Schuaeb,
From the sound of it,. you have doubts if the two nation theory is/was valid but from the sound of it since Pakistan is there and since that is all you know as a homeland you are fine with that.
My point of view is ocfourse that the two nation theory is as valid as it ever was and it dates back to 5,000 years.. a little a geographical variation here and there is nothing to be worried about. There are parts of the Indus Valley and Harappa that have steered into India and as you say Blauchistan was not part of either of them, but then these were not part of India as well ! We are talking of 5,000 years,.. rivers go dry and change their path in this time.. I mean Ravi flowed next to the Old city and the Fort just a few hundred years ago.. so lets not get very edgy about the geography et al.
It does not mean, nor is my intention to convince you of what my beliefs are. All I want is our people, Pakistanis to be proud and not be appologetic for history to Indians Muslims or Hindus.. or to the Afghans.. we have been as a nation for more than 5,000 years (or if you dont buy that) for atleast 59 years now !! nothing can un do it, we are a reality here to stay and I just dont like people raising questions to ask us if Pakistan was the right thing to do ?? do people ask the Americans if US was right in killing all those native Americans, the Spanish and bringing in all those African slaves,. We did nothing wrong we did not kill people, we did not bring in slaves, we did not evict people of their land. We simply took whatever was ours.
Let there be no doubt in any one's mind about Pakistan, we are a country have always been and will by the Grace of God always be. Pakistan Paindabad
Pakistani Tujhae Salaam !!!
Thanks Pracs, 100% agree with you.
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
Do I see a change of statement here ? surely by re drafting your statement you have changed the context all together.
Your first question is if it was based on the Two nation theory,.. YES it was.. you need to understand that due to the fact that Muslims in south asia were not only in majority along the east and west delta but also scattered in the Gangetic plan. Two nation theory meant that since Muslims are a different nation (from Hindus that you would agree well) they should atleast be able to form their 'own' government in the areas where they form majority ! The purpose was the birth of a muslim nation in South Asia,.
Your next question is closely connected to a huge amount of Muslims in India, well some of them chose to migrate to Pakistan (from the United provinces), almost all from East Punjab and almost none from South India. The answer here is Indus Land... there has never been a country in its natural form that included Indus Land and India.
The Two nation theory and Indus Land are complimentary concepts they go hand in hand. Indus Land has always been there atleast the last 5,000 years,.. and the two nation theory helped it to gain independence and break the artifical shakles with India.
Whether the creation of Pakistan was actually an outcome of 'UNTHAK MAHNAT' or was it just part of the Post war Labour Government's plan of de colonisation after 1945 is some thing for you to find out. Not every one who became part of the Pakistan movement or joined later or hijaked the bandwagon to Pakistan was sincere or as dedicated as others.
I know this for sure, millions migrated, hundreds of thousands migrated, still thousands dedicated their lives to this cause and thousands upon thousands spent their life times taking the country where it is today. Pakistan was inevitable, the combined power and will of Congress, Jamat ulmea Hind, British, the Unionists, the ANP... the trioka of Nehru, Lady and Lord Mountbatten, Abul Kalam Azad, the Charisma of Gandhi, Khan Ghaffar Ali Khan, Patel all combined could not avert it,.. Jinnah, Liaqat Ali Khan and few other people.. got Pakistan. Most Historians believe it was just Jinnah and fate that brought together Pakistan.
Shoaib, the thing is that 'WE DO NOT NEED TO JUSTIFY THE CREATION OF PAKISTAN', our country is based on an ideology....we are not talking about Saudi or Kuwait or Jordan (countries carved out post war) or Algeria or Libya that had there borders drawn up as straight line by colonists, or countries like Israel who have expansionist ideology. Pakistan is not manufactured its based on an ideology and a tradition.
I hope I have not steered away from your rational. I do not agree with you that positive discussion needs to concise, you do realise we are not drafting an accounting policy, its history we are talking about.!!
