Sunny,
Its nice to see that some one from your age group has thought about this on quite mature lines.. (although this does not make me very old either !!)..
I agree with you all the way except for (including more provinces)
5. INDIAN MUSLIMS
It is not correct that all of the Muslims in present India could have migrated to Pakistan or Bangladesh.. that would be around 20 million muslims (the population of Muslims in Indian states)and actually adding around 50% to the population of PAKISTAN. This was not logistically possible, we had around 5 million plus people coming on to Pakistan in 1947 and that was quite a task.
ok --- but still, now those muslims who were left behind in India do not have any right whatsoever to taunt us for betraying them... and besides I didn't get your point on more provinces, do u favour or object the idea? in my opinion it is completely rational and the best possible option to curb EVIL of PROVINCIALISM.
Sunny.. after two pages of this thread and spanning some two years.. you have said the magic words
-Since Pakistan was never meant for the Muslims of Present day.. they have no right to accuse us of 'betraying' them....
On the Provinces, I agree with you we need new provinces, to break the back of ethnicity an multi nationalism that has now plagued every province of the country.
Thanks . i would like more people to come up with their constructive criticism on my ideas.
We as a nation is not being questioned, neither any Pakistani would allow this. So that is never the discussion here.
Quite unjust you had been while discussing Indian Muslims, and this depicts lack of knowledge of our youth on this subject.
Claiming that India is an un natural union of states and they would soon seperate, what do you say about Pakistan? What do we have in common except our religion.
The magic lines did not convey much of sense to me. I don't think that Indian Muslims accuse Pakistanis of betraying them, however, in my opinion they are the sufferors of this partition. They just refer this partition as unnecessary.
Your recomendations (though some of them sound pretty valid) does not seem very much practicable. And, people from minority provinces wont agree to them. The evil of provincialism has become a threat for us.
Decentralization seems one of the solutions, and this is what people of smaller provinces demad. The concept of federation like ours has become obsolete in the present world, and it is only found in kingdoms. This issue, however, is not as simple as this, and in my personal opinion its not practicable in a country like ours where human skills are in one part, majority of the natural resources are in the province with the population of just 6 million and covering 43% of the total area.
Schuaeb there is always way out... How would more provices, not be acceptable to the minorites ? when we talk about more provinces we talk about greater provincial automony as well.
First of all, I thank you for reading and pondering over this sensitive issue.
Well Schuaeb u have just contradicted your own point... if we as a nation are not being questioned, then why is it that you said
"what do you say about Pakistan? What do we have in common except our religion."
what i am trying to say is that our "common religion" can serve as a great tool in producing what i said in my article "A PAKISTANI NATION". we have never in the past tried to harness this oppurtunity.
well, as far as Indian Muslims are concerened, what do u think about people like "Javed Akhtar" (in case if you know him). he is a proud and famous indian poet who badly bashed Pakistan during Kargil War. and let me make it clear to you, he was not alone but supported by many of his fellow indian muslims.
Come on please, let go of those people, 60 years have passed, more than half a century, and god knows how many generations. Try to unite the people of existing Pakistan, instead of CRYING OVER THE SPILT MILK.
Sorry to say, but most of your criticism is only for the sake of criticism, depicting our old bad psyche, without any solid reason or suggestion.
My dear u talk of Decentralization. This is exactly what i am saying. By creating smaller provinces, you are transfering local powers to the local people. they would no longer have to travel to existing provincial capitals (which are located in a corner of each province). People of every "Division"(now dont misinterpret it, i mean administrative Division) would be able to manage their own affairs as a seperate Province.
you have said
"The concept of federation like ours has become obsolete in the present world".
First of all, this "OUR FEDERATION" system doesn't even suit our people. it only serves the interests of West. We need to change the system altogether, and create a true form of FEDERAL SYSTEM (and mind you it is not outdated, most of the Western countries including Germany, France, Italy, Switzerland, Denmark, moreso even Malaysia have identical sort of control over their administrative units).
