Why is our full history not taught to us in Pakistan Studies?

[hussain0216]

Hippies of 60s and 70s are caught under a false disguise. Had Pakistan not extended her security apparatus to Afghanistan, you would be entertaining a conflict sandwiched between soviet sphere of influence. The very identity of the people were under threat not just their Islamic ways.

Why don't you take a short trip to Central Stan countries and see what's left of them. Corruption and utter devastation of culture.

Musharraf acted along the similar lines by waging a war which threatened the very identity of the people in a different manner.

All subsequent and in between only worked to keep a cold blanket on regional fires. The imposed clash of civilisations by India is just another manifestation of eternal conflicts of man.

Once again absolutely

The afghans being a donkey people, INVITED the Soviets into Afghanistan

We're mistakes made, YES they were

Should we have treated afghans as human beings and Muslim brothers when in fact they are a worthless treacherous nation of scum and dirt, NO we shouldn't have

But fundamentally the Soviet war was right and we could not tolerate the Soviet union a ally of India on our borders

 

[OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ]

Why is it that every defender of an Islamic religious state lives in the secular west.

It’s just astounding.

Elaborate!
Tin foil arguments wreak hollowness of stance.
This thread is an example of my side bias.
Truth is you do not need Jinnah's quotes to defend your arguments. Who by the way had left politics, moved to London... so, why the secular lawyer return for a call, that evidently wasn't his own?
A Muslim India? Another one says for economic uplift‽ seriously...

I have mentioned in another thread of how Jinnah an evid speaker and lawyer did not have his own constituency in a state he helped make. A reflection of this is evident even clearly today... using Jinnah's bogey to peddle their narratives. Evidently the British didn't care, they made new maps according to their understanding/priorities. Jinnah didn't and couldn't lead an armed struggle either, none that existed that could have challenged the British order. Lastly, after becoming Governor General, his own military refused orders to annex or subdue Kashmir. So, what You're doing is peddling your narrative, hoping for traction, using Jinnah as a proxy. So do others... and in another post reflecting exactly the narrative of times as posted on this thread by another poster putting things in context and nature of British politics, secularism and others at the time reflecting their understanding as contemporaries of the time. But that is besides the point when people with more elaborate thought and philosophy were not even politicians around past 1940s... less at the time of British departure.

So, rue all things foreign, not native to IVC, target Islam and unity of Muslims, but a western understanding sat in their discourse, secularism!

I shouldn't have even bothered, not for you but perhaps for the reader a grounded and deeper understanding to parce narratives. People who compartmentalize narratives only to advance own goals.

 

[Meengla]

Hippies of 60s and 70s are caught under a false disguise. Had Pakistan not extended her security apparatus to Afghanistan, you would be entertaining a conflict sandwiched between soviet sphere of influence. The very identity of the people were under threat not just their Islamic ways.

Why don't you take a short trip to Central Stan countries and see what's left of them. Corruption and utter devastation of culture.

Musharraf acted along the similar lines by waging a war which threatened the very identity of the people in a different manner.

All subsequent and in between only worked to keep a cold blanket on regional fires. The imposed clash of civilisations by India is just another manifestation of eternal conflicts of man.

Nah, the 'Stans' are no worse than Pakistan. You can keep telling yourself otherwise!!

The Soviet Union would have NEVER dared to attack Pakistan given the American security umbrella to Pakistan. And Pakistan in 1979 was a large population country--much painful to any invader even without the American security umbrella. I encourage you all to read 'Afghantsy' to understand how reluctantly the Soviets went into Afghanistan and how desperate they were to get out of Afghanistan ASAP. I absolutely don't think Pakistan was on the menu for them. But Pakistanis were deluded enough to think of the centuries old Russian desires for the 'warm water' theories.

