What's new

Why Pakistan is not a nation and how it could become one : Pervez Hoodbhoy

and yes this survey is a strong answer to hoodboy who sees lack of nationhood. here 89% of pakistanis are rising above their race and embracing nationhood.
I have skimmed through the PEW report but didn't find any question of that sort.

Can you please point to the relevant page number or question number. I would love to see the actual question they were asked.

EDIT: Here is their on-line database. It doesn't show any question of that sort either.
 
Last edited:
.
^^^^^^^

What about religious groups such as Agha Khani's, Ahmadies and others such who were staunchly in favour of Pakistan.

As far as I am aware, the mainstream Muslim parties were opposed to Pakistan as you have clearly mentioned but the various sects that have problems with them were for it.

This mentality of ethnic or religious affiliation is something I am not at all in favor of or would ask of others to be.

I am a Pakistani alone, rest of the tags such as Sindhi and Pathan are only names for me that I do not care much for. As far as religion goes, that is a personal matter and ought to remain that.


Let me add that Ismaelies and Vohras were probably the most educated and wealthy Muslim sects in India. Agha Khan was the first president of All India Muslim League. Other very respected and learned Ismaeli, also on the forefront of the Muslim politics was Justice Amir Ali. Quaid’s family was also originally Ismaeli. However in 1992 Quaid deposited an affidavit in the court that he was an Athna Ashari (Twelver) Shia.

Some members may have heard of Allama Ghulam Ahmed Pervez. He was very much talk of day in the late 1950’s when I was a student at Gov’t College Lahore. Orthodox Sunnis called him a ‘Fitna’ because he questioned authenticity of many Ahadith as detailed in ‘Sahih Sitta’. What little I read of him, his interpretation of the holy Quran was very rational and logical' he can be considered a latter day “Muta’zilite". He was a senior civil servant during early days of creation of Pakistan and right hand man of the Quaid. One can imagine what Quaid’s religious beliefs were; born Ismaili, later convert to Shia and tutored on Islam by Allama Parvez. So much for the theocratic ideology as claimed by the bigots!

Till then Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian had not proclaimed himself to be a prophet. Initially he was considered an eminent scholar of Sunni Islam and engaged in open debates with Hindu and Christian missionaries. He thought of himself only as a ‘Mujaddad’ or latter day Imam Mehdi at best.

Ahmadies were considered as Muslims. It was only after his death in 1908 where some of his followers claimed that he was also a prophet. This caused a split in the Ahmadi community. Understand Lahori sect of Ahmadies still consider Mirza Ahmed to be a Messiah or Mehdi only. It was not until 1929 when Majlis Ahrar brought the problem into focus thru Tehreek Tahaffuz Khatam Nubawwat. Ahmadis were for Pakistan and Sir Zaffarullah Khan, Pakistan first Foreign Minister even voted for the “Objectives Resolution’ of 1948.
 
.
Pakistanis only come together when there is a crisis, usually when there is trouble with India. When the crisis is over, it is the same old thing: "Punjabis are true Pakistanis", all other groups are "traitors", and the usual stupid stereotypes and jokes about "inferior" and "dark" people of the south "corrupting" the country.
 
.
It is interesting that Jinnah was born a Nizari Ismaili (Aga Khani), and converted to Shia Islam at the age of 25. (See comments here - Plain Mr Jinnah Pak Tea House)

For an exposition of the links between the Nizari Ismailis, the Assassin sect, the Kinghts Templar and Freemasonry, see the book:

Amazon.com: The Templars and the Assassins: The Militia of Heaven (9780892818594): James Wasserman: Books

It is also noteworthy that the founder-president of the All-India Muslim League was Aga Khan III.

For an exposition of the British support for the creation of Pakistan, see "The Shadow of the Great Game – The Untold Story of India’s Partition" by Narendra Singh Sarila, Carroll & Graft Publishers, New York, 2006. Chowk: History: Book Review: The Shadow of the Great Game - The Untold Story of India's Partition
 
Last edited:
.
All countries have problems, but the country needs to acknowledge them and solve them for its better future. To deny problems is not patriotism. I think that the Pakistani population is finding out things that we, in India, knew long ago. It is also important to be focused on economic growth, which Pakistan isn’t. It is not that they don’t have any resources, but that they are not making out of it and hence i guess such a poor political and ecnomical state..

