Pakistans justification

[khyaal]

After the fall of Dhaka due to the popular uprising of Bengali nation the Western part of the erstwhile Pakistan lost even the justification to keep the remaining part as Pakistan. The independence of Bangaldesh invalidated the very premise, i.e., Two Nation Theory, on which Pakistan had been founded (though with the connivance of the British).

After that event West Pakistan must have refreshed its mandate to legitimize its existance since Pakistani was/is not a natural unit, it is a federation and federation requires the voluntary participation of the federating units, while the history of Pakistan shows that it occupied half of Afghan land in 1947 and the Qalat States Union, the Baloch historical land, in 1948.

So in my view let aside the issue of name, Pakistan's very existance has been turned illigitimate by the indepence of Bangaldesh for all the nations now trapped in Pakistan.

I'm waiting for any contribution to this thread.

[khyaal]

LOL. complete silence. Come on luffy, the house negoe, I'm waiting for you.

[khyaal]

Monkey d luffy! I'm waiting for your reply.

[fzpz]

You should definitely present your case to an actual court, instead of a 'forum', because it makes too much sense. I can't believe the UN or the International Court of Justice hasn't brought this up to people that are smart and actually matter. The punjabi isi probably controls them!

[khyaal]

You should definitely present your case to an actual court, instead of a 'forum', because it makes too much sense. I can't believe the UN or the International Court of Justice hasn't brought this up to people that are smart and actually matter. The punjabi isi probably controls them!

Look your able advocate Mr.Jina without spending an hour in prison earned you a country [LOL] but you all are so idiots that you couldn't liberate a single village of Kashmir from India let alone the rebellion of the cheap Bengalis. LOL

Why, btw, don't you go to the UN court of Justice to liberate kashmir. You punjabis have a very strong case to win it,

[Michin Khel]

Mr.khyal i am speechless, i have no answer for your strong question. I would think of an answer.
You are right ,two nation theory on the basis of which pakistan is created, has become invalid after fall of dhaka.

[fzpz]

Look your able advocate Mr.Jina without spending an hour in prison earned you a country [LOL] but you all are so idiots that you couldn't liberate a single village of Kashmir from India let alone the rebellion of the cheap Bengalis. LOL

Why, btw, don't you go to the UN court of Justice to liberate kashmir. You punjabis have a very strong case to win it,

No, just pashtun tribals invaded and liberated a good chunk of Kashmir for Pakistan. Hand in hand with the Gilgitis and Baltis. Pak already has got the important part, the part where it has access to China and cut off Afghanistan from Indicland.

Pakistan doesn't have to worry about the liberation of Kashmir, the Kashmiris do. Go argue with them with what they want.

Btw, doesn't the justification for loy afghanistan go to holes since non-pashtuns hate afghanistan and the vast majority of pashtuns want no part of it? Or better yet, the existence of afghanistan is highly objectionable in a court of reason since the majority of the people it is named after (afghans), are proud pakistanis?

[pir_Rokhan]

Luffy
I know Pashtuns are working for Pakistani agencies and forces due to poverty or ambitiousness but the questions raised by Khyaal atleast refutes any moral or ethical justification for any Pashtun to work for their enemies as the very existence of Pakistan is contraversial and this is not due to some nationalism but due to historical reasons like the ones mentioned above by Khyaal.

I add another one which I have been emphasising. Even if Pakistan existed ever since till now , the very intrinsic contradiction within the state structure of Pakistan will tear it apart. This will also be the result of a historic process which Pakistan is passing through.

[Shehbaz Khan]

Luffy Pakhair!!

Khayaal, Do you know who was the first one to raise this question or give this statement? It was the Indian Prime Minister at that time 'Mrs. Indira Gandhi'.

Now, how can you define the two nation theory? Plus if you read the Allahabad address of Allama Muhammad Iqbal he never demanded one state? He said that the Muslim majority areas should be separated from the Hindu Majority areas.

Plus a very important point, What was the reason of the Separation of East Pakistan? It was not like they didn't believe in the Two Nation Theory? Or they thought that we are not one nation? It was that their rights were not given and they were mis-treated. So in the creation of Bangladesh there was no blow to the Two Nation Theory

[Michin Khel]

Two nation theory did'nt mean that all muslims had to accomodate in one country, if we go by your logic one can also refute two nation theory on the basis of presence of more muslims in india than pakistan.
In 1940 resolution, on the basis of which pakistan has been created, it was decided independant "muslim states" should be created in westren and eastren india, bengalis stressed on that point during their movement.

[Shehbaz Khan]

^ Exactly

[fzpz]

First of all, there was no two-nation theory from the perspective of the muslims in south asia, it's a self-made term by the indics. Just wanted independent and free muslim states, and that's what you have in pak and bangla.

Second of all, bangla is still adhering to the independent muslim state principle laid out by muslim leaders. By your own logic, bangla would have had to become part of indicland for the 2nation theory to be refuted.

[Michin Khel]

^It was too childish

[Babadung]

Here is another question...the idea behind creation of a country for Muslim of Hindustan was to safeguard them from Hindus who according to Jenah were distinct from Hindus. What were the idea for occupation of Afghan land and being successor of British Raj Muslim Afghans?
The Pashtun tribes are slowly understand the game that Pakis are playing to kill Afghans. Once this happens then the momentum will shift the other way and the poor pr*icks in Islamabad might as well sell their homes and go open up a corner store somewhere in London.
Pakistan is on it's way to becoming a name of a transitional "nation": for a period of approximately 70 years Pakistan encompassed Pasthuns, Balouchis, Sindhis, Seraikis, Kashmiris and Panjabis who had once been a part of "India".

Now these people will put in the past their "Pakistan" identity, like they put in the past their "India" identity and will find ways to find their own identity as ethno-nations.

The Panjabi-Pakis will see their undeserved dominance over other people come to an end. Seventy years of dominance only gave them swelled heads, lying tongues, and an appetite for regional hegemony and underhanded terrorism. Truly they are an undeserving lot.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

Luffy Pakhair!!

Khayaal, Do you know who was the first one to raise this question or give this statement? It was the Indian Prime Minister at that time 'Mrs. Indira Gandhi'.

Now, how can you define the two nation theory? Plus if you read the Allahabad address of Allama Muhammad Iqbal he never demanded one state? He said that the Muslim majority areas should be separated from the Hindu Majority areas.

Plus a very important point, What was the reason of the Separation of East Pakistan? It was not like they didn't believe in the Two Nation Theory? Or they thought that we are not one nation? It was that their rights were not given and they were mis-treated. So in the creation of Bangladesh there was no blow to the Two Nation Theory

First of all, why hasn't the 1940 resolution been implemented? From Jinnah till today, the very document that the initial supporters of Pakistan wanted did not get. Where was it? Second of all Iqbal did not entirely say that. Read up a little more.

The very fact that they broke from the state that represented one of the two nations puts that theory under scrutiny. What bangladesh showed was that the two nation theory was not viable and that even being muslim they were a different nation than what was known as "Pakistani". It was supposed to be that the muslims of india were a distinct group with their own culture, history and norms and that would bind them. Politically this would keep them at bay from the majority hindu population. Clearly this didn't happen and Bangalis despite being overwhelming muslim in East Bengal opted to secede. They in principle did not adhere to the ideaological and state grounds of Pakistan. This is so basic. There are so many other key bones to pick with the "theory" that little kids could intuitively pick it up.