Well, what can I add more other than 'hindsight is 20/20'. I too was fed the 'Jihad' by Zia ul Haq and I bought that. The Pakistan Television (PTV) of the 1980s was showing soap operas/dramas about the glorious Jihad in Afghanistan. But in my defense, I was too young and too sheltered from the affects of the failed policies to understand what was going on. But my dad--in Karachi-- not a 'liberal' by any stretch--just a moderate Muslims-- saw what was coming to Pakistan when we started to see the drug and weapons bearing Afghans in Karachi. The rest, as they say, is history.

 

[El Sidd]

Once again absolutely

The afghans being a donkey people, INVITED the Soviets into Afghanistan

We're mistakes made, YES they were

Should we have treated afghans as human beings and Muslim brothers when in fact they are a worthless treacherous nation of scum and dirt, NO we shouldn't have

But fundamentally the Soviet war was right and we could not tolerate the Soviet union a ally of India on our borders

Soviets invaded in 1979.

Pakistan lost eastern wing 1974 to what can only be described as Marxist elements popular in and around the eastern wing.

Afghanistan will always be treated as a brotherly muslim neighbour countries and all the preferential measures just like any other Muslim country and neighbour. It's our constitutional aspiration.

 

[El Sidd]

Nah, the 'Stans' are no worse than Pakistan. You can keep telling yourself otherwise!!

The Soviet Union would have NEVER dared to attack Pakistan given the American security umbrella to Pakistan. And Pakistan in 1979 was a large population country--much painful to any invader even without the American security umbrella. I encourage you all to read 'Afghantsy' to understand how reluctantly the Soviets went into Afghanistan and how desperate they were to get out of Afghanistan ASAP. I absolutely don't think Pakistan was on the menu for them. But Pakistanis were deluded enough to think of the centuries old Russian desires for the 'warm water' theories.

Well, what can I add more other than 'hindsight is 20/20'. I too was fed the 'Jihad' by Zia ul Haq and I bought that. The Pakistan Television (PTV) of the 1980s was showing soap operas/dramas about the glorious Jihad in Afghanistan. But in my defense, I was too young and too sheltered from the affects of the failed policies to understand what was going on. But my dad--in Karachi-- not a 'liberal' by any stretch--just a moderate Muslims-- saw what was coming to Pakistan when we started to see the drug and weapons bearing Afghans in Karachi. The rest, as they say, is history.

There are no absolute guarantees in state affairs and anyone sitting on the oldest road of the world, namely, Grand Trunk Road would testify for that principle. They have seem empires come and go and once crowned the largest empire documented by man in recent history, British.

Pakistan mostly recruited from the areas perceived as the front sometimes too strictly. One can argue hosting central asian, Bosnian and Arab was not the most wise option but even then the affair was largely concentrated away from population centres.

WoT however brought urban elements in the warfare inspired by the ideological warfare where once again Pakistan had to strongly rely on religion as a security measure. The very detestable thing much loved by nationalists.

 

[Meengla]

Pakistan mostly recruited from the areas perceived as the front sometimes too strictly. One can argue hosting central asian, Bosnian and Arab was not the most wise option but even then the affair was largely concentrated away from population centres.
WoT however brought urban elements in the warfare inspired by the ideological warfare where once again Pakistan had to strongly rely on religion as a security measure. The very detestable thing much loved by nationalists.

In the wake of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, Pakistan, with ample American/Western/Muslim countries help, recruited from where they would be the easiest to find: Poor people generally bordering Afghanistan in Pakistan's northwest. No amount of social engineering or coercion would convince large numbers of people from Sindh or Punjab to 'volunteer' for that 'cause'. The Jamaat e Islami party of Pakistan may have tried recruits from Sindh and Punjab, with the backing of the intelligence agencies, but not much luck.

WoT only brought a few 'urban elements'. The educated Arabs who launched 9/11 were but a small portion. The bulk of the fighting and the killing was suffered by the poor, relatively uneducated people in Afghanistan and Pakistan's northwest. And, no, Pakistan was didn't have to rely on 'religion' during the WoT: The horses had already bolted by then. The WoT was a natural consequence of Pakistan's failed policies in the 1980s. The hundreds of thousands who had known nothing but drugs and wars starting about 1978 in Afghanistan were not just going to go back to farming the land.

