The Problems of minorities in Pakistan

[Toramana]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=gOMyEvNYo4A

[tor_khan]

I didn't watch all of this, but the logical question that doesn't get answered, even by the Christian guy is if Pakistan was going to break off from India on the basis of religion, then logically it could never have been a state where religion didn't matter. For Jinnah to have stated at the eleventh hour that Pakistan was supposed to remain secular, contradicts the reason for separation. If smaller religious minorities feel targeted (which they are, by all accounts) it is time to speak up, but also to take an critical and honest look at the narrative that goes back even earlier than partition. You can't get peace otherwise. What were the triggers that led to Muslims choosing to break off from India?

I have never been able to understand the logic applied by Jinnah apologists or people not daring to be critical of his choices - you can't lead a separatist movement in the name of religion and then miraculously hope to ignore it. The "secularists" are as much to blame as the militants.

[Karachi]

pakistan was founded on the basis of muslim identity and culture, rather then just the basis of islam. You see before 1947 (during the movment for pakistan) the muslim elites of cities like Delhi, Lahore etc... felt their culture and identity was under threat from the hindus, things like the Urdu language for example and many more things associated with muslims were under threat. Thats why even the muslim seculars of the time fought for a seperate muslim state, rather then staying with a hindu dominated India. Hindu nationalism at the time was very strong, thats why many muslims feared the destruction of their identity

Jinnah is a perfect example of this, he was a secular muslim, yet he strongly believed in a separate muslim state

Of course the way pakistan was made is another story, I really dont know why they separated the borders that way they did, seperating pashtuns from pashtuns, punjabies from punjabies, bengalies from bengalies, uprooting urduspeakers from their lands etc..... I really dont know why those things happened, killing so many people

[tor_khan]

^You've gone and reiterated what I have heard 1000 times before. Take Islam out of the 'Muslim' state and then explain it all again, because it still doesn't make sense.

[Karachi]

I think this may explain a bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_..._in_South_Asia

Pakistan was basically founded on the basis of muslim/Islamic nationalism. Nationalism of any kind is not necessarily associated with the actual faith, rather then the people and their culture. For almost a thousand years there was a huge division between the hindus and muslims and this is how this nationalism was formed over time

[tor_khan]

pakistan was founded on the basis of muslim identity and culture, rather then just the basis of islam. You see before 1947 (during the movment for pakistan) the muslim elites of cities like Delhi, Lahore etc... felt their culture and identity was under threat from the hindus, things like the Urdu language for example and many more things associated with muslims were under threat. Thats why even the muslim seculars of the time fought for a seperate muslim state, rather then staying with a hindu dominated India. Hindu nationalism at the time was very strong, thats why many muslims feared the destruction of their identity

Jinnah is a perfect example of this, he was a secular muslim, yet he strongly believed in a separate muslim state

Of course the way pakistan was made is another story, I really dont know why they separated the borders that way they did, seperating pashtuns from pashtuns, punjabies from punjabies, bengalies from bengalies, uprooting urduspeakers from their lands etc..... I really dont know why those things happened, killing so many people

I think this may explain a bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_..._in_South_Asia

Pakistan was basically founded on the basis of muslim/Islamic nationalism. Nationalism of any kind is not necessarily associated with the actual faith, rather then the people and their culture. For almost a thousand years there was a huge division between the hindus and muslims and this is how this nationalism was formed over time

What is 'Muslim Nationalism' when Islam doesn't recognise race or language? You've combined two contradictory concepts. My argument is the flawed logic and the continued investment in that.

It doesn't matter how 'secular' Jinnah and the Muslim elites were - the emergence of Pakistan created religious division across the Indian subcontinent and ended long-term secularism as a whole in Pakistan. You can't rally people under the name of Islam and then reject it at the same time.

Not all Muslims come under the pro Urdu/Delhi/UP banner. What does a Pashtun or Baloch have in common culturally with a Bengali or a Keralite Muslim? See already, Pakistan is divisive and we are not even talking about religion yet. But on the subject of religion, Pakistan was bound to end up a country hijacked by religious militancy because of this idea that Delhiite Muslims simply could not live with Delhiite Hindus.

