What is the Difference Between Nationalism & Patriotism?

[erlangner]

where does lyes the Mullah sangar?
Cheendakh pa loota okhato, kashmir ye oleedo

Nationalist, Patriot, Traitor, Member of muslimbrother hood egypt, or just a paid worker of arab nationalism using name of islam?
Will he expalin himself to the community here?

[MazloomyarMaseed]

Pashtuns are divided, Nationalism is what is needed to unite Pashtun, Islam was tried during the soviet war and we witnessed how they turned on themselves.

Islam will divide us more because not all Pashtuns follow Wahabism, so there is conflict will occur, however all pashtuns have one thing in common and thats being a Pashtun and we all speak Pushto, so why not work on it and unify pashtuns.

If some Islamic Shariat is establish and work is done to unify pashtuns in the name of Islam as tired before it will cause many big problems, one being Pashtuns will be dragged again into the chains of Arab Imperialism and Arabic will be more important than Pushto which we must prevent at all costs.

Sangar wants Pashtuns to be loyal servents of Arabs and the Saudi Establishment, They force us to accept Arab holy sites as our own and we will al direct our support to Arabs on a islamic context but however this wont help us much.

Kind Regards

[Saeed Khan]

I would say, patriotism is more evolutinary in nature, where you will have

greater cause to fight for the right of oppressed irrespective of the

ethnicity. Nationalism possess the pulling back forces to lead you to

tribalism while pariotism lead you to individualism, where biasedness

diminishes and give birth to courage and tendency to appreciate all

goodness done by human being and confront the evil ever face the

society. To achieve perfect society for huma being, we can only pick good

things and ignore or abandon bad things from our cultures.

[KhalsaWarrior]

Nationalism might be in conflict with racism Gulali.

If you think about it, too much nationalism forces the mind to be racist. it's just human nature.

Though you replied to somebody else I hope you dont mind if I reply to your post.

Your assumption is based on the premise that every nation is racially homogeneous. However, there are multi-racial and multi-ethnic nations like India, France and USA. In these countries being nationalistic wont mean I believe in the supremacy of one race over the other since there is no one race synonymous with that country.

And from what I understand about nationalism, it means placing your "nation" over other divisions. Forgive me if I chose a wrong example, but if somebody calls himself an Afghan nationalist then he sees himself as an Afghan first and a Pashtun, Tajik, Uzbek and a Hazara second.

But as the word nation doesn't always mean a defined political entity like a country, the opposite of the above can also be true. As Pashtuns or other ethnicities mentioned above are also "nations" in themselves. (I believe a matching word in Urdu is Quam.) If one says he is a Pashtun Nationalist, then that person places his ethnicity above his nation i.e. Afghanistan or Pakistan.

[KhalsaWarrior]

Khalsa,

What do you think of nationalism. Are you nationalistic?

If you mean if I am an Indian nationalist, yes I am. If you mean to ask whether I am a Sikh nationalist, no I am not. I put my country above my religion and ethnicity.

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

If you mean if I am an Indian nationalist, yes I am. If you mean to ask whether I am a Sikh nationalist, no I am not. I put my country above my religion and ethnicity.

The "Indian" image is just as old as time. And everyone from Tamils and Punjabis to Marhatis and Bengalis share it and are proud of it. Am I correct?

[KhalsaWarrior]

The "Indian" image is just as old as time. And everyone from Tamils and Punjabis to Marhatis and Bengalis share it and are proud of it. Am I correct?

You are right LZ. Though I must say there are fissures underneath the combined sense of Indianess that often rise to the top and lead to friction amongst many communities. But whats holding the country together is this very idea of "Indianess".

[KhalsaWarrior]

I wish all Afghans were like that.

unfortunately in Afghanistan we have Tajik Nationalists and Pashtuns nationalists.

This is all India and Pakistans fault.

Aseer, I am curious to know about India's role here. Though I understand the creation of Pakistan gave rise to a latent sense of Pashtun nationalism since the Pashtun homeland was divided into two. Are you referring to India's support to a predominantly Tajik and Uzbek NA against a Pashtun Taliban? Please elaborate.

[KhalsaWarrior]

Khalsawarrior,
Why did India support N.A which was obvious that they worked against Pashtuns? How do you feel about that decision?

Although I must say I am hardly an expert on issues concerning Afghanistan I'd still offer my opinion -

The answer to your first query - I think India's actions in Afghanistan uptill now were largely governed vis-a-vis Pakistan's actions. As Pakistan was supporting Taliban, which in turn was helping/supporting terrorism in Kashmir, India thought it best to oppose them. And the only way was through NA via bases(s) like Markhor in Tajikistan.