Pracs, you know that I canât disagree with you. So, we have clarified that the basis of Pakistan was two-nation theory. Indus civilization is something to supplement this division and it could never be claimed as the basis. This is what we both have agreed.
There are many people in Pakistan who disagree with religion being the basis of a nation. I am not among them. We leave it aside, we agree that religion may be and is the basis of Pakistan.
There are some reason which may lead to some doubts about two-nation theory. Firstly was it not a betrayal with Indian Muslim. I mean that this division was in the interest of some of the Indian Muslims not all of them. Infact, it had been harmful for the Muslims left in India. Muslims were in majority in eastern parts, east Punjab, Bengal, however, a reasonable amount of Muslims was scattered in other parts of Sub Continent. Would that I could come with some stats, but 1/3rd may be a safe estimate. So looking from this point of view for the interests of 2/3rd of Muslims of Sub Continent the rest were left to their fate. Has not it been selfish? My ancestors before participation lived in present Pakistan, so no efforts from them just advantage. You must have noticed that people who lived in Pakistan before division and those who come from east Punjab have no objections on two-nation theory and Muslim leaders. However, those who migrated from other parts of sub continent, presently they are in Karachi and other cities of Sindh have much regrets regarding this division and perhaps they were the people who have to bear more hardships in all this process. This behavior of people got to have some reasons. One more thing which had to be considered in this regard many people had not the choice to come to Pakistan, and at the same time the Muslims in Punjab had no choice but to migrate to Pakistan, as the case was with the Sikhs of east Punjab.
Some others objections are also there but with the intention of keeping this discussion to the point and concise Iâll state them in next post. Infact the âUnthak Mahnatâ and de colonization by Labourers themselve have also to be looked at.
I canât claim that youâve not been objective and rational, however, from one angle your post may seem to be some patriot Pakistaniâs point of view. One more thing taken wrongly be you or I was not able to explain that properly, discussions to be fruitful need to be systematic and in some method.
I hope that all this is not a mere waste of time and my intentions are never argument for the sake of argument.
Shoaib
Atleast we agree on some of the issues,.. I am simply dismayed as I find today's youth questioning the two nation theory and the basis of religion as casually as you would comment on the whether. Most forums and boards you go to do have these on.
I do not mean this to be offensive to any one,.. but I think muslims who migrated from East Punjab were as uprooted and displaced as migrants from Delhi or Bombay or other parts of India. As you have said yourself that the East Punjab migrants have assimilated in society and are in line with the two nation theory.
Whereas other migrants (who did not have an ethnic base here in Pakistan) are dismayed and do not think that the two nation theory is valid any more. Although I have a large number of friends who's parents or grand parents migrated to Pakistan, some as late as 60's and very much agree with the two nation theory and the fact that it was a conscious choice for muslims in India to either migrate or not migrate.
I think it has become more of a fad, a fashion to disagree with this. It goes without saying that the Prime Minsiter and the President are from that dismayed ethnic group. Well, people do have a right to their view and I would not of all people want to force my ideas on them, but ofcourse I would go on to profess what I believe in.
And Yes I still do believe that we did not betray muslims in India... They had always been a different country and they still are, FULL STOP.
Pracs, may be you are right on some of the issues, questioning two-nation theory I don't think is something like a part of fashion, and I once again have to say that I'm never among those who refer two-nation theory invalid.
Main question in my last post was betrayal with Indian Muslims, you simply answered No, however, I didn't find any logic put forward by you. Saying "NO" is simply no answer.
One thing you need to be clear with that it was not a matter of choice for all Indian Muslims to migrate or stay in India. Basically the partition was only for those who were in Pakistan (at that time)
Now when the first issue remains unresolved, bringing into debate others is not very much advisable. However, the story of "UNTHAK MAHNAT" by our prestigious leaders is also to be looked at. Were it us, or thanks to Sir Adolf Hitler, whose efforts, although claiming some 30 or 40 million lives, also brought independence for much a large number of human.
Saudi Arabian liberation, as you refered, was not the result of post war situation. It was not a colony. It has got it's own history with King Saud and Abdul Wahab (the later is the former of WAHABI sect) Talk about it some other day.
