Pakistan, Caste and dilemma of quislings

LordOfTheUnderworlds

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
1,299
Likes
1,379
Country flag
http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Gakhars
Gakhars
The Gakhars, (also Gakkhar or Ghakhar or Ghakkar) (Urdu: گاکھر) are an ancient aristocratic and warlike clan now located in Rawalpindi, Islamabad, Jhelum, Kashmir, Gilgit, Baltistan (Tibet), Chitral, and Khanpur (NWFP) regions in modern day Pakistan. [1] The Gakkars were one of the dominant tribal peoples who stood as the western bulwark of the Northwest fromtier territories during the first Muslim invasions into the Punjab and India.

The first written record of them has them winning from the Hindu Raja of Lahore territories in the area NWPF. This treaty assigned them the defense of Punjab and India from the earliest invasions of Islam. In the year 1008 Mahmud of Ghazni in one attack lost 5,0000 soldiers in a matter of minutes to a Gakkar attack. Eventually they were over ran and forced to convert to Islam though they maintained a certain amount of independance. For joining with Mamud they were rewarded with the Kingdom of Potohar on the Pothohar Plateau.

Later they were loyal vassals of Babur and his Mughal Dynasty.But the tide would turn against them as their territories were taken over by Maharaja Ranjit Singh in 1810. After the Death of the Maharaja and the defeats of the Anglo-Sikh wars the Gakhars were able once again to claim their pahari homelands bordering Jammu & Kashmir.

After several military attempts by the Afganis who had once ruled part of the Gakkar homelands in the NWFP, as well as much of Panjab, before the rise of Kingdom of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, a toehold was finally gained by a marriage between a daughter of Sher Ali Khan the ruler of Afganistan and one of the Ghakkar rulers Khan Bahadur Raja Jahandad Khan.
.
.

http://www.chiefacoins.com/Database/Countries/Gakhar.htm
 

LordOfTheUnderworlds

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
1,299
Likes
1,379
Country flag

LordOfTheUnderworlds

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
1,299
Likes
1,379
Country flag
From a comment by a Pakistani member in Pakistani forum.
.......... The majority of Baloch are in favour of Pakistan.
Here again comes their links with Sindh and Punjab, many tribes live on both sides of the provincial boundaries. They are rather an influential bunch in Punjab second only to Kashmiris. The Zarrani, Lashari, Leghari and Khosas etc make Punjab the largest Baloch administrative unit by population in the entire world (even larger than Balochistan) while the Jatoi, Magsi, Jamali etc form a large part of population of Sindh......

..... ( Is he in other words claiming even the Baloch are a 'master race' of Pakistan lording over Punjabi and Sindhi mussalman?