My view on it - I wont give the excuse that India was trying to free Afghanistan from the evil of the Taliban. It was a pragmatic and self-serving decision.

I get the feeling from your post that India's support to NA deepened the rift between ethnic groups in Afghanistan. At the same time, my opinion is that this wasnt India's goal as it has no enmity with the Pashtun people. Though in hindsight, your view about India increasing rifts between Afghans might be true, you would also agree that there was already a rift in place. The Dostums and the Masoods were always against the Taliban before India entered into the scene.

[KhalsaWarrior]

Khalsa, I wish to engage in many fruitful discussions with you so I can learn the Indian and Punjabi perspective on our politics. You are not alone here please feel welcomed.

Spoghmai,The lost one,sri,Indiann are just a few Indian members I can name from the top of my head.

Nazia, thanks for your words of support. I must say I have certainly felt welcomed here. And singularity of my opinions hardly prevented me from voicing them. Regardless of the number of Indians in this forum I will continue to express my views.
Cheers!

[KhalsaWarrior]

After thinking about this and pondering my thoughts I came to a conclusion that ethnic Nationalism is not beneficial.

India is fueling up Tajiks for Tajik nationalism.
Pakistan is fueling up Pashtuns for Pashtun nationalism.

They are both citizens of Afghanistan but they wont be able to bring Afghanistan any good as far as economy goes.

Jasmine, from what I have read Pakistan cannot be fueling Pashtun nationalism since Pashtun that would be detrimental to Pakistan as a nation. If you derived your views from Pakistan's support of the Taliban, I guess that is more due to geo-political and strategic purposes rather than any sense of brotherhood for the Pashtuns.

But ethnic nationalism is definitely dangerous in case of a multi-ethnic country like Afghanistan.

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

You're right, KhalsaWarrior. Pashtun Mullahism, aka Talibanization, is the exact opposite of secular, progressive Pashtun nationalism. Pakistan promotes the former and is a staunch enemy of the latter. Bachaa Khan spent his life under house arrest and Wali Khan was accused of "treason".

[Nadir Shah]

Taliban was 95 percent Pashtun, They funded them and supported them and also gave them the sense that "Look India supports Tajiks, Tajiks want to take over". Which led to an Islamic movement based on Pashtoon Nationalism.

I never mentioned brotherhood, what I mentioned was Pakistan is the main reason Pashtoon nationalism exists today. Do you disagree with me?

And it has began.

The following supports and fuels ethnic tensions,

India = Tajik
Pakistan = Pashtoon
Iran = Hazara

My apologies but you could have been more wrong. No noticable Pashtun group ever supported the Taliban. Indian support for the legitimate Afghan Government of Burhanuddin Rabbani was totally understandable as it was the recognized Afghan government.
How is Pakistan the benefactor of Pashtun Nationalism? This must be a typo.

India does not support Tajiks, it supports the Afghan Government.
Pakistan has never supported Pashtuns.
Iran is helping the Taliban because it wants the US to be mired in Afghanistan.

[Nadir Shah]

You're right, KhalsaWarrior. Pashtun Mullahism, aka Talibanization, is the exact opposite of secular, progressive Pashtun nationalism. Pakistan promotes the former and is a staunch enemy of the latter. Bachaa Khan spent his life under house arrest and Wali Khan was accused of "treason".

Malgariya, what is 'Pashtun Mullahism'?

[Nadir Shah]

Your kidding right? Nearly everyone in the South embraced and supported the Taliban and they still do. There is a reason why Kandahar is there birthplace. Land of Pashtuns right?

No I am not kidding. No Pashtun ever supported the Taliban. They accepted and complied to the Taliban under duress. Just because the majority of the Taliban were from Kandahar does not mean that the Pashtuns of the South accepted the Taliban. In any case, the number of Pashtuns that freely accepted the Taliban could not be more than 10,000. That is not enough to label a nation of 60 million as Taliban supporters.

India supported Tajiks because they were upset at there airplane that had landed in Kandahar airport. They fueled our ethnic tensions by promoting Tajik nationalism. No nothing was not a typo.

I repeat. Indian support was for the internationally recognized Afghan Government. The airplane was not hijacked by Pashtuns. If you remember Hafiz Saeed was released as a quid pro quo of the Kandahar hijacking. So the biggest beneficiary was....correct, Pakistan.

India supports Afghan govt? No, They support there own interests.

And the Indian interest lies in a strong and stable Afghan Government. Hence, the interests converge.