[drona]

Karachi,

Before 1940s, the membership of Muslim League was solely comprised of non-practicing Muslim landed aristocracy. They had enjoyed fruits of British colonialism, who had bestowed upon them fiefdoms on which they had lorded over. They never wanted Independence from British, whom they considered taller, fairer and worthier rulers. Indeed, Muslim League consistently opposed India's independence, never took part in any agitation, or launched any significant mass movement. They were very comfortable with the status-quo.

The arrival of MK Gandhi changed everything. He transformed the independence movement from a debating society to a mass mobilization. He injected his own brand of socialism into the movement. This scared the the Muslim as well as Hindu zamindars. They knew that if British left, their titles will be abolished and land distributed amongst the poor farmers on whom they had preyed upon in the past. The Hindu feudals were complete marginalized by the Congress. However, the non-practicing Muslim feudals launched the movement for Pakistan.

Hindu nationalism at the time was very strong, thats why many muslims feared the destruction of their identity

This is false. Aside from the landed aristocracy, until 1940s, the majority of Indian Muslims as well as Muslim scholars opposed the creation of Pakistan. Even Maulana Maududi called Pakistan, Kaffiristan and Jinnah, Kaffir-e-Azam. They opposed Pakistan Movement not because they supported secularism. On the contrary, they opposed it because they genuinely believed that the Pakistan's creation would hurt their long-term objective of spreading Islam in India through Da'wah. Nevertheless, after the Pakistan movement gained momentum, majority of Muslims voted for Muslim League led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah whose slogan was pakistan ka matlab kya la ilaha illallah over Congress Party which was under the leadership of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi.

Of course the way pakistan was made is another story, I really dont know why they separated the borders that way they did, seperating pashtuns from pashtuns, punjabies from punjabies, bengalies from bengalies, uprooting urduspeakers from their lands etc..... I really dont know why those things happened, killing so many people

This is because Pakistan's creation is an accident of history. As I explained above, the Muslim aristocracy was afraid of losing their undeserved wealth, so they demanded disproportional representation for Muslims, in the legislative assemblies to preserve their privileges, anticipating that the illiterate, poor Muslim masses would be easily manipulated by the use of religious rhetoric. Thus, Pakistan Movement was meant as a bargaining chip, they had no intention of going through with it. There was no actual partition or post-partition plan. Indian National Congress called Muslim League's bluff. Jinnah called for Direct Action Day on August, 1946 as a show of strength of Muslims. Wide-spread communal riots first in Bengal, than in other parts of India, followed. From that day onwards, because of the hatred that ensued, Pakistan was fait accompali. The partition was ensured whether ML leaders wanted or not. This lack of planning is the reason why Pakistan has stumbled from one political crisis to another since its inception, and it took almost 10 years to frame Pakistani constitution (which would later be mutilated multiple times). And, unlike India, no land redistribution took place in Pakistan. The secular non-practicing Muslim aristocrats have new fiefdoms to lord over in Pakistan.


Indeed on his deathbed Mr. Jinnah admitted that he had committed a great blunder by creating a "mutilated, moth-eaten" Pakistan.

[Khostai]

The Punjabis and other Indic peopel should join Inidia again, Pashtuns and Baloch should seperate themselfs in independat states, that would be the best solution.

[Master Khan]

The Punjabis and other Indic peopel should join Inidia again, Pashtuns and Baloch should seperate themselfs in independat states, that would be the best solution.

yep that would be great, anything to get away from these people, I hate them being our leaders.

[Karachi]

What is 'Muslim Nationalism' when Islam doesn't recognise race or language? You've combined two contradictory concepts. My argument is the flawed logic and the continued investment in that.

It doesn't matter how 'secular' Jinnah and the Muslim elites were - the emergence of Pakistan created religious division across the Indian subcontinent and ended long-term secularism as a whole in Pakistan. You can't rally people under the name of Islam and then reject it at the same time.

Not all Muslims come under the pro Urdu/Delhi/UP banner. What does a Pashtun or Baloch have in common culturally with a Bengali or a Keralite Muslim? See already, Pakistan is divisive and we are not even talking about religion yet. But on the subject of religion, Pakistan was bound to end up a country hijacked by religious militancy because of this idea that Delhiite Muslims simply could not live with Delhiite Hindus.

I know, muslim nationalism is wrong, this is what i meant. also yes, i really dont know who came up with the borders of pakistan, like I said before, there was no need to divide up people for no reason, Instead I think some thing like a muslim republic with in Indian territory east of the indus would have worked. I really dont know why pashtuns, baloch and even kashmiries/dard people were included.