I have no particular love for Pakistan....But I really wish that Pakistan beocmes stable as I want my country to be in peace and for that,a stable neighbour is very essential…War is not the option for us to be safe..War will only create more dmeneted minds and thus more headache to us..

I found some thoughts from other sources, here are a few:

  1. Weak institutions! Exepct army there is not a single institution which is strong and not currupt!
  2. Selfish Politicians! 90% politicians are selfish and abuse the power.
  3. Less emphasis on Education. Since independance not much was spend on education, that left majority of population illetrate which as a result is easy to manuplate by mullahs and politicians
  4. Role of other countries! countries like Saudia and USA. Thye call themselves as allies and friends of pakistan; however, they always used pakistan for there own agendas and that created the mess!
  5. The decade of 80′s! in that timeframe, USA helped create Taliban and stuff to fight Soviets- this brought the hardcore islamic ideology in homes of Pakistan
  6. Increased spending on defence and as a result less spending on development!
  7. Afghans in Pakistan! Pakistan allowed them to come and live in the country after Soviet invasion. They brought drugs and guns along with them which literaly destroyed the social fibre of Pakistani society!
  8. Incread emphasis on pan-islamism, rather than nationalism. This created a confused society!
  9. Ethnic problems! Since independance no hard step was taken to build the sense of a nation and provide with a social glue-as a result most people identify themselves on ethnic terms.

Plz feel free to disagree............but as I said above; "To deny problems is not patriotism."
 
. .
I have skimmed through the PEW report but didn't find any question of that sort.

Can you please point to the relevant page number or question number. I would love to see the actual question they were asked.

EDIT: Here is their on-line database. It doesn't show any question of that sort either.

did not find wat? that 89% of pakistanis consider themselves pakistani first and then which ever ethnic race they belong to?
 
.
did not find wat? that 89% of pakistanis consider themselves pakistani first and then which ever ethnic race they belong to?

I heard a very senior pakistani member mentioning that according to Islam you are a muslim first then comes your country,region,etc...and almost all the mmbrs agreed with him..I dont have much idea about Islam so agreed to what he was saying..since he was a muslim himself...he mentioned something like 'Ummah' first....

so this post of yours is confusing me a bit sir...

if 89% Pakistani consider themselves Pakistani first ..then they are not following Islam ?? and if they are following it, then how come you have the figure 89% considering thmeselves Pakistani first ??

thanks in advance...:tup:
 
.
I heard a very senior pakistani member mentioning that according to Islam you are a muslim first then comes your country,region,etc...and almost all the mmbrs agreed with him..I dont have much idea about Islam so agreed to what he was saying..since he was a muslim himself...he mentioned something like 'Ummah' first....

so this post of yours is confusing me a bit sir...

if 89% Pakistani consider themselves Pakistani first ..then they are not following Islam ?? and if they are following it, then how come you have the figure 89% considering thmeselves Pakistani first ??

thanks in advance...:tup:

Well firstly please keep religion out of this discussion, and as far as im concerned i am Pakistani First, and i am certain that you will find a lot more who feel the same.
 
.
did not find wat? that 89% of pakistanis consider themselves pakistani first and then which ever ethnic race they belong to?
Yes.

I didn't find that question in that survey. Although be advised, I have merely skimmed through the report.
 
.
Also of Note:

* The nation-state is of great significance to Pakistanis, and despite important ethnic and regional differences, national identity is strong throughout the country. Overall, 89% say they think of themselves first as Pakistani, rather than as a member of their ethnic group.

Pakistani Public Opinion | Pew Global Attitudes Project

The actual question from the survey is at the end of the PDF of the complete report:

http://pewglobal.org/files/pdf/265.pdf

89% of Pakistanis consider themselves Pakistani first, and another 4% consider themselves both Pakistani+ethnic identity equally.
 