Coming to Jordan, Lebenon, and almost all of the African countries, having a look at atlas makes much things clear. Thier borders are ofcourse straight lines drawn by thier colonial lords.
Coming back to the point, if you claim that independence of Sub-Continent was something else than post war situation, then I must say you are mistaken. Partition of it, I and others, have to agree was a different story. Although a lot exist who beleive that even partition of Pakistan was a result of post war colonial planning. We yet again leave this last point aside.
May be my post make you beleive that I'm not a patriot Pakistani and have objections on Quaid-e-Azam. I have emphatically stated it earlier that Pakistan is my faith and Quaid-e-Azam is my hero.
Redrafting the key points
-Betrayal with Indian Mulims.
-Liberation of Sub-Continent.
Shoaib
Schuaeb, you are bringing in new variables, but before I discuss on let me make clear that I am not doubting any one's patriotism here,, its more of a discussion.
My answer tothe title of this thread is NO.. you missed my logic,.. where I go on to say that Pakistan and India are two different countries all together.. even before the first muslims set foot on what is today Pakistan. That is reason within itself. If you go by logic you will realise (as you already have) that it was not possible to move all the muslims to Pakistan, and that my friend had never been the intention of Jinnah or any other Muslim Leader. Jinnah did request some big industrialists and Business man (Habib, Ishphani etc) to move to Karachi to help Pakistan get on its two feet. As he did to various Civil Servants and Armed officers. That was it. Mass migration started of when Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan began the thrust and Muslims were being forced to leave their villages on the point of Swords. That is when all the Mayhem started. So there is logic to my answer.
Your new variable in the last post is about if the independence of Pakistan was more of a by product of the post world war scenario. Yes it was,.. that is what the King George promised to India,.. be loyal to the Crown and raise me a fighting machine, give us the raw material, keep your factories running and we will give you independance after the war. Remmeber Congress and Gandhi's civil dis0bediance movement... that was to black mail the crown and tell them what the wiritng on the wall was. The Muslim League ofcourse under the leader ship of Jinnah played it part right to not associate itself completely with it,.. and thereby got into a relatively better place with the British. That may have helped our case a bit.
But then a dozen or more countries got their independence, Hitlers war undoubtdly left Europe's Colonial powers week and the US strong. So its not Pakistan alone that made most from the second world war. Had all that not happened we would have straddled down perhaps a decade or two. And if Attlee's labour had not won the elections perhaps another five years or more. But all this has nothing to do with our title of the thread here.
I am a strong believer in the fact that the destiny of the Muslims of the subcontinent is in Pakistan, perhaps not a physical thing for all of the Muslims, but in some way it is and will be more profound in the future.
Another way to look at it is,.. would you consider saying that Afghanistan should have been part of British India because there are more muslims in India than Afghanistan or Iran ? that is how it is about Pakistan,. Muslims who migrated from India to Pakistan did so as a matter of personal choice (or were driven by necessity), it was never meant for all the Muslims to migrate to Pakistan.
assalamoaliekum
Oh! Muslim Indians are very nice ppl.I have friends among them and guess what they say? that we r one.A women said that there is no difference between us even if we r indians and u are pakistanis.We both are Muslims and talk about culture!she said that both of our cultures are same.We could have been one nation...
well when pakistan separated Many muslims couldnt leave their properties and some couldnt come 2 pakistan so may be thats y they stayed in India.The may not be gaining the full rights as muslims in India but how much rites a Pakistani as a muslim is gaining at pakistan??
nill I again say nill!If pakistani women do hijab and niqab in big cities ppl just stare as if an alien has arrived and now that ppl r in fluenced towards modernism.......
I think Indian Muslims r getting equal environment like us.I think every got my point.
Miss_ch
Well, I would agree with you on the fact the Indian muslims are our brothers.. but then so are Turks, Arabs and Malaysians and so forth.
