Citizenship and Identity in Pakistan

chennai #261: ``......Bulleya, the average Indian is now more focused on wealth creation and is not interested in knowing anything about pakistan,``

Yes...this maybe true.......It is true for people in all countries, i.e. they are more interested in wealth creation.......However, if this is true, then why do so many Indians on this site attempt to comment on Pakistan, with so much authority........One cannot have it both ways....

``almost all Indians did not want reunification with pakistan.....``

The idea of reunification was never brought up by me.....I have actually stated the opposite, i.e. it is good that Pakistan was created, for Pakistanis........or at least an autonomous area should have been created.....

All ideas of a united India, were from the Indian side.......Nehru, Gandhi etc.......Even today, the discussions against Paritition, are primarily from the Indian side - both on this site and outside........

``Bangladesh breaking away has got nothing to do with Pakistan`s economy in the 70`s; you know the real reasons for it.........``

If you dig deep enough, all political issues have economy tied to them......Bangaldesh breaking away was based on economy (and language)........Bengalis felt, West Pakistan was not giving them ample % in the economy........They tried to obtain that through elections, but weren`t allowed........Rest assured had East Pakistan been wealthier than the West, it would not have broken away.......

``But yes, overall there is a lower number of Muslims in the IT industry.........But more in the Media industry............``

Lower % is quite an exagerated politically correct term........There are hardly any.......Even in the media industry, other than where looks have a direct impact, like acting, how many Muslims are running the media industry as businessmen?

``For your theories to be right my friend you, you first need to come to India with an open mind.............. ``

I have made the trouble of going to India........That, itself, requires quite an open mind........Would it be correct to assume you have had enough of an open mind to visit Pakistan?........

#260 by bulleya:

......Bulleya, the average Indian is now more focused on wealth creation and is not interested in knowing anything about pakistan, more so in the South. Ask your friendly autowallah in Chennai or Bangalore about Pakistan and they would have vaguely heard about it more in association with Bomb blasts than anything else.


.....In another board where a Pakistani punjabi said Pakistan would not exist beyond 2020, almost all Indians did not want reunification with pakistan.....reasons......Better to have a buffer state(s) on our western border......Islamic fundementalists would ruin India. This view was most prominent amongst North Indians, .....so even if pakistanis are very similar to North Indians the bottom line is ``we do not want you or want to be like you``....

Bangladesh breaking away has got nothing to do with Pakistan`s economy in the 70`s; you know the real reasons for it.........

IT industry and Muslims not being there......It is an equal opportunity employer where the best is recruited irrespective of religion etc.........But yes, overall there is a lower number of Muslims in the IT industry.........But more in the Media industry............

For your theories to be right my friend you, you first need to come to India with an open mind..............

Anil #251: `` think it was one of Jinnah`s follies to not see that he could have created an alternative to Congress, much the same way Mayawati has created, albeit, in Jinnah`s grandkid generation.``

.........I am strong believer in the fact that one cannot know something, without experiencing it, first hand......Which is why I have tried to get myself in a position, where I can visit India....Now I am going regularly.......And it is interesting to see, how many of my theories, that I have been placing on Chowk, are correct, and how many are incorrect......

1. I am now more convinced than ever that Indians know very little about Pakistan....Almost nothing.....Hence I will have to say they are not in a position to comment on the country........In fact, common South Indians (in the village, taxi drivers etc. - people with whom I try to spend most of my time, when I travel), don`t even know much about North India; what to talk of Pakistan......

Indians need to increase their knowledge of Pakistan........However, I have seen very little interest in them, doing so.........Not even in North Indians, who, now I am convinced are more similar to Pakistanis, then they are to South Indians.......In fact, North Indians tend to make fun of South Indians (for some reason, I did not find South Indians making fun of North Indians)

2. Since Indians don`t know much about Pakistan, there is very little independent study, or thought, on Pakistan, in India........They basically believe whatever is told to them by the govt. and the media, and their schoolbooks.........

.....Jinnah was far ahead of his time, and in the long run, his solution for South Asia will come out to be the best.........He was the only one in India, who understood Hindus, Muslims and and the Brits and had participated in poltics with all three........His idea of an autonomous Muslim majority area, within a joint Indian federation was the best idea, in my opinion; a somewhat more intense version of Quebec and Canada.......

........I am afraid the economic rise of India is not going to be as smooth as you are suggesting......I am now more convinced of it, then ever before.......It is easy for countries, in which everyone is rich, to maintain unity...........It is also easy for countries in which everyone is poor to maintain unity.........However, when very diverse poor countries start making economic progress, it becomes nearly impossible for them to maintain equal distribution.........