.
Pakistan is a very modern State. Yes, religion appears to be the most obvious cause for the gelling-together of the Sub-Continent's Muslims to come together and create Pakistan.
However, the real cause was not religion per se. It was, as it always has been everywhere else, economic reasons: Those who happened to be Muslims feared discrimination from the majority Hindi rule and a large segment of this Muslim population decided to protect their 'interests' by forming Pakistan. And, no, the argument that India too has a large Muslim minority does not take away from this argument: If the Indian Muslim minority was concentrated, say, in UP or Gujarat then they too would have decided to make a version of Pakistan for themselves.

I bet if you can find voting records from 1900 till 1947 you will find a comfortable majority of Muslims voters throughout the sub-continent voting for NON-Congress (the sort of 'Akhand Bharat' party) candidates. It is important to note this because this argument is presented by many Indians as 'proof' that the idea of Pakistan was an idea by the minority Muslims of the subcontinent.

I will try to comment on Hoodbhoy's article later...
 
.
I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever about wether Pakistan comes first for me or Islam... I am a muslim first and Pakistani after that . My faith (Islam) is not like any other faith but is a complete style of living which is more important to me then being a Pakistani , and also adding to that my faith (Islam) orders me to obey the laws of the land anyway. But if the state of Pakistan expects me to protect and give my life for a 'drunk politician' ...I ain't doin it.
 
.
I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever about wether Pakistan comes first for me or Islam... I am a muslim first and Pakistani after that . My faith (Islam) is not like any other faith but is a complete style of living which is more important to me then being a Pakistani , and also adding to that my faith (Islam) orders me to obey the laws of the land anyway. But if the state of Pakistan expects me to protect and give my life for a 'drunk politician' ...I ain't doin it.

So you keep your Muslim and Pakistani personalities separate, how very secular of you ;). But how do you manage being a Muslim "first" and Pakistani "second"?. That would be like me saying I am 5'11" first and right handed second.

As for the style of living, surely you live a Pakistani lifestyle, observe the local customs and traditions (Considering that you're a Lahori).

There may be many lifestyles that confirm to Islamic guidelines, but there isn't an Islamic lifestyle as such.
 
.
A related article:

Link - Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

Had Islam not been central to the creation of Pakistan, we would not have had the Objectives Resolution as a guiding principle of our constitutions

Without recognising that a problem is widespread and deep-rooted, efforts towards resolving it are likely to have only partial success. Although the myth of ‘a silent majority’ of moderates in Pakistan gained currency during the period of General Musharraf, the same has existed for decades. Indeed, it was not entirely a myth until the early 1970s when Zulfikar Ali Bhutto gave in to Islamic fundamentalists’ demand for Islamisation. General Ziaul Haq’s 11-year rule completely changed the landscape of Pakistani politics and society in terms of the worldview of its population. In the 1990s, both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif co-opted the clergy and both abstained from taking measures towards stopping the growing tide of religious fundamentalism. Thus, the assumption that there is a small minority in Pakistan that subscribes to pan-Islamist, anti-American, anti-Indian and anti-Israeli ideas of the Jamaat-e-Islami and Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) has become a myth. Now the reality is the other way around — Pakistan today has ‘a loud minority’ that publicly condemns all streams of Islamist violence and sees fighting extremism and normal relations with India and the US to be in the national interest.

The JUI — known for its sympathies with the Taliban — is presently part of the PPP-led coalition government in Islamabad. The party runs thousands of Islamic seminaries across the country. Its declared aim of politics is the imposition of shariah in the country. The ideology of the Jamaat-e-Islami — a fiercely anti-American and pan-Islamist political party — is widely respected and held true by the middle and upper class educated youth and by mid- and top-level military officers. Indeed, it is considered to be an important component of the legendary ‘establishment’, a euphemism used for the Pakistani military.