I do not agree that Indian Muslims have more rights.. you may have some Indian muslim friends.. I myself grew up in Dubai and have had Indian Muslims, Hindus, Christians as friends and mates. We may have a number of problems in Pakistan but then all third world countries have that.
I would not agree with you on the Hijab thing in Pakistan, in cities like Lahore, you will find all kind of people and just like 'modernisation' (as you say)is making in roads so are a part of the society turning to Hijab.. I am talking about places like Defence, Gulberg etc.
Aslam O Alaikum
I hope everybody would be fine here, so am I. I was a bit busy so had to remain away from this forum.
Pracs I didn't get exactly that what did you try to say in your post (second last). You, perhaps, said that Pakistan was made for the Muslims dwelling in Western parts of subcontinent and Bangladesh. It means that Pakistan was not made for the Muslims of subcontinent, it meant for the people living in present Pakistan and the basis for participation you have emphatically stated a number of times in your various posts. You may be would disagree but what a fine negation of two-nation theory it was. So, there is no concept of betrayal with Indian Muslims as you said they are as alien as any other Muslim state. According to you religion is not the basis of a state.
The second question I think is also very much relevant to the topic. What I asked was "Was freedom of sub-continent a result of ours and Indian leaders or this was the result of Second World War?â An ambiguous explanation was yours. You perhaps said had there been no world war freedom of subcontinent had been achieved a decade or two later. I don't know what make you believe that.
And, mind you, things like Hijab and Beard are becoming a stigma in our society.
Shoaib
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial" id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Schuaeb</i>
<br />.......
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Second thoughts, Schuaeb ? ...
appologies for not checking this space, didn't realise the ball was in my court.
To pick up from where we left, now you are just twisting my words,..
1) It is a fact that the British Empire gave way its colonies as an after effect of WW2, having depleted in terms of manpower and resources. The Crown promised British India,. a quick independence in case the colonies fought along side the Allies. A promise it full filled.
It is also a fact that had WW2 not been there, we would still have independence perhaps a decade or two later,. perhaps not in this civilised manner.. perhaps a war ? a second war of independence, perhaps of what happened in Algeria with France or the Dutch in Indonesia.
But to put it all on our ex colonial masters plate is just not doing justice to the strife of Indian and Pakistani freedom fighters,.. If there was no question put forth there would have been no answer !!
2) I have not defeated the two nation theory by saying that Pakistan was created for the Muslims of North West India and Bengal, this is what the father of the 'Two nation theory' believed, Sir Dr. Allama Iqbal in his Presidential address (of the All India Muslim League) at Allahabad on 29 December 1930 , and I quote
<b><i>I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single state. Self-government within the British Empire, or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated Northwest Indian Muslim state appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of Northwest India."</i></b>
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Iqbal#Revival_of_Islamic_polity
The blank post was to make you realize that the ball was in your court, and look it had worked.
Two things are being simultaneously debated, and perhaps no one of us exactly knows how things started.
I would follow my order.
1- Once again you are going against two-nation theory, or I should better say that your concept of it is different from what is generally accepted. So, I would repeat that according to you there was not concept of betrayal as Pakistani and Indian Muslims had always been different nation, and perhaps so where Bengalis. You are emphasing that Pakistan was made for people living in present Pakistan and not for all of the Muslims of sub-continent. According to you they are and always were a different nation. Referring to Iqbal's quote North Western Muslim State was for Muslims living in North West. You don't have yet denied that migration was not originally a part of division of sub-continent. I would like to have your clear opinion on this.
The concept of two-nation theory was of Quaid (No doubt that original idea came from Iqbal), now this is not the debate. Neither, I'm trying to prove there was a difference between Quaid and Iqbal in this issue. I can't conclude that what was Quaid's exact understanding of this concept, however, he defined it as stating that Muslims and Hindus are two different nations with different cultures, moral values and religion. (I'm not able to quote exact lines but hope that you know). This definition should not leave any doubt in anybodies mind about the crux of two-nation theory.