[Hakim Khan Urgonai]

I remember some wealthy Christian leader called J Salik or some such. He used to live 2 streets away from me in Islambad.
All the Christians from the nearby slum would go to this man for help whenever they needed anything.

[Karachi]

Karachi,

Before 1940s, the membership of Muslim League was solely comprised of non-practicing Muslim landed aristocracy. They had enjoyed fruits of British colonialism, who had bestowed upon them fiefdoms on which they had lorded over. They never wanted Independence from British, whom they considered taller, fairer and worthier rulers. Indeed, Muslim League consistently opposed India's independence, never took part in any agitation, or launched any significant mass movement. They were very comfortable with the status-quo.

The arrival of MK Gandhi changed everything. He transformed the independence movement from a debating society to a mass mobilization. He injected his own brand of socialism into the movement. This scared the the Muslim as well as Hindu zamindars. They knew that if British left, their titles will be abolished and land distributed amongst the poor farmers on whom they had preyed upon in the past. The Hindu feudals were complete marginalized by the Congress. However, the non-practicing Muslim feudals launched the movement for Pakistan.

This is false. Aside from the landed aristocracy, until 1940s, the majority of Indian Muslims as well as Muslim scholars opposed the creation of Pakistan. Even Maulana Maududi called Pakistan, Kaffiristan and Jinnah, Kaffir-e-Azam. They opposed Pakistan Movement not because they supported secularism. On the contrary, they opposed it because they genuinely believed that the Pakistan's creation would hurt their long-term objective of spreading Islam in India through Da'wah. Nevertheless, after the Pakistan movement gained momentum, majority of Muslims voted for Muslim League led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah whose slogan was pakistan ka matlab kya la ilaha illallah over Congress Party which was under the leadership of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi.

This is because Pakistan's creation is an accident of history. As I explained above, the Muslim aristocracy was afraid of losing their undeserved wealth, so they demanded disproportional representation for Muslims, in the legislative assemblies to preserve their privileges, anticipating that the illiterate, poor Muslim masses would be easily manipulated by the use of religious rhetoric. Thus, Pakistan Movement was meant as a bargaining chip, they had no intention of going through with it. There was no actual partition or post-partition plan. Indian National Congress called Muslim League's bluff. Jinnah called for Direct Action Day on August, 1946 as a show of strength of Muslims. Wide-spread communal riots first in Bengal, than in other parts of India, followed. From that day onwards, because of the hatred that ensued, Pakistan was fait accompali. The partition was ensured whether ML leaders wanted or not. This lack of planning is the reason why Pakistan has stumbled from one political crisis to another since its inception, and it took almost 10 years to frame Pakistani constitution (which would later be mutilated multiple times). And, unlike India, no land redistribution took place in Pakistan. The secular non-practicing Muslim aristocrats have new fiefdoms to lord over in Pakistan.


Indeed on his deathbed Mr. Jinnah admitted that he had committed a great blunder by creating a "mutilated, moth-eaten" Pakistan.

what is the source of the last point? i have never heard that

also what ever has happend has happend, history can not change. At that time around the independence there was a lot of fear among people, no body knew what was the future like, especially for muslims of india, so yes many hasty decisions were probably taken with out looking at the future consequences. actually to think about it, hindus got a better deal, imagine if 500 million muslims lived with in India, I can bet there would have been a civil war by now between muslims and hindus. Muslims actually lost much more because of partition of their lands

[Khostai]

^There would be no civil war, why would there be one, the muslims would be secularised like the other muslims that live in India, it would be the same India nothing more and nothing less. But I wonder if Pakistan was never created would Afghanistan be better of whith India as a neighbour, or it would be the same mess what we have whith Pakistan now.
And by the mess I mean the supporting of extremism and terrorism in Afghanistan....

[Karachi]

^ indian muslims even today are not secularized, only some city ones are. There is still a lot of division between muslims and hindus in India, this is a fact. also imagine 500 million muslims and 800 millions hindus living together, it almost seems like an impossible sort of scenario considering the violent history between the two faiths

yes afghanistan would have been of course better if the creation pakistan didn't take over previous afghans lands, like I said i dont know why it happend

[Toramana]

Bilatakalluf with Tahir Gora Ep33 - Tahir Qazi Talks About Distortion of History in Pakistan - YouTube