What led to the transformation of a silent majority of moderates into a minority? To begin with, the signs can be traced back to the rhetoric of some Muslim leaders in pre-partition India. These included, among others, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Sir Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Ali Jinnah. It was in the latter part of the 19th century that Sir Syed Ahmad Khan emphasised that Muslims stay away from the Indian National Congress, on the basis of religion. He established educational institutions aimed at educating the Muslims as a ‘community’. Chief among these was the Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental College, which soon developed into the Aligarh Muslim University. The Muslim graduates of this university were to later claim a state — a political entity — for a portion of the Indian population on the basis of their faith, Islam. Thus the seeds of an evolving Islam-based politics can be discerned in the developments that were taking place in the latter half of the 19th century. This is not to say that the process of Muslim leaders working for the Muslims of India started with Sir Syed Ahmad Khan. There were many before him, but they worked for the moral reformation of the Muslims. The process of politicising Islam started only with Sir Syed Ahmad Khan. A detailed narrative of his services for the Muslims and his contribution to the ‘idea’ of Pakistan constitutes an important part of Pakistani schools’ curriculum.

Sir Muhammad Iqbal — the philosopher who shaped Jinnah’s views vis-à-vis a state for the Muslims of India — was a staunch supporter of political Islam and abhorred western nationalism. He frequently dismissed the separation of religion and state. In his famous Allahabad address in 1930 he stated, “Islam does not bifurcate the unity of man into an irreconcilable duality of spirit and matter. In Islam, God and the universe, spirit and matter, church and state, are organic to each other.” He believed that secularism would morally corrupt Muslims. He stood for closer cooperation among Muslims around the world. His philosophy constitutes an integral part of Pakistani schools’ syllabus.

Many of us, under the burden of ‘patriotism’ and ‘nationalism’, fiercely argue that Jinnah stood for a secular Pakistan. To justify their stand, they often cite his speech of August 11, 1947 in which he said that everybody was free to go to their respective religious places. Unfortunately — thanks to our poor education system — we conveniently ignore the dozens of occasions before and after the creation of Pakistan when Jinnah clearly stated that Islam was going to guide the policies of the new state. In a message to the Frontier Muslim Students Federation on June 18, 1945 he says, “Pakistan not only means freedom and independence but the Muslim ideology which has to be preserved, which has come to us as a precious gift and treasure and which, we hope, others will share with us.” In his presidential address to the All India Muslim League on March 23, 1940, he invokes Islam as the basis of inspiration for action. He stated, “Come forward as servants of Islam, organise the people economically, socially, educationally and politically and I am sure that you will be a power that will be accepted by everybody.”

It is not to say that Jinnah did not have economics on his mind while struggling for Pakistan. It is to say, however, that he did invoke Islam as a central element of justification in his demand for a separate homeland for the Muslims of India.

Thus the context being conducive for pan-Islamists and religious bigots, it was only a foregone conclusion that they would succeed in forcing the Objectives Resolution to be passed by parliament, prefix “Islamic” to everything Pakistani, pressure successive rulers into passing retrogressive laws and, ultimately, convince the state to pursue cross-border agendas based on the ideology of Islam. No wonder then that senior retired military officers including the Taliban’s mentors General Hamid Gul and the so-called Colonel Imam loudly support al Qaeda, the Taliban and the many Islamist jaishes and lashkars without any fear of punishment from the state, which itself is controlled by their former colleagues.

Had Islam not been central to the creation of Pakistan, Zaid Hamid and Hamid Gul would not have been able to invoke it for garnering support for a Muslim caliphate and they would not have been the darlings of our middle and upper class educated youth, we would not have had the Objectives Resolution as a guiding principle of our constitutions, Ziaul Haq would never have been able to pass retrogressive laws against women and minorities, our intelligence agencies and army would not have been suspected of links with the various jaishes and lashkars — not to speak of their well-documented grooming of the Taliban, our public schools would not have been a tool of retrogressive propaganda and we would not have had tens of thousands of religious seminaries, many of which produce violent jihadists.

The writer is a freelance columnist hailing from Waziristan. He can be reached at ilyasakbarkhan@gmail.com
 
.
Back
Top Bottom