05-01-2008, 01:00 AM
WHY WE CREATED PAKISTAN?
http://rupeenews.com/2007/11/27/why-we-cre...istan-ideology/
Pakistan exsited 5000 Years ago as the IVCOn 16th of October, the Turkish Prime Minster went to the Turkish nation and asked them âwhen we needed them, the Pakistani Muslims were there for the Ottoman âkhilafatâ, today your brothers and sisters need you in their hour or needâ. From across the great nation of Turkey, school girls, and old men, student and professionals gave and gave and gave. Turkey became the largest donor for the Earthquake relief.The 5000 year old ancient trade routes between Pakistan and China are being revived with modern freeways that were ocnstructed 20 years ago. 5000 years ago the Harrappan Pakistanis were trading with the Chinese
The Pakistan Ideology
âPakistanâ existed 5000 years ago. It was not called âPakistanâ. China 5000 years ago was also called something else. Egypt 5000 years ago was called something else.Pakistan//www.moinansari.wordpress.com
by
Moin-Ansari
Updated on March 16th, 1996 and Reformatted March 23rd, 2008
When there are problems in Pakistan many look at the government and think of the present administration in power as the state. While the head of every government boldly declares âLe etat câest moiâ (I am the state), all of us who are disenfranchised, suppressed, and repressed need to take a cold hard look at the government. We should understand the difference between he government and the state. The government could be evil but the state of Pakistan does not belong to the government, the state of Pakistan belongs to the people of Pakistan, it belongs to us.
Neither the strife in FATA, nor the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, nor the externally sponsored hooliganism and killings in Swat that have become the hallmark of todayâs news, nor the band of marauders and mercenaries that infiltrate our borders to create malaise and mayhem in our land, can detract us from remembering the anniversary of the day that we decided to create a land for the Muslims of the subcontinentâa land we later named Pakistan.
This salute is dedicated to the 1200 men and women who died defending our borders as well as the thousands who were innocent victims of aggression on our shores. In-spite of the murders, and in-spite of the bombs, life in Pakistan goes on, and the Crescent and the Star flutters high on our sky scrapers and pulsates proud in our hearts. Let this anniversary of our Lahore resolution be a lesson to our enemies, that we remember our dedication to our cause, and promise to keep the dream of our fathers of our nation, Jinnah, Liaqat-Ali Khan and Iqbal alive.
We remember the 1 million lives lost in creating a country, and also rededicate ourselves to the fact that âPakistan manzil nahin, Nishan e Manzil haiâ. Thatmanzil was defined by Iqbal, Liaqat, Jinnah and many others who carry the banner in the land of the Crescent and Star. Despite some impediments we have not lost track of the âmanzilâ.
\'India is no more a country than the Equator\'.Winston Churchill
âIndia is no more a country than the Equatorâ.Winston Churchill
British Empire The British Indian Empire included Iraq, Aden, Somalia, Burma, and more than 500 states of the Subcontinent
British Indian EmpireThe British Empire spanning continentsSubcontinent in 1857Pre Sepeartion map of the Subcontinent
The Muslim majority areas of the Subcontinent should have been part of Pakistan. Many Muslims wanted to stay and fight in the âDarul Harbâ âtill it was changed to âDarul islamâ. (notice islam with lower case âiâ which depicts islam=peace). The Quaidâs vision was to separate based on demographics. Separation should have been based on this map
Patel and others cheated us out of a real separation.