The only point which I could derive out of your whole response was "Liberation of Provinces", which is in line with the map redrafted by Ralph Peters, except that he wants FULL LIBERATION, which could surely be the later stage of your idea. Just to open your eyes and brain i would like you to read the famous "NEW MIDDLE EAST" by Ralph Peters.
http//www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899
If we still do not wake of our lumber sleep, believe me they can succeed in turning their ideas into reality. I hope you have got my point by now.
Pracs when I said the recommendations by Sunny, rather some of the recommendations, are impracticable, I never pointed towards more creation of more provinces. However, the things are not as easily done as said. And, this concept of making more provinces is not very much new. Some of the recommendations, you would agree, are impracticable or rather humorous.
Sunny, first of all let me make things clear, don't ever imagine that I'm less Pakistani than you are, nor have any negative feelings about our homeland. Secondly, I value your comments and never take anything personal and hope that you also wont. Because if we start taking things this way this discussion will develop into a confrontation with some other objectives.
Having said "we as a nation are not being questioned" should make you believe it. I, only, meant that we are passionate people who often evaluate others with closed eyes and mind (referring to your calling India as an un-natural union of states which wont last long), while making such statement how could you forget about Bangladesh. You, perhaps, had not been through all of my posts, otherwise you had been clearer with my point.
"Crying over split milk,â I would humbly submit to this and from now onwards I won't discuss about making of Pakistan or betrayal with Indian Muslims. Let me once again make you clear about my view in this regard, that Pakistan came into being to exist and prosper until this world is there Inshallah. You are right saying that instead of discussing his we should look forward to the problems Pakistan is facing, Provincialism is ofcourse among the major issues.
The new map of Middle East by Ralph Peter, calling Pakistan, KSA and Turkey unnatural states. Giving the concept of an independent Balochistan, Kurdistan, Arab Shea State, and combined control over holy cities of Mecca and Madina. This map was originally published in American Defence Journal, later disclaimed by the authorities. This was as painful for me as for any other. How could some body question our autonomy? But dear where there is fire there is smoke. A lot was published in foreign Papers about what happened in Balochistan, and things were much exaggerated. Once again I have to emphatically state my view, I think what happened in Balochistan was necessary. However, having said by one American never means things are surely going to be like this.
Quite mistaken you were while comparing our system with that in Germany, France, Switzerland even India, and USA. That is exactly opposite. Take my lines that the concept of federation like ours is not found in the world anywhere else then Arab Kingdoms.
I would request not to take my points as criticism for the sake of criticism. Neither assume that I do not have sufficient knowledge (it may be much more than yours).
Waking of lumber sleep is the idea we both have in common, or all of our nation would say the same. But look no fruit!! Why?
Shoaib
Well, nice to hear that you are very accomodating in your analysis/criticism. i never questioned your knowledge on the issue neither did i ever say that i possess more knowledge then may be you or any one else. Of course, I cannot doubt your knowledge, you have contributed so much towards this thread.
As far as i know, Germany is practicing the same style Federal System as embodied in the Pakistani Constitution. For India and USA, they no-doubt have a State-System (and its quite different from a Centre/Federation System in numerous aspects). Besides, I have already said that the federal system actually being practiced in Pakistan is different from what is embodied in our constitution. My personal opinion is that we cannot afford to grant autonomy to provinces, as it is a sheer risk and nothing less than that.
As far as Arab Kingdoms are concerened, i personally abhore that system, particularly the one practiced in KSA. In my opinion they should even change the name, because the word "Saudi" was derived from the name of King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud , the first ruler of modern KSA.
How could a country be named after a person in modern times, and moreso, a person who's family chain has been a submissive slave of the West. In my opinion and even alot of my Saudi friends, it is high time for their country to adopt democratic values "as Enunciated by Islam". I feel very much in high spirits when my fellow Pakistanis like you say "Pakistan came into being to exist and prosper until this world is there Inshallah."