Well, I have said enough in this topic. I'd like to look to solutions to Pakistan's problems. To me, number one priority is POLITICAL stability. That will generate coherence in policies. So 10-15 years of stability, even if a one-party rule. I have no favorites.

 

[El Sidd]

And, no, Pakistan was didn't have to rely on 'religion' during the WoT

Then what inspired naming conventions of all the initiatives in WoT? Shakespearean theatre?

 

[Ssan]

Here. Islamic principles enshrined in republic that is to be Pakistan.

“I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam.” Pg 1 from Jinnah archives.

Jinnah wanted a democratic state with Islamic principles.

I do not support Zia or his policies. But if you want to blame someone for distorting Pakistans ideologies, blame Justice muneer, who used secularism as an excuse to even revert the democratic nature of the state.

Then blame Bhutto for institutionalizing mediocracy and cronyism. Blame the army for supporting crooks and normalizing Machiavellianism.

 

[OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ]

In the wake of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, Pakistan, with ample American/Western/Muslim countries help, recruited from where they would be the easiest to find: Poor people generally bordering Afghanistan in Pakistan's northwest. No amount of social engineering or coercion would convince large numbers of people from Sindh or Punjab to 'volunteer' for that 'cause'. The Jamaat e Islami party of Pakistan may have tried recruits from Sindh and Punjab, with the backing of the intelligence agencies, but not much luck.

WoT only brought a few 'urban elements'. The educated Arabs who launched 9/11 were but a small portion. The bulk of the fighting and the killing was suffered by the poor, relatively uneducated people in Afghanistan and Pakistan's northwest. And, no, Pakistan was didn't have to rely on 'religion' during the WoT: The horses had already bolted by then. The WoT was a natural consequence of Pakistan's failed policies in the 1980s. The hundreds of thousands who had known nothing but drugs and wars starting about 1978 in Afghanistan were not just going to go back to farming the land.

Well, I have said enough in this topic. I'd like to look to solutions to Pakistan's problems. To me, number one priority is POLITICAL stability. That will generate coherence in policies. So 10-15 years of stability, even if a one-party rule. I have no favorites.

Huh,
Here is a whataboutism, Punjabis lining up for decades in Kashmir? You probably don't want to talk numbers... Punjab obviously the most populous one...
Here is another for your Soviet thought... Baloch insurgency and communist infested North western Frontier?
Fact is passive approach affected Pakistan more and it's cause... it allowed room for malcontents to plant proxies. Today's state doesn't seem much different from what could have been direct crown rule. Except that it would have been managed much better, harshly and implemented pugnaciously... so much for democracy and secularism.

 

[Neelo]

Here. Islamic principles enshrined in republic that is to be Pakistan.

He’s using Islam to defend Democracy and Secularlism. How is this so hard for you to understand? Islam has taught us democracy and secularlism long before the European invented it.

That’s the point he was trying to make.

You clowns think Jinnah was a mullah…and still can’t answer why all the Islamic parties hated him and called him Kafir e Azam, called his country Najistan and why they sided with Brahmin Hindu Congress party.

Have the tattay to admit you are wrong.

If your point is that Pakistan is not meant to be a theocracy, no one has said that. But Pakistan was always supposed to a democratic state that enshrined the principles of Islam. Ie an Islamic republic.

Not merely a democratic republic for Muslims notice, ie a Muslim state.

Jinnah is explicit about this. You posted something above with the relevant quote yourself.

That’s what a Muslim country is - a democratic country with Islamic ideals like Malaysia and Turkey.

Why would he want to establish a system to empower the very people who opposed his vision and literally sided with the enemy in opposing the independence of Pakistan?