The more then 500 independent princely states of the Subcontinent
The more than 500 states in the Subcontinent Princely states
The State of Hyderabad wanted to stay independent after 1948 but was run over by Patel
Hydrabad state wanted to stay independent
The Princely state of Bombay PresidencyBaroda state
The Princely state of BarodaBombay Presidency
Before separationchaudhy-rehmat-alis-pakistan-plan-1940.jpg
Map of India and Pakistan After separation
Pakistani flagTHE PAKISTAN RESOLUTION OF 1940: The Lahore Resolution (later known as the Pakistan Resolution) The Lahore resolution moved by Fazlul Haq at the 27th Session of the All India Muslim League, at Lahore on March 23, 1940 stated:
Lahore Resolution Minar e Pakistan or Yaadgar e Qarardad e pakistanâthat geographically contagious units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted, with such territorial adjustments as may be necessary, that the areas in which the Muslims are in a majority, as in the north-west and eastern zones of India, should be grouped to constitute independent states in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.â
AIML session 1936The All India Muslim League session of 1936
1938 RESOLUTION ASKED FOR SEPARATION:Even earlier in 1938 Sir Abdullah Haroon moved a resolution for establishing independent Muslim states in the north-west and eastern zones. The word states continued to be used in subsequent sessions of the All India Muslim League till about 1943. Originally the two zones were meant to be autonomous and sovereign and it was only when the British and the Hindus insisted that Punjab and Bengal were to be partitioned that Pakistan began to be talked about as one state.
What is the Two Nation Theory exactly? The moniker ââtwoâ ânationâ âtheoryââ is a misnomer. The theory of nationalities states that âIndia does not have a homogeneous populationâ. There are many racial, ethnic and linguistic groups in India. India is not a national state, India is not a country, but a sub-continent composed of ânationalitiesâ. The two nation theory clearly states that that there are several nationalities in the subcontinent, and the Hindus and the Muslims are the largest of the two nations. Hindus and Muslims are different therefore Muslim majority areas must exist separately. Chaudry Rehmat Aliâs âPakistan proposal asked for SEVERAL MUSLIM STATES in the subcontinent.â
Chaudhry rehmat Ali asked for the Muslim majority areas to be seperated from the rest of states.Chaudhry rehmat Ali Now or NeverThis is what we asked for.
We were cheated out of this.The two nation theory enunciates that the subcontinent is made of several nationalities, the Hindus and the Muslims being the largest of the two. India is as big as Western Europe and contains many many racial, religious, linguistic, and ethnic groups. The Hindus and the Muslims are two separate nations, in terms of diet, attitude, social behavior, economic tendencies, social interaction, behaviors, and attitude.
ANALYSIS OF THE TWO NATION THEORY:
The two nation theory enunciates that the subcontinent is made of several nationalities, the Hindus and the Muslims being the largest of the two. India is as big as Western Europe and contains many many racial, religious, linguistic, and ethnic groups. The Hindus and the Muslims are two separate nations, in terms of diet, attitude, social behavior, economic tendencies, social interaction, behaviors, and attitude.
According to many Pakistanis âThe two nation theory did not solve all the problems of the subcontinent. However it did save 200 million Muslims (those emancipated in Pakistan and Bangladesh) from social economic and political servitude. The servitude is proven by the decadent condition of Indian Muslims in a âsecularâ Indian state. Perhaps it sacrifices 150 million Indian Muslims. But the alternative was 450 million Muslims in servitude.â âSecularismâ in âIndiaâ means âHinduism Light.â
Nationhood is defined as the tendency of a nation to exist. No two nations have the same reason to exist. USA and Canada exist separately, though you may think that both nations have English speaking population, with similar accents, similar religions, similar culture, similar economic structures, and similar racial and ethnic backgrounds. Do you hear America question the validity of Canada to exist. I believe that the USA has the power to take over Canada, if it really wanted to. BUT the USA recognizes the right of the Canadians to exist separately.
Pakistan before separationTHE TWO NATION THEORY & THREE STATES: The Two Nation theory cannot be debunked because there are more then one Muslim country in the subcontinent. The Hindu nation lives in more than one country (India, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, Burma, Sri Lanka, Laos, Cambodia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Bangladesh). The Chinese nation lives in several states (Taiwan, China, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia). Similarly the Muslim nation (transcending all racial, ethnic, caste and linguistic boundaries) can live in several states. There are several Arab Muslim countries too. The country of Pakistan as a unified Muslim country in the subcontinent was actually asked for the Bengali nationalists. Jinnah acquiesced.