Some of ambiguity seems in your mind regarding the subject and this is way you seldom come with a straight stand on one point. And, this is way most of my posts are just to have clear statements by you. Or I'm not smart enough to get what you exactly meant. Perhaps, there might be some on confusions in my subconscious also.
2- nothing new was in there. Liberation of sub continent was a promise full filled, and according to you had there been no promise we had to achieve independence in some different way. Can you example of any British colony which was not liberated after WW2 or liberated as a result of bloody rebellion. (Hong Kong is exception) I think that freedom of almost all of the colonies whether British or others was the necessary outcome of WW2.
Had there been no war, in that case I've to believe that world had been a totally different place, with quite a huge influence of on their semi-independent colonies. I would come in with some logics in favour of my point in some future post. You said this freedom could have been a decade or two late but it was to happen, nothing in favour of this statement I found.
I anticipate that your approach towards this thread is similar to mine. Straight forward, blunt or soft statements are made to clarify the case and move to some conclusion and never are to be taken personal. Neither the aim behind is just to prove my point. I always value your comments on this and other posts.
Shoaib
The blank post was to make you realize that the ball was in your court, and look it had worked.
Two things are being simultaneously debated, and perhaps no one of us exactly knows how things started.
I would follow my order.
1- Once again you are going against two-nation theory, or I should better say that your concept of it is different from what is generally accepted. So, I would repeat that according to you there was not concept of betrayal as Pakistani and Indian Muslims had always been different nation, and perhaps so where Bengalis. You are emphasing that Pakistan was made for people living in present Pakistan and not for all of the Muslims of sub-continent. According to you they are and always were a different nation. Referring to Iqbal's quote North Western Muslim State was for Muslims living in North West. You don't have yet denied that migration was not originally a part of division of sub-continent. I would like to have your clear opinion on this.
The concept of two-nation theory was of Quaid (No doubt that original idea came from Iqbal), now this is not the debate. Neither, I'm trying to prove there was a difference between Quaid and Iqbal in this issue. I can't conclude that what was Quaid's exact understanding of this concept, however, he defined it as stating that Muslims and Hindus are two different nations with different cultures, moral values and religion. (I'm not able to quote exact lines but hope that you know). This definition should not leave any doubt in anybodies mind about the crux of two-nation theory.
Some of ambiguity seems in your mind regarding the subject and this is way you seldom come with a straight stand on one point. And, this is way most of my posts are just to have clear statements by you. Or I'm not smart enough to get what you exactly meant. Perhaps, there might be some on confusions in my subconscious also.
2- nothing new was in there. Liberation of sub continent was a promise full filled, and according to you had there been no promise we had to achieve independence in some different way. Can you example of any British colony which was not liberated after WW2 or liberated as a result of bloody rebellion. (Hong Kong is exception) I think that freedom of almost all of the colonies whether British or others was the necessary outcome of WW2.
Had there been no war, in that case I've to believe that world had been a totally different place, with quite a huge influence of on their semi-independent colonies. I would come in with some logics in favour of my point in some future post. You said this freedom could have been a decade or two late but it was to happen, nothing in favour of this statement I found.
I anticipate that your approach towards this thread is similar to mine. Straight forward, blunt or soft statements are made to clarify the case and move to some conclusion and never are to be taken personal. Neither the aim behind is just to prove my point. I always value your comments on this and other posts.
Shoaib
I think that it is a great opportunity for me to put forward my views on this sensitive topic. Well, PRACS, i somewhat agree with your viewpoint. Though I donât know about our age difference, but I still represent the youth of Pakistan, being 22 yo. I would like to discuss as well as give some suggestions regarding these matters. I REQUEST ALL READERS TO READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE ATTENTIVELY AND PONDER OVER IT, because we as a nation are still being questioned, and surprisingly by our own selves and our own people.
