08-09-2006, 10:59 PM
Pracs things have to be looked from a different perspective. Any Pakistani, no matter dwelling in which part of the country, has no objections on Pakistan, people may have doubts about the system here, making of Pakistan but not Pakistan itself. So no debate at all is there regarding Pakistan.
And, when Pakistan is there I don't think that it's very much necessary to justify it's making.
As you said, I don't have any doubts on two-nation theory. What you need to clarify is what was the basis of division of subcontinent. Was it two-nation theory or separate Indus civilization? The base of this division was undoubtedly two-nation theory. Now, there are two things either I say two nation theory is valid for me and I am not bothered about any one who has doubts about it. Quite justified I am in doing this. Second thing is that I go for convincing those who don't agree with two-nation theory. When one goes for this second option he got to be rational and things can't be decided from a patriot Pakistani's point of view. Many questions arise in this second condition, which remain unanswered on this thread.
In the end I redraft my statement, it is not Pakistan it is the making of Pakistan which some people may object.
First question in this regard which has to be looked at
- Was Two-Nation Theory the underlying basis for the division of Sub-Continent?
Another thing which has to be looked
-Whether freedom of the Indo Pak was the result of "UNTHAK MAHNATâ of our leaders as we always say and what is taught to us. (Same is the situation with Indians) or this freedom was a result of something else.
Pracs it's never necessary that after 60 years of independence we still try to justify making of Pakistan, but if we opt for this justification we need to be rational. And, for any discussion to be positive it got to be concise and to the point
Shoaib
And, when Pakistan is there I don't think that it's very much necessary to justify it's making.
As you said, I don't have any doubts on two-nation theory. What you need to clarify is what was the basis of division of subcontinent. Was it two-nation theory or separate Indus civilization? The base of this division was undoubtedly two-nation theory. Now, there are two things either I say two nation theory is valid for me and I am not bothered about any one who has doubts about it. Quite justified I am in doing this. Second thing is that I go for convincing those who don't agree with two-nation theory. When one goes for this second option he got to be rational and things can't be decided from a patriot Pakistani's point of view. Many questions arise in this second condition, which remain unanswered on this thread.
In the end I redraft my statement, it is not Pakistan it is the making of Pakistan which some people may object.
First question in this regard which has to be looked at
- Was Two-Nation Theory the underlying basis for the division of Sub-Continent?
Another thing which has to be looked
-Whether freedom of the Indo Pak was the result of "UNTHAK MAHNATâ of our leaders as we always say and what is taught to us. (Same is the situation with Indians) or this freedom was a result of something else.
Pracs it's never necessary that after 60 years of independence we still try to justify making of Pakistan, but if we opt for this justification we need to be rational. And, for any discussion to be positive it got to be concise and to the point
Shoaib