The âNationalisticâ Indian attitude towards the TNT: Many modern Indians have a what Pakistanis consider a âstrangeâ attitude. Pakistan should not exist, because it would be better for Indian Muslims, better for Indian Hindus, better for Pakistanis. Pakistanis ask âHow do they know it would be better for us?â And who are they to judge our feelings, and tell us what is better for our nation?â If a nation is defined âas a tendency of a people to seek a countryâthen the Muslims of the Subcontinent are a nation. They point out to one insignificant point or the other in Pakistan to devalue the âraisan dâetreâ of Pakistani nationhood. This attitude spell perpetual warfare.
PAKISTANI NATIONHOOD: Pakistanis justify the existence of the country by explaining that âIndia was never ONE NATION. India is as big as Western Europe and has more nationalities than Europe. The subcontinent has always been a conglomeration of states and nationalities. If one looks at the âIndianâ map during the Mughal era, or during Vikramadatyaâs era, one will see dozens, sometimes hundreds of STATES. Pakistanis believe that âAkhand Bharatâ was a figment of the imagination of Gandhi and the Jan Sangh. Just because the British called it India, does not mean that it was one nation ever or will be one nation ever.â
Plutarch expressed this sentiment well some centuries ago: âA conqueror is always a lover of peace. He would like to make his entry into your cities unopposed.â Does India talk peace in the Plutarchian sense?
SUMMARY AND ABSTRACT ON SOUTH ASIAN SCHISMS
This article presents the arguments of political stratification and nation forming that were in the air in the Forties. The arguments against the Subcontinental nationhood are discussed at length. The arguments for a Pakistani nation are analyzed in depth. Arguments from both sides are presented and refuted.
The history of the creation of India and Pakistan is not always in teleological progression. We have lost a lot of history by tracing our history by traveling through chronological diaries and self aggrandizing biographies. Neither Pakistani nor Indian history books have done an adequate job of tracing our roots. Neither explain âpartitionâ properly.
The Pakistani text books ignore Hindu contributions to our common struggle against colonialism, and seem ashamed of the common lineage with Hindusâ(Indus Valley, Buddhism), Pakistani historical narratives underplay the role of the nationalist Indian Muslim leadership, Jauhar, Azad and Suhrawardi, and over emphasize the importance of the RSS and Jan Sangh. Pakistani textbooks ignore the Sufi contributions to our struggle of independence and restrict discussion of Sufiism to Shah Waliullah and a few others.
The Indian textbooks fail to see the Pakistan movement as a provincial and minority rebellion against the Nehruite Marxist-Leninist Federalism that was the hall mark of the INC. The Indian textbooks fail to mention the three wings of Congress, the Nehruite secular wing led by Nehru, the fundamentalist and communal wing led by Rai, the religious wing led by Gandhi, and the extreme nationalist wing led by Patel. The Bharat text books fail to recognize that fact that Gandhi was and was seen as a religious leader by the minorities and by a large section of the Hindu populace. The Indian text books over glorify many Hindu periods, fail to mention the Hindu Buddhist wars, diminish Brahamanism and Brahamanic cruelties towards non-Brahmans, relegate the Mughal era to the greatness of Akbar, ignore the Hindu communal organizations, demonize Muslim leaders who differed with Gandhi, brand secular and moderate Muslim leadership of the Muslim League as communal leaders, overlook the frailties of the INC leadership that led to the Hindu-Muslim schism, and fail to recognize the radical non-secular part of the Congress that scared the minorities.
The Indian textbooks neglect to mention the accomplishments of the Muslim League Muslim leadership that tried to safeguard the interests of the Indian Muslim minorities by fighting for separate electorates for the Muslims, and tried to guarantee the rights of the minorities through the Cabinet Mission Plan and by demanding one third of the representation in parliament. This ingenious plan would have guaranteed a fair and equitable settlement. However vested interests in the INC would not allow this.