1. BASIS OF TWO-NATION THEORY
Two-nation theory was undoubtedly the basis of creation of Pakistan. And let me remind all my readers that the Two Nation Theory, like Pakistan began from the moment when Islam entered the shores of INDIAN "SUB-CONTINENT". India was never a united country, nor was there any union (of EU Type) between the Independent Hindu States even before Islam. Let me now put forward a question for all of the readers, what was the objective of Muslim Rules in Indian subcontinents (starting with the State formed by Muhammad Bin Qasim to The State formed by Mughals). The only logical reason could be to have a peace of land where the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent could freely profess and practice their religion. So, have you all still got any doubt about the objective of the creation of Pakistan? Pakistan is a present form of the state which was built by Muhammad Bin Qasim, and fortunately this region has a separate geographical identity of its own dating back to more than 5000 years. (Bring to your mind the two separate, distinct and hostile civilizations of Indus Valley and Ganges Civilization). There should be no doubt left by now. Pakistan is surely a link in the chain that was created by Muhammad Bin Qasim. It is really very sad that most of our people (young and old alike) still have doubts about this fact, which has been in existence since last 1200 years, and is presently in the form of our Pakistan. What we should question is that the country of "India" is an artificial union between the states that had never ever ever ever been united in their history. But why don't we ever question this abnormality? Are we falling prey to a conspiracy that is well webbed and deemed to create confusion and misunderstanding between the people of Pakistan, and thus threaten its existence? Think and Think again ... Please.
2. REASONS FOR CREATION OF PAKISTAN
By explaining the basis of Two Nation Theory, I have already made my point on the reasons for creation of Pakistan. There should be no doubt that Muslim and Hindus of Indian subcontinent had never lived peacefully together. No doubt there had been attempts towards peaceful coexistence but they all "FAILED". Akbar's Din-e-Illahi and his marriage with a Hindu woman all the foremost examples in this regards. It was a big flop attempt, and even his successors had never attempted it again, and open opposition was evident amongst public too. There is my friends no success story in this regard, to ever highlight that Muslims and Hindus could live together. How could we then coexist and prosper in united "India" (in my opinion it should be called as Indian Subcontinent). The rulers of India today are only using creation of Pakistan as a pretext to exploit the Muslims who by their self-decision opted to stay back in their Motherland India. If it had not been Pakistan then they could have clung to another issue or another or another... then we had many other differences which could never ever be bridged religion, language, culture, names, dressing, manners, food, rituals, traditions, preferences, and even festivals. Any of you might say now that most of these things are still different amongst different ethnicities that exist in Muslim Pakistan. Yes, I agree with you. The reason for this is our mistakes in the last 59 years. Please refer to "Recommendations" portion of my article at the end of this discussion.
3. MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT IQBAL & JINNAH
It is really sad to see that Pakistanis are themselves highlighting the misconceptions about our founding fathers Iqbal and Jinnah. It is rubbish to even think if they ever drank, had girl friends, etc. please let me remind you all that they have done us a great favour by creating Pakistan. And this fact is alone enough for us to hold them in highest esteem and reverence. First of all, we have no right to discuss their personal issues or their habits. Never had they ever liked to share the same with any one, nor does any one of us would like to share our such issues with other. Let me ask you these questions; didn't you ever wanted to have a girl friends, didn't you ever open any porn site on the net, didn't you ever watch any dirty discussion or program on your TV, if you ever had an open opportunity to drink wouldn't most of you do it? Look these are all our personal matters, which we hate to share with others. All of us have these dark shadows in our personalities and still we consider ourselves to be great in our professions, our life, and above all great "PATRIOTS" and great "Muslims". This is because we are ordinary human beings, we are not prophets, and we are not angels. So were our Great leaders and founding fathers of our nation. Wasnât Gandhi like this? what about Nehru? and Mountbatten? And what about Clinton, Prince Charles, Former English Royal Family members, Saudi Kings, Mughal Emperors, infact you may look around your own family???? Can we doubt your own patriotism as well? Look these things have nothing to do with an individual's capability of being a leader or a patriot. I hope i have been open enough to settle this issue.
