Pakistans justification

[KhalsaWarrior]

The Two-nation story has no grounding. None when more than half of the Muslims of the sub-continent in 1947 chose to reject Pakistan and stayed back in India.

[Shehbaz Khan]

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.

No body occupied any Afghan land. This land was sold by the king of Afghanistan to the Britishers and hence when the british left the sub-continent they divided the land they had into pieces for both Congress and Muslim League. And the people of KPK through a Referendum voted for Pakistan whole heartedly!!

And the rest what you said is something I am not anxious about .. You think that the people living in Pakistan will think so which has nothing to do with the facts

[Shehbaz Khan]

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.

They failed to implement it because they were unable to. It was beyond their capability. Ok, than you tell me what Iqbal said?

This is not that much basic. As you today cry about the dominance of Punjab over KPK, as they are more in numbers and hence they represent and share power more than the people of KPK. Same was the case of Muslims and Hindus, how many Prime Ministers of the Secular State of India were Muslims? from partition til now?

Plus, The two nation theory said that the Muslims and Hindus are two different nature having different norms, culture and traditions. Don't you agree to this? The creation of Bangladesh was the result of many things that were mis-handeled by Pakistan. Pakistani authorities thought of Bengalis to be some poor creatures and mis-handeled the issue, the vary same they are repeating now in Balochistan. And did Bangladesh said that it's a secular of hindu state No. It kept it's identity given to it through the Two Nation Theory. Hence the creation of Bangladesh didn't blew the Two Nation Theory!!

[Shehbaz Khan]

The Two-nation story has no grounding. None when more than half of the Muslims of the sub-continent in 1947 chose to reject Pakistan and stayed back in India.

The two Nation Theory didn't mean that Muslims of the whole world should come and live in Pakistan. Those who didn't come to Pakistan decided it themselves

[KhalsaWarrior]

The two Nation Theory didn't mean that Muslims of the whole world should come and live in Pakistan. Those who didn't come to Pakistan decided it themselves

True but it did mean that the Muslims of the sub-continent were a separate nation from the Hindu majority and need a political identity of their own. Yet half of the very same Muslims refused to move to this new nation. What would you call that if not a rejection?

[Shehbaz Khan]

^ It had many reasons and top one reason was that the Creation of Pakistan was badly opposed by Mullahs and Madrassa-e-Deoband.

Plus as I said it was everybody's own choice. Like Hakeem Muhammad Saeed came to Pakistan but his brother didn't want to leave India.

[KhalsaWarrior]

^ It had many reasons and top one reason was that the Creation of Pakistan was badly opposed by Mullahs and Madrassa-e-Deoband.

Plus as I said it was everybody's own choice. Like Hakeem Muhammad Saeed came to Pakistan but his brother didn't want to leave India.

You are missing the point here or you refuse to see it. What use is a theory if half of the people on whom its applicable refuse to believe in it?

The fact is that Hindus and Muslims had been living side by side in India for 1200 years before Jinnah and other ML leaders arrived with their Two-nation theory. And even now with all its ups and downs, Hindus and Muslims live side by side in India. If the theory would have been correct, India wouldn't have survived for 60 year after independence.

[Shehbaz Khan]

No I am not missing the point. I want to ask you something, Do you think Hindus and Muslims are one nation?

[KhalsaWarrior]

No I am not missing the point. I want to ask you something, Do you think Hindus and Muslims are one nation?

Indian Hindus and Indian Muslims are one nation. Just like a French Christian and a French Muslim.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

They failed to implement it because they were unable to. It was beyond their capability. Ok, than you tell me what Iqbal said?

This is not that much basic. As you today cry about the dominance of Punjab over KPK, as they are more in numbers and hence they represent and share power more than the people of KPK. Same was the case of Muslims and Hindus, how many Prime Ministers of the Secular State of India were Muslims? from partition til now?

Plus, The two nation theory said that the Muslims and Hindus are two different nature having different norms, culture and traditions. Don't you agree to this? The creation of Bangladesh was the result of many things that were mis-handeled by Pakistan. Pakistani authorities thought of Bengalis to be some poor creatures and mis-handeled the issue, the vary same they are repeating now in Balochistan. And did Bangladesh said that it's a secular of hindu state No. It kept it's identity given to it through the Two Nation Theory. Hence the creation of Bangladesh didn't blew the Two Nation Theory!!

If something beyond one's capacity either they are incompetent or they failed. What else would you call it then? lolzz
Shehbaz I don't agree that Indian hindus and muslims are entirely two different people for a very simple observation:
- A muslim Panjabi/sindhi shares more cultural affinity with a hindu or sikh panjabi than with a muslim baloch or Pashtun. The cultural gap between the a muslim Pashtun and a mulim Panjabi is far greater than with their hindu or sikh brethren. This is a simple negation of the two nation theory.

What are you saying at the last paragraph? It makes zero sense. If a state breaks down and leads to a creation of a new state with a separate secular identity then it is a failure of the state. What else is it? Bengalis seperation showed that muslims of the subcontinent are not one nation and their bind with the rest of Pakistan could not be maintained. It also showed that the two-nation theory is incomplete, muslims within the subcontinent do not form a single nation.

Let me ask you a simple set of questions..is a muslim panjabi culturally and by nation closer to a sikh/hindu panjabi or to a Pashtun? Is a Pashtun from Pashtunkhwa culturally and by nation closer to a Pashtun of Afghanistan or a Sindhi or Panjabi of Pakistan? Is a Bengali muslim closer to a muslim Panjabi/sikh/pashtun or hindu Bengali? What about a hindu from kerala and a muslim from Kerala?

[BLS_1919v2.0]

Indian Hindus and Indian Muslims are one nation. Just like a French Christian and a French Muslim.

Indians are not one nation anymore than Pakistan is. Hindus comprise of diverse ethnicities peoples and cultures and so do the muslims.

[KhalsaWarrior]

Indians are not one nation anymore than Pakistan is. Hindus comprise of diverse ethnicities peoples and cultures and so do the muslims.

I dont think homogeneous ethnicity is a pre-requisite for a nation. Common culture, yes. US is a prime example.

I as a Punjabi, a Jatt, a Sikh, may not have anything in common with a Tamil speaking Brahmin from Tamil Nadu, but we share a culture and set of values that is inherently Indian. And this is where the crux of my argument against the two-nation theory lies. The Muslims who left India for Pakistan shared the same cultural values with their Hindu neighbors. They were one nation with different religious, ethnic and linguistic identities.

[khyaal]

Pakistan even forcefully included the historical land of nations like Pakhtun and Baloch who were not part of the Indian Subcontinent on the pretext of two nation theory.

Once the theory got discarded by the majority Bengalis their remained no justification for the Western part which itself was comprised of four federating units.

Thus Pakistan must have refreshed the mandate it was granted by the British for the creation of a separate state in 1947. So obviously the present setup is just the de facto control of the Punjab and its military over the remaining three federating units which it has kept kept contiuing since 1971.