The article has some in-bred biases towards the Pakistani point of view. No apologies are given for this slant. The purpose of the article is not convince people, simply to present facts and analysis.
http://rupeenews.com/2007/11/27/why-we-cre...istan-ideology/
Pakistan exsited 5000 Years ago as the IVCOn 16th of October, the Turkish Prime Minster went to the Turkish nation and asked them âwhen we needed them, the Pakistani Muslims were there for the Ottoman âkhilafatâ, today your brothers and sisters need you in their hour or needâ. From across the great nation of Turkey, school girls, and old men, student and professionals gave and gave and gave. Turkey became the largest donor for the Earthquake relief.The 5000 year old ancient trade routes between Pakistan and China are being revived with modern freeways that were ocnstructed 20 years ago. 5000 years ago the Harrappan Pakistanis were trading with the Chinese
The Pakistan Ideology
âPakistanâ existed 5000 years ago. It was not called âPakistanâ. China 5000 years ago was also called something else. Egypt 5000 years ago was called something else.Pakistan//www.moinansari.wordpress.com
by
Moin-Ansari
Updated on March 16th, 1996 and Reformatted March 23rd, 2008
When there are problems in Pakistan many look at the government and think of the present administration in power as the state. While the head of every government boldly declares âLe etat câest moiâ (I am the state), all of us who are disenfranchised, suppressed, and repressed need to take a cold hard look at the government. We should understand the difference between he government and the state. The government could be evil but the state of Pakistan does not belong to the government, the state of Pakistan belongs to the people of Pakistan, it belongs to us.
Neither the strife in FATA, nor the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, nor the externally sponsored hooliganism and killings in Swat that have become the hallmark of todayâs news, nor the band of marauders and mercenaries that infiltrate our borders to create malaise and mayhem in our land, can detract us from remembering the anniversary of the day that we decided to create a land for the Muslims of the subcontinentâa land we later named Pakistan.
This salute is dedicated to the 1200 men and women who died defending our borders as well as the thousands who were innocent victims of aggression on our shores. In-spite of the murders, and in-spite of the bombs, life in Pakistan goes on, and the Crescent and the Star flutters high on our sky scrapers and pulsates proud in our hearts. Let this anniversary of our Lahore resolution be a lesson to our enemies, that we remember our dedication to our cause, and promise to keep the dream of our fathers of our nation, Jinnah, Liaqat-Ali Khan and Iqbal alive.
We remember the 1 million lives lost in creating a country, and also rededicate ourselves to the fact that âPakistan manzil nahin, Nishan e Manzil haiâ. Thatmanzil was defined by Iqbal, Liaqat, Jinnah and many others who carry the banner in the land of the Crescent and Star. Despite some impediments we have not lost track of the âmanzilâ.
\'India is no more a country than the Equator\'.Winston Churchill
âIndia is no more a country than the Equatorâ.Winston Churchill
British Empire The British Indian Empire included Iraq, Aden, Somalia, Burma, and more than 500 states of the Subcontinent
British Indian EmpireThe British Empire spanning continentsSubcontinent in 1857Pre Sepeartion map of the Subcontinent
The Muslim majority areas of the Subcontinent should have been part of Pakistan. Many Muslims wanted to stay and fight in the âDarul Harbâ âtill it was changed to âDarul islamâ. (notice islam with lower case âiâ which depicts islam=peace). The Quaidâs vision was to separate based on demographics. Separation should have been based on this map
Patel and others cheated us out of a real separation.