.....Pakistan made huge progress in the 60s.......Yet Bangladesh broke away, exactly in 71.......When every Pakistani was poor, Bengalis were fine........When they saw the West getting rich, and they remained poor, they got angry......

........I have not seen the Indian economic rise trickling down to the Indian Muslims........They do have thier mosques and their laws, but economically I didn`t see anyone who was involved in this rise..........I saw some IT companies in detail and attended some executive meetings and open houses.........Invariably I was the only Muslim in those executive meetings.......And in the open houses, there were barely any junior Indian Muslim employees......In fact, the individuals doing the announcements could not even pronounce the names of their Muslim co-employees..........

There are whole IT companies in India, without a single Muslim in their top tier of 30 executives........So on and so forth......I don`t think this is because of discrimination......I didn`t notice any religious discrimination, of any kind, in these companies..........I am not sure what the reason happens to be, however, it is there.......Indian Muslims are way behind Hindus and way behind Pakistani Muslims........

.......I am not sure how India is going to handle this........At the moment, everyone is poor.......perhaps Muslims moreso than Hindus......However, what will happen when the Hindus get rich and the Muslims remain poor?........Which is invariably, what is going to happen..........Much like East Pakistan and West Pakistan........

In this sense, Jinnah had it right........Muslims had to have massive affirmitive action and a secure area within a federation.........They (we) were way down at the bottom of the totem pole...........Additionally, the geographic areas, currently constituting Pakistan, were even further down..........These geographic areas and Muslims in general in Pakistan have made massive economic and social progress, after 47.......To the point that they actually caught up with India and had moved ahead by the 70s!...........This would not have happened had they (we) not had our own country or autonomous area.........

......I have not seen anything close to such progress in India, for the Muslims...........Hence it is the condition of Indian Muslims, which will decide whether Pakistan was a correct decision (actually whether Cabinet Mission was a correct decision)..........If India can raise the standard of Indian Muslims, beyond that of Pakistan, then the idea of Pakistan fails.......

The decentralization of powers to the states that you are refering to, is what Jinnah wanted, to begin with...........Albeit with an additional provision that the religious minorities should also have powers decentralized to them.........The more South Asia I see, the more convinced I am that this was the way to go......Still is the way to go.......Jinnah had it correct all along.....However, Congress leadership, under Nehru, did not give him any room to maneouvre (other than Gandhi, who did agree with him)..........

Anyways my journey of studying South Asia, first hand, continues........And I am begining to realize that my theories were actually quite correct...........

Corrections

``academics``... (4th line first para)

and

``in Indian history`` (1st line last para)

Dear Pew research

For all your attempts at spinning this as ``YLH brand``... you should know that this theory of history is held by - amongst others- tenured professors of history at Columbia University, Harvard University, Tufts University and Cambridge University.... hence by calling it the YLH brand, you are doing these great academic a lot of injustice for I am nothing but a simple lawyer who has read their books and reproduced their vision of history. (You may want to check up on their names or google them : Ainslee T Embree, Sugata Bose, Ayesha Jalal, Anil Seal..also in India H M Seervai)...

The problem is that even if we accept (to humor you) your view of history (which is sadly based on your lack of knowledge on the issue), the Cabinet Mission Plan would have given created more or less independent (constitutionally and legally) Hindustan and Pakistan Units within the Indian Union... and Congress (if we accept all great hogwash you guys want to ascribe to it) would have still gotten as much a free hand to implement its secular vision.

The real reason why Congress wanted to do away with the Cabinet Mission Plan was because - and this is what Sadna Gupta essentially doesn`t tire declaring- the Indian Army would have 50-65% Muslim element ... fair enough... but that shows you how serious the Congress was about its stated composite nationalism.

As for Jinnah ... no one has disputed that that Jinnah championed the Muslim cause as a dedicated lawyer.... but the man has a history that predates the Pakistan demand. Even Gandhi and Nehru have spoken of his services to Indian nationalist cause as well his contribution to progressive legislation... Here is an article I wrote which might help you update your knowledge.(http://pakistaniat.com/2006/12/25/pakistan-jinnah-legislative-career/)...