4. UNITED INDIA
Well, people in my opinion India should better change its name to "Union of Indian States" or "Indian Subcontinent". This would still not be enough for its people to trace their "united history". India had never been a single independent country, never ever in the history has this happened. It is only 59 years old story, and i don't think that it is popular or strong enough to continue in the same status for the next 59 years. You should know about the separatists movements by Buddhists in the East, Tamils in the South, Sikhs in the West, Jains and Christians in Goa, Muslims in the Held Kashmir in the North. I doubt if they could ever merge all these religions to strengthen their hold on land that has been artificially sewn by British as India.
5. INDIAN MUSLIMS
Let me remind of a historical fact. At the time of creation of Pakistan it was open for the Indian Muslims to travel to Pakistan and select it as their homeland forever. A large population of Muslims as a result migrated to Pakistan (the then present Pakistan & Bangladesh). Why then did many other decide not to shift here? It was merely their own "PERSONAL DECISION" and their preference to stay in India for the rest of their lives. They not just pledged their loyalty to India but also happily sang "Vande Matram" in praise of their homeland India. Not just this, but they very happily agreed to raise Indian flag every year on 15th August. ARE THEY STILL PAKISTANIS? Have they ever supported Pakistan when they come on International Media, have they ever raised a Pakistan flag on a day of cricket match in India between Pakistan and India. Wake up People!!! What has happened to us? Those people decided to remain Indians by their own choice. They are NOT PAKISTANIS. Why couldn't they sacrifice their farmlands, factories, businesses, etc in support of Pakistan, when Millions of others did so in 1947? And now they talk about "betrayal". How dare they now exploit us over their fate when it is a result of their own actions and preferences? Now for us, they are just like our Muslim brethrens in other countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Afghanistan, Iran, and Lebanon. FOR GOD SAKE THEY ARE NO MORE PAKISTANIS (and how could they be when a number of them are enrolled in Indian Army and slaughtering our men on the border). WAKE UP NOW. And GROW UP, our country is 60 years old. These childish things no more suit us... They are only Indian Muslims, a minority in a Hindu country.
6. MISTAKES OF 1971 WHICH ARE STILL CONTINUING
Soon after the creation of Pakistan, âEthnic Groupsâ posed the biggest threat to its existence within the country, as well as "PROVINCIALISM". These threats still continue and not a single sincere step has ever been taken in Pakistan to counter it. On the other hand India and the West are exploiting these weaknesses of Pakistan, and airing it further by supporting provincial autonomy. Any attempt, which is ever taken by any one to consolidate Pakistani culture and the nation as a whole, is viewed by the West "deliberately" as "HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS". Our people are so innocent that they easily fall a prey to Western rubbish philosophies. Any one of you who has seen the article by American Strategic Analyst "Ralph Peter" regarding "New Middle East" would no doubt agree with me that we need to take serious steps to finish provincialism. It was this enemy that actually resulted in the split of our motherland in 1971 and creation of Bangladesh. Most of our leaders after the death of Quaid were American implants in our country. They could never solve this problem, as it was not the "will" of our new American Rulers. Simple, Why would America or West want Pakistan to be strengthened and strong? They wanted to deep-root this problem to create further problems in Pakistan so that we never find a way out of our internal weaknesses.