The more then 500 independent princely states of the Subcontinent
The more than 500 states in the Subcontinent Princely states
The State of Hyderabad wanted to stay independent after 1948 but was run over by Patel
Hydrabad state wanted to stay independent
The Princely state of Bombay PresidencyBaroda state
The Princely state of BarodaBombay Presidency
Before separationchaudhy-rehmat-alis-pakistan-plan-1940.jpg
Map of India and Pakistan After separation
Pakistani flagTHE PAKISTAN RESOLUTION OF 1940: The Lahore Resolution (later known as the Pakistan Resolution) The Lahore resolution moved by Fazlul Haq at the 27th Session of the All India Muslim League, at Lahore on March 23, 1940 stated:
Lahore Resolution Minar e Pakistan or Yaadgar e Qarardad e pakistanâthat geographically contagious units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted, with such territorial adjustments as may be necessary, that the areas in which the Muslims are in a majority, as in the north-west and eastern zones of India, should be grouped to constitute independent states in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.â
AIML session 1936The All India Muslim League session of 1936
1938 RESOLUTION ASKED FOR SEPARATION:Even earlier in 1938 Sir Abdullah Haroon moved a resolution for establishing independent Muslim states in the north-west and eastern zones. The word states continued to be used in subsequent sessions of the All India Muslim League till about 1943. Originally the two zones were meant to be autonomous and sovereign and it was only when the British and the Hindus insisted that Punjab and Bengal were to be partitioned that Pakistan began to be talked about as one state.
What is the Two Nation Theory exactly? The moniker ââtwoâ ânationâ âtheoryââ is a misnomer. The theory of nationalities states that âIndia does not have a homogeneous populationâ. There are many racial, ethnic and linguistic groups in India. India is not a national state, India is not a country, but a sub-continent composed of ânationalitiesâ. The two nation theory clearly states that that there are several nationalities in the subcontinent, and the Hindus and the Muslims are the largest of the two nations. Hindus and Muslims are different therefore Muslim majority areas must exist separately. Chaudry Rehmat Aliâs âPakistan proposal asked for SEVERAL MUSLIM STATES in the subcontinent.â
Chaudhry rehmat Ali asked for the Muslim majority areas to be seperated from the rest of states.Chaudhry rehmat Ali Now or NeverThis is what we asked for.
We were cheated out of this.The two nation theory enunciates that the subcontinent is made of several nationalities, the Hindus and the Muslims being the largest of the two. India is as big as Western Europe and contains many many racial, religious, linguistic, and ethnic groups. The Hindus and the Muslims are two separate nations, in terms of diet, attitude, social behavior, economic tendencies, social interaction, behaviors, and attitude.
ANALYSIS OF THE TWO NATION THEORY:
The two nation theory enunciates that the subcontinent is made of several nationalities, the Hindus and the Muslims being the largest of the two. India is as big as Western Europe and contains many many racial, religious, linguistic, and ethnic groups. The Hindus and the Muslims are two separate nations, in terms of diet, attitude, social behavior, economic tendencies, social interaction, behaviors, and attitude.
According to many Pakistanis âThe two nation theory did not solve all the problems of the subcontinent. However it did save 200 million Muslims (those emancipated in Pakistan and Bangladesh) from social economic and political servitude. The servitude is proven by the decadent condition of Indian Muslims in a âsecularâ Indian state. Perhaps it sacrifices 150 million Indian Muslims. But the alternative was 450 million Muslims in servitude.â âSecularismâ in âIndiaâ means âHinduism Light.â
Nationhood is defined as the tendency of a nation to exist. No two nations have the same reason to exist. USA and Canada exist separately, though you may think that both nations have English speaking population, with similar accents, similar religions, similar culture, similar economic structures, and similar racial and ethnic backgrounds. Do you hear America question the validity of Canada to exist. I believe that the USA has the power to take over Canada, if it really wanted to. BUT the USA recognizes the right of the Canadians to exist separately.
Pakistan before separationTHE TWO NATION THEORY & THREE STATES: The Two Nation theory cannot be debunked because there are more then one Muslim country in the subcontinent. The Hindu nation lives in more than one country (India, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, Burma, Sri Lanka, Laos, Cambodia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Bangladesh). The Chinese nation lives in several states (Taiwan, China, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia). Similarly the Muslim nation (transcending all racial, ethnic, caste and linguistic boundaries) can live in several states. There are several Arab Muslim countries too. The country of Pakistan as a unified Muslim country in the subcontinent was actually asked for the Bengali nationalists. Jinnah acquiesced.