Your suggestion that he did not campaign for it consistently is borne out of your misunderstanding of the Pakistan idea... For this I suggest you apply your mind to the Lahore resolution. Jinnah was campaigning for a ``Pakistan`` consistently... but your assumption that this Pakistan had to be a completely sovereign state only is what is the problem here. Furthermore... if something (a completely sovereign state for example) is the bargaining counter... only a fool would assume that the man bargaining would tell his opponents ``Wink Wink... it is just a bargaining counter you know so go ahead screw me over`` ...

But whatever the case... the Cabinet Mission Plan has an objective existence is Indian History... divorced from the Muslim League Angle and Congress Angle.... and to read a relatively more honest view of the Cabinet Mission Plan from a Congress leader... read ``India wins freedom`` by Azad... perhaps there still would be hope for you ...

This was a bluudy good article in terms of the thought and sentiment about it awful otherwise (not properly researched) and as the moss are never tired of saying that the moon god of the arabs has given dimag darja over dill, this is enirely from Dil and not from dimag. Also manto would not be manto if he did not try abuse madar das (who incidentally is fit only for that)

Having said that the sheer stupidity of responses of some of the countryment takes one breath away esp pew research.

God help the motherland from idioots like these.

More later

Sanatani

For the Umpteenth time let me repeat: so that this Dracula called SECULARISM*
returns to its coffin when it sees the Light

This is a trick word for SHIRK and sometimes for KUFR. Just because it is a west-import some anglo-enamoured simpletons are hoodwinked into believing that it has something to do with prosperity & progress.

While a-theism is a far benign term , which simply means a happy-go-lucky or nonchalant
worldview towards Religion ( all-religion) per se...SECULARISM has an Imperialistic & Colonial chutzpah and wants to relegate religion to the status below that of even english-children (``children must be seen, not heard``). SECULARISM wants religion to be like the blacks & the poor & homeless: a bad sight for tourist-dollars..must be behind the scene, night-shift workers, away-from-counter..ghoul like lurking in the shadows.

These Secularists, Pharoahs in the making, trolls & goblins now , aspiring to be Nimrod, Shaddads, and Samoods will never ever be allowed to walk in sunshine again....& they will never ever succeed....because the Liberaloons, Munafiquoons, and Murtadoons have a vociferious appetite for good-life & they will never be able to risk life & limb for their cause.

Hell! even the commie leaders were fond of apples from the forbidden-tree while they sucked the marrow and gored on the entrails of their constituents.

The avaam know about the Secularists Socialists Commies Liberals & the other Ninety-Nine names of Ibleees as well.

So again here it goes:

Secularism is defined in the Webster dictionary as: ``A system of doctrines and practices that rejects any form of religious faith and worship`` or ``The belief that religion and ecclesiastical affairs should not enter into the function of the state especially into public education.``

There is no doubt that secularism contradicts Islam in every aspect. They are two different paths that never meet; choosing one means rejecting the other. Hence, whoever chooses Islam has to reject secularism. In the following, we go in the details of explaining why.

1- First, secularism makes lawful what Allah has made unlawful.

The Rule of Allah (Shari`ah) is compulsory and has basic laws and regulations that cannot be changed. Some of these laws are concerned with the acts of worship, the relations between men and women, etc.

What is the position with regard to these laws?

Secularism makes adultery lawful if the male and the female are consenting adults.

As for Riba (interest on money), it is the basis of all financial transactions in secular economies. On the contrary, Allah says (s.2 A. 278): ``O you who believe, fear Allah and leave what comes from Riba if you are believers. If you do not do so, then wait for a war from Allah and His Messenger.``

As for alcohol, all secular systems allow the consumption of alcohol and make selling it a lawful business.

2- Second, secularism is clear unbelief (Kufr).

Secularism is based on separating religion from all the affairs of this life and hence, it rules by law and regulations other than Allah`s laws. Hence, secularism rejects Allah`s rules with no exception and prefers regulations other than Allah`s and His Messenger`s. In fact, many secularists claim that Allah`s laws might have been suitable for the time they were revealed but are now outdated.

From the above, the status of secularism and its relation to Islam are clear. But the ignorance about the Islamic truth is still dominating the Muslim`s mind. Most secular systems repeat slogans like ``no religion in politics and no politics in religion`` or ``religion is for Allah, and the state is for the people.`` Such sayings portray their view of Islam as a religion to be practiced in the mosque only, and that it should not be allowed to rule life outside the mosque. Furthermore, they try to deceive people with democratic slogans like ``personal freedom`` and ``people governing people.`` That means that people come first and no place is made for the ruling of Allah.

This is why secularism is clear Kufr, this is why secular systems have no legality and authority and should be rejected by Muslims.