So Sunny no disagreements are there. You agreed that the federation system like we have Pakistan is not there in the countries you mentioned. Germany, you said was the single country having the same concept of federation. I don't have exact knowledge about it so I believe that what you've said is right.
Granting more provincial autonomy is a risk you mentioned, I, also, am not in much favor of it. But some solution has to be worked out as there are many people of smaller provinces who believe that Pakistan can't continue with the same system of state, this is an act of oppression with them. Example of Bangladesh is ofcourse there.
What has this democracy given us so that we may recommend the same system to others. Naming the country after a person is not something very much wrong and various other examples do exist also America, Bolivia, Washington, Faisalabad and various others.
Shoaib
Sorry to butt in here,, but I have to add my two cents here
Democracy has given us PAKISTAN, if it was not for democracy we would not have had Pakistan today. Is there an alternative (don't go down the Caliphate route here) ? who would you want in King Shariff or Queen Bhutto perhaps a JIRGA governing us all ?
what i belive that this was a ploy of british to divide and rule india.if india pakistan and bangladesh would have combined then it would have become economic powerhouse.britain,china,usa,russia,etc in developed world would have had trouble to deal with india.
in india muslims have equal oppurtunities to excell .look at Bollywood industry it is ruled by khans and indian president is muslim.But there are some clashes which happens between hindus and muslims which political parties try to use it in their own end.but these small internal clashes happen in every country which local press makes a big issue about it.
Pracs no disagreements with you. Democracy, ofcourse, the best form of government. I was talking about the kind of democracy we are having in Pakistan. One thing more I have to add here, democracy more suits a state with more aware and literate people. I don't think we are currently in a position to exercise democracy and derive results from it.
Parshant such concept of unlimited foresight, though a common perception, does not impress me very much. The plight of Muslims in India, as you mentioned, does not mention what I've heard about them. Indian Muslims are suffering, and I think we can't deny it
Shoaib
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial" id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by prashant</i>
<br />what i belive that this was a ploy of british to divide and rule india.if india pakistan and bangladesh would have combined then it would have become economic powerhouse.britain,china,usa,russia,etc in developed world would have had trouble to deal with india.
in india muslims have equal oppurtunities to excell .look at Bollywood industry it is ruled by khans and indian president is muslim.But there are some clashes which happens between hindus and muslims which political parties try to use it in their own end.but these small internal clashes happen in every country which local press makes a big issue about it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Parshant, first and fore most welcome to the forum. I think you do need to understand what the Pakistan ideology is, who are the people in Pakistan and what there history has been before you can even comment on this subject. Would be a good idea if you would read this thread thoroughly to start with.
Your mention of Bollywood and the President is quite Myopic and I will at this point in time not comment on that, Schuaeb has made quite point. Just a counter argument here.. just because the US ha had no Woman President and because India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh have all had women premiers .. deos it justify to say the Women in South Asia are more empowered ? get my drift there.
Your assumption that the partition was a fallacy and a 'divide and rule' tactic by the British has whatsoever no merit at all. We are talking about different countries here. Although I agree that the British could have done a better job by doing it right and not handing 'Kashmir' to India on a plate for that matter. The Radcliife commission and the way the boundry was changed over night is now an 'open secret'.
<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 />Pracs no disagreements with you. Democracy, ofcourse, the best form of government. I was talking about the kind of democracy we are having in Pakistan. One thing more I have to add here, democracy more suits a state with more aware and literate people. I don't think we are currently in a position to exercise democracy and derive results from it.
Shoaib
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well when you have a literate, educated and trained workforce and people every thing settles in does it not?. You are right to say that democracy may not be a 'best fit' for a country like ours, but it is the closest best. Remember that the parlimentary system of democracy that began in England did get along, trot, fell over and sort of winded down the road that it is on today when England was not exactly 'literate' and was still to some extent a 'Feudal society'. Although it does not go without saying that Pakistan and England have any similarities. They had the fortune of plundering half the world and colonising it to get where they are economically today. When you are on full stomach you can do so much more !!