The âNationalisticâ Indian attitude towards the TNT: Many modern Indians have a what Pakistanis consider a âstrangeâ attitude. Pakistan should not exist, because it would be better for Indian Muslims, better for Indian Hindus, better for Pakistanis. Pakistanis ask âHow do they know it would be better for us?â And who are they to judge our feelings, and tell us what is better for our nation?â If a nation is defined âas a tendency of a people to seek a countryâthen the Muslims of the Subcontinent are a nation. They point out to one insignificant point or the other in Pakistan to devalue the âraisan dâetreâ of Pakistani nationhood. This attitude spell perpetual warfare.
PAKISTANI NATIONHOOD: Pakistanis justify the existence of the country by explaining that âIndia was never ONE NATION. India is as big as Western Europe and has more nationalities than Europe. The subcontinent has always been a conglomeration of states and nationalities. If one looks at the âIndianâ map during the Mughal era, or during Vikramadatyaâs era, one will see dozens, sometimes hundreds of STATES. Pakistanis believe that âAkhand Bharatâ was a figment of the imagination of Gandhi and the Jan Sangh. Just because the British called it India, does not mean that it was one nation ever or will be one nation ever.â
Plutarch expressed this sentiment well some centuries ago: âA conqueror is always a lover of peace. He would like to make his entry into your cities unopposed.â Does India talk peace in the Plutarchian sense?
SUMMARY AND ABSTRACT ON SOUTH ASIAN SCHISMS
This article presents the arguments of political stratification and nation forming that were in the air in the Forties. The arguments against the Subcontinental nationhood are discussed at length. The arguments for a Pakistani nation are analyzed in depth. Arguments from both sides are presented and refuted.
The history of the creation of India and Pakistan is not always in teleological progression. We have lost a lot of history by tracing our history by traveling through chronological diaries and self aggrandizing biographies. Neither Pakistani nor Indian history books have done an adequate job of tracing our roots. Neither explain âpartitionâ properly.
The Pakistani text books ignore Hindu contributions to our common struggle against colonialism, and seem ashamed of the common lineage with Hindusâ(Indus Valley, Buddhism), Pakistani historical narratives underplay the role of the nationalist Indian Muslim leadership, Jauhar, Azad and Suhrawardi, and over emphasize the importance of the RSS and Jan Sangh. Pakistani textbooks ignore the Sufi contributions to our struggle of independence and restrict discussion of Sufiism to Shah Waliullah and a few others.
The Indian textbooks fail to see the Pakistan movement as a provincial and minority rebellion against the Nehruite Marxist-Leninist Federalism that was the hall mark of the INC. The Indian textbooks fail to mention the three wings of Congress, the Nehruite secular wing led by Nehru, the fundamentalist and communal wing led by Rai, the religious wing led by Gandhi, and the extreme nationalist wing led by Patel. The Bharat text books fail to recognize that fact that Gandhi was and was seen as a religious leader by the minorities and by a large section of the Hindu populace. The Indian text books over glorify many Hindu periods, fail to mention the Hindu Buddhist wars, diminish Brahamanism and Brahamanic cruelties towards non-Brahmans, relegate the Mughal era to the greatness of Akbar, ignore the Hindu communal organizations, demonize Muslim leaders who differed with Gandhi, brand secular and moderate Muslim leadership of the Muslim League as communal leaders, overlook the frailties of the INC leadership that led to the Hindu-Muslim schism, and fail to recognize the radical non-secular part of the Congress that scared the minorities.
The Indian textbooks neglect to mention the accomplishments of the Muslim League Muslim leadership that tried to safeguard the interests of the Indian Muslim minorities by fighting for separate electorates for the Muslims, and tried to guarantee the rights of the minorities through the Cabinet Mission Plan and by demanding one third of the representation in parliament. This ingenious plan would have guaranteed a fair and equitable settlement. However vested interests in the INC would not allow this.
The article has some in-bred biases towards the Pakistani point of view. No apologies are given for this slant. The purpose of the article is not convince people, simply to present facts and analysis.