Provincialism created distrust amongst our people, which resulted in a race for rights amongst provinces. Bengalis, Punjabis, Pathans, Sindhis and Baluchi came up as major ethnic groups amidst which Pakistan was buried. Each Province wanted to rule the country. Each province considered itself to be strong enough to survive itself. Each wanted to highlight its own culture. And amongst all this they forgot that "WE ARE ALL MUSLIMS" & "WE ARE ALL PAKISTANIS" & "WE CAN ONLY PROSPER AND SURVIVE IF WE STAND UNITED". The problems were further enhanced by the lack of Patriotic leadership. All these weaknesses gave India a chance to "Slap" us on our faces in 1971, and we, because of our own mistakes lost half of our country. It seems like we as a nation have still not learnt a lesson. Do we need another "Slap" to wake us up? We can never solve our Economic, Political & Social problems until the "Evil Provincialism" lives in our hearts. PLEASE WAKE UP --- OUR ENEMIES ARE ALL READY TO SLAP US --- OUR RESPECT LIES IN OUR UNITY --- WE CAN NEVER SURVIVE AS INDEPENDENT PUNJAB SINDH SARHAD OR BALUCISTAN --- LEARN A LESSON FROM THE CURRENT SITUATION OF BANGLADESH, IT IS ALL IN RUINS.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
It is high time for us to WAKE UP and UNITE as a "PAKISTANI NATION". We can all do it and believe me we would never ever regret our unity. In my opinion we need to promote following measures IMMEDIATELY in our individual capacities as well as collectively as a NATION
A Pakistan is geographically a large country therefore in my opinion "four" provinces are inadequate to solve our problems and promote economic development in all regions. Besides, "Provincialism" has already done us irrepairable damage. In my opinion it is high time to "GRANT PROVINCIAL STATUS TO DIVISIONS". In this way Pakistan can have 34 Provinces. These provinces would not only be administratively manageable but all weak to demand independence or survive independently. This attempt, on one hand would kill Provincialism, and on the other hand strengthen Pakistan politically. There would be no large ethnic group in the shape of Punjabis Sindhis Pathans or Baluchis. This would, no doubt, increase Grouping to 34 in number, but these groups would not be Ethnic based, and neither would they be strong enough to threaten the Federation.
B There is a great need to promote patriotism in Pakistan. For this purpose, "Cultural Integrity and Patriotism Programs" should be launched immediately after the Division of Provinces. A Basic ingredient of this program should be "INTER-ETHNIC MARRIAGES" in Pakistan. By this concept I mean, that a Pushto speaking to marry a Sindhi speaking person, or a Punjabi speaking to marry a Baluchi speaking person, or a Sindi speaking to marry a Punjabi speaking person, etc. this all to be facilitated by the will of people as well as incentives by the Government of Pakistan in shape of Financial grants to such couples, Government jobs, tax relief, Housing facilities to such couples, etc.
This can result in great National "Advantages". First of all, the children born out of such marriages would be free from any provincialism, and they would be the true Pakistani Race. Secondly, these people would never think about independence of any province from Federation of Pakistan because their roots would be split in that case. Thirdly, these people instead of using their regional languages as a means of communication would prefer to use URDU as their basic language. Instead of wearing regional clothes they would prefer to have a more "national outlook" to satisfy their parents. In large, it would completely revolutionize our society and give birth to a Strong and United "PAKISTANI Society".
C Besides the above measures, the Government would need to mix Pakistani people in all provinces in order to create "ONE CULTURE" for Pakistan. In this regard the Government should plan "ANNUAL INTER-PROVINCIAL HOUSING ALLOCATION PROGRAM". This could be done through Housing Departments such as PHA, etc. People of all the 34 provinces should be free to live anywhere and everywhere within Pakistan. This can only result in Unity amongst our great people.
D Promotion of Urdu as a National Language would be an automatic result of the above measures. Still, more research is needed in inventing Urdu equivalents of English words in science, economics and accounting â related subjects.
E Construction of major âNational Monumentsâ is very essential in the strength of any nation. It should be undertaken in Pakistan.
Once we are all united as âPAKISTANIâ we can better face other problems. Our unity could be our engine or Economic Prosperity as we would no longer fight on issues of Dams or Road, etc. Only then can we have a Federal Government that represents us all. And only then can we have strength to Slap other nations who have slapped us in our weak times.
PLEASE THINK ON THIS ISSUES, MAKE OTHERS THINK ABOUT IT, DISCUSS IT OPENELY AS IT IS RELATED TO âOUR OWN FUTURE AS A NATIONâ. I REQUEST YOU ALL TO HELP ME PROMTE IT. WE CAN ALL DO IT INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY. MAY PAKISTAN LIVE FOREVER. MAY IT LIVE EVER AFTER. âPAKISTAN ZINDABADâ âPAKISTANI ZINDABADâ.