India IMO.[/imo]

But since we are talking on a more subtle level, I say belief in Tehreek-e-Pakistan or that mosl.ems are distinct from hindus and both cannot co-exist together..

 

[Energon]

[imo]Admittedly, this is a narrow minded generalisation(enmity with India part) but it is applicable to a section of the Pakistani society from my personal experience. Nothing unites Pakistan more than a war with India IMO.[/imo]

Although I've heard this sentiment being voiced many times, I have as yet to find any evidence of its veracity. Conflicts with India, especially in 1971 and 1999 seem to have had devastating effects on the Pakistani community making parts of their society prone to radicalism, terrorism (both, of which to my knowledge didn't exist prior to the 1971 war) and further political instability (all of which ironically came right back to haunt India). These hardly seem like displays of unity.

Mind you the same is true of India. Even the euphoria of the 71 war couldn't save the serious troubles that came a couple of years later which saw the nation's very foundation (democratic governance) be threatened almost leading to a collapse of epic proportions. I don't remember the victories on the Siachen glacier prevent the pathetic conditions of the late 80s and the early 90s. Nor can one attribute the rise of the Indian 'national spirit' in recent times to the Kargil war; it has a whole lot more to do with economics and opportunity than conflict. If anything, interest in warfare has dropped precipitously among the younger generation; a fact reflected by the recent recruitment trends of the Indian armed forces.

 

[Vinod2070]

try asking same question to ur self!

Good suggestion.

I think I have tried to answer some of that in my earlier posts.

See for many of you, different ethnicities and so many other differences should be given lower priority compared to the common religion of the vast majority of Pakistanis. But obviously Islam can not be the only uniting factor for Pakistan, though it may be the most important one.

If it was the only factor, why not merge with Afghanistan or Iran? Because you do have some differences with other Muslim nations (and that is the common Indian heritage + Islam).

Else why would the Muhajirs from India be Pakistanis today? What do they share with the rest of Pakistanis except Islam and the common Indian roots!.

In the case of India, I will say that we should go a step further and even subsume our religious identity in the overarching Indian identity.

Of course the ideal situation would be where even the national identity is subsumed in the common human heritage that we all share. Be a part of one world not divided by petty differences of ethnicities, tribes and religions.

 

[muse]

The piece below lend some credence to the assertion that things wil have to go from bad to worse before we can get some relief from "democractic politicians":


‘Army’s withdrawal from politics is strategic’
By Anwar Iqbal

WASHINGTON, July 22: The Pakistan Army’s withdrawal from politics is strategic and not tactical and it will not return to politics unless there’s a crisis in the country, scholars said at a seminar in Washington.

“The army realises that the last years have hurt the institution badly,” said Shuja Nawaz, the author of a recent book on the Pakistan Army. “They are out and they want to stay out.”

The discussion on US-Pakistan military ties was held against the backdrop of the recent increase in attacks on US-led coalition forces in Afghanistan. The speakers also noted that Pakistan grappled with its own burgeoning Taliban insurgency in the tribal borderlands.

Such developments, they noted, had created new challenges for US-Pakistan military ties.

They said that more aggressive coalition counter-insurgency tactics in eastern Afghanistan were bringing US troops closer to the border with Pakistan and the situation required ever closer communication and joint efforts to strengthen counter-terrorism cooperation.

The organisers, the Heritage Foundation, pointed out that the US frustration with an entrenched terrorist safe haven in Pakistan’s tribal areas and lack of faith in the efficacy of Pakistani negotiations to deal with the problem “also are creating misunderstanding and crossed wires.”

In this charged atmosphere, what are the future prospects for addressing terrorism challenges on a joint basis? Should the US shift its strategy vis-à-vis Pakistan? What can be expected from Pakistan in the near and long-term? How can both sides build trust in each other and strengthen the chances of overall success against the terrorist scourge in South Asia? These were some of the questions the speakers addressed in their presentations.

David Smith, a senior director for Pakistan at the Office of the US Undersecretary of Defence, highlighted a change in Islamabad, saying that the Pakistani policy makers now realise the need to coordinate their defence needs with economic developments and are willing to spend more on social projects.

He disagreed with the suggestion that the Afghans were getting tired of the US military presence in their country. “I have not seen any indication that the tolerance for US presence is decreasing,” he said.

Mr Smith also disagreed with another suggestion that the weapons given to Pakistan for fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda will be used against India. The US military assistance to Pakistan cannot bring any significant changes to the conventional balance of power in South Asia, he said. “Besides, the 2006 joint statement also talked about meeting Pakistan’s genuine defence needs,” he added.

The US official rejected the suggestion that Pakistan was protecting the Taliban so that it can use them to fight its war in Kashmir.

“Whatever utility anyone thought they had is false,” he said. “They are a threat to the Pakistani army, they are a threat to the Pakistani government and they are a threat to the Pakistani nation.”

Mr Smith insisted that the militants had established a safe haven in Pakistan’s tribal areas and were using it to attack US and coalition forces in Afghanistan.

“We will not rest until that goal (of destroying the militant groups) is achieved,” he declared.

Mr Nawaz, who is the younger brother of Gen Asif Nawaz Janjua, the 10th army chief, emphasised the need for the United States to expand its ties with Pakistan and reach out to democratic forces.

“The United States should move away from the what-you-have-done-lately- for-us approach,” he said. “If the Americans insist on dealing with the military alone and on ignoring the politicians, it will hurt US interests in Pakistan.”

Mr Nawaz noted that the new army chief, Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, has categorically assured Pakistan’s new rulers that they army has no plan to return to politics. “Now it is up to the politicians to ensure that the country is not plunged into yet another crisis because if there is a crisis, the army may come back,” he warned.
Mr Nawaz advised the new government to “take difficult but useful decisions, so that the army learns to respect you.”

 

[Logic note]

Mind you the same is true of India. Even the euphoria of the 71 war couldn't save the serious troubles that came a couple of years later which saw the nation's very foundation (democratic governance) be threatened almost leading to a collapse of epic proportions. .

Society is not judged by past problems but by the its ability to develop processs and to choos ethical paths to solve them .

All the Problems which is faced by Pakistan is facing are universal and can be found in every society at every epoch . however in other societies Problems is accpeted , criticised by its own internal ideologies ,discussed and tamed .