You Islamic extremists love wanting to put us into your little experiment, all while you live in western secular states.

Talk about hypocrisy. No thanks, Pakistanis refuse your Islamic extremist mindset. That’s why your Islamic parties FAIL each time elections come.

 

[OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ]

He’s using Islam to defend Democracy and Secularlism. How is this so hard for you to understand? Islam has taught us democracy and secularlism long before the European invented it.

That’s the point he was trying to make.

You clowns think Jinnah was a mullah…and still can’t answer why all the Islamic parties hated him and called him Kafir e Azam, called his country Najistan and why they sided with Brahmin Hindu Congress party.

Have the tattay to admit you are wrong.



That’s what a Muslim country is - a democratic country with Islamic ideals like Malaysia and Turkey.

Why would he want to establish a system to empower the very people who opposed his vision and literally sided with the enemy in opposing the independence of Pakistan?

You Islamic extremists love wanting to put us into your little experiment, all while you live in western secular states.

Talk about hypocrisy. No thanks, Pakistanis refuse your Islamic extremist mindset. That’s why your Islamic parties FAIL each time elections come.

Joke is on you...
Pitting ones Mullah against another!
Whatever sticks really...
Championed the "my side bias" yet, or even care to know about it?
Call it quits nilu! You're way past your depth.
I wouldn't even bother anymore.

 

[Ssan]

He’s using Islam to defend Democracy and Secularlism. How is this so hard for you to understand? Islam has taught us democracy and secularlism long before the European invented it.

This is exactly right. Idealism plus islam gives us democracy and secularism that is adequate and appropriate but only in the context of our own civilization and values. Being an Islamic republic does not mean we can also not be a civil secular state that protects minority rights and has freedom of worship for all. The conflict that exists is only in the mind of biased individuals who comprise the classes of mullahs on one end and secular liberals like yourselves on the other.

That’s the point he was trying to make.

You clowns think Jinnah was a mullah…and still can’t answer why all the Islamic parties hated him and called him Kafir e Azam, called his country Najistan and why they sided with Brahmin Hindu Congress party.

Have the tattay to admit you are wrong.

If some ulema thought Jinnah to be wrong, there were others who backed him and the idea of Pakistan from the beginning. The generalization is a false one. Syed Sulayman Nadwi for one, who while being an aalim believed in enlightenment ideals and had the guts to tell the king of Saudi no less that the ideal system in Islam was democracy. He supported Jinnah, even has published poetry to the effect.

That’s what a Muslim country is - a democratic country with Islamic ideals like Malaysia and Turkey.

Malaysia yes, Turkey less so but somewhat.

Why would he want to establish a system to empower the very people who opposed his vision and literally sided with the enemy in opposing the independence of Pakistan?

No one here is talking about theocracy. Or empowering a clergy. Islamic history never has tbh either. This is only in your imagination.

You Islamic extremists love wanting to put us into your little experiment, all while you live in western secular states.

We live in western states because you liberal secular elite class has f@&$ed all chances we could live in our own country and survive without doing haram. You can thank Bhutto, Justice Muneer and other avowed and staunch secular liberals.

Talk about hypocrisy. No thanks, Pakistanis refuse your Islamic extremist mindset. That’s why your Islamic parties FAIL each time elections come.

You have no point. You have proven nothing. It’s like speaking to a wall.

 

[Neelo]

Joke is on you...
Pitting ones Mullah against another!
Whatever sticks really...
Championed the "my side bias" yet, or even care to know about it?
Call it quits nilu! You're way past your depth.
I wouldn't even bother anymore.

Live in denial all you want.

If some ulema thought Jinnah to be wrong, there were others who backed him and the idea of Pakistan from the beginning. The generalization is a false one. Syed Sulayman Nadwi for one, who while being an aalim believed in enlightenment ideals and had the guts to tell the king of Saudi no less that the ideal system in Islam was democracy. He supported Jinnah, even has published poetry to the effect.

If SoMe uLeMa tHoUgHt hE wAs wRoNg

The three main Islamic parties all opposed Pakistan and Jinnah officially. Out of protest, a minority of ulema from those three parties resigned and joined the Muslim League OR allied themselves with ML.

Your revisionist history only works it’s Zia robots, not me or anyone with a functioning brain.

1. The Islamic parties viewed Jinnah and the Muslim League as too secular, since they insisted that Pakistan would support social reform, minority rights and liberation of women.

2. Majlis-e-Ahrar-ul-Islam stated they would only support Jinnah if he proclaimed Pakistan as an Islamic State and denounced Ahmedis as infidels. Jinnah refused, and angered Ahrar to the extent where they referred to him as "Kafir-e-Azam" and supported the Hindu Congress Party.

3. Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind argued that establishing Pakistan would leave the remaining Muslims in India weak, by which Jinnah responded that Muslims in a post-British "United" India would be weak anyway.

An independent Muslim majority country would spell an end the Muslim-Hindu divide, and hence the power of the Mullah in Muslim communities would evaporate.

With no “existential threat”, Muslims would be free and it was argued they would no longer need the Mullah or the Masjid. By remaining second-class citizens in a "United" India, the mullah could maintain power over marginalized Muslim communities.

 

[OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ]

This is exactly right. Idealism plus islam gives us democracy and secularism that is adequate and appropriate but only in the context of our own civilization and values. Being an Islamic republic does not mean we can also not be a civil secular state that protects minority rights and has freedom of worship for all. The conflict that exists is only in the mind of biased individuals who comprise the classes of mullahs on one end and secular liberals like yourselves on the other.

If some ulema thought Jinnah to be wrong, there were others who backed him and the idea of Pakistan from the beginning. The generalization is a false one. Syed Sulayman Nadwi for one, who while being an aalim believed in enlightenment ideals and had the guts to tell the king of Saudi no less that the ideal system in Islam was democracy. He supported Jinnah, even has published poetry to the effect.

Malaysia yes, Turkey less so but somewhat.

No one here is talking about theocracy. Or empowering a clergy. Islamic history never has tbh either. This is only in your imagination.

We live in western states because you liberal secular elite class has f@&$ed all chances we could live in our own country and survive without doing haram. You can thank Bhutto, Justice Muneer and other avowed and staunch secular liberals.

You have no point. You have proven nothing. It’s like speaking to a wall.

He's on "rinse and repeat" cycle at this point taking "my side bias" to it's ultimate end. Nothing much here.

Democracy as we know it is a divisive ideology. One used to split, take advantage of otherwise unrelated individuals and grouping/banding them together, i.e. the ultimate source of divide and rule...
it allows people to pulled from a string by vested interests. Wedge and fringe issues are actively sought to split voting blocks and achieve majority opinion... polling data thus makes it easier for controlling entities to form their strategies.

The result is fringe issues keep getting overemphasized and legislated. While peoples lives never change... this was actively pursued in federalist papers protecting the minority of the opulent against the majority. Political discourse thus becomes a controlled and scripted process. Every new piece of legislation makes the algorithm easier to manage as lesser options remain open for masses. People thus are shepherded into narrowing and consolidating channels.
Suffocating dissent and mainstreaming opinions. This while the controlling groups remain ever so organized and entrenched. People ever so fragmented and distant.

Anyhow, this was not the subject but it had been the discourse apped in rest of the world.
And aspired by uninitiated.

 

[Neelo]

Notice how the people who are arguing for a theocratic state/state religion all happen to live in western, secular, free societies.

The hypocrisy of these people is unreal. Practice what you preach.

Pakistan was NEVER meant to be a theocratic state and Jinnah’s quotes and Muslim League proves that. The opposition from EVERY Islamic Party…the name calling like Kafir-e-Azam and Najistan…and even some of the parties allying with Congress proves that.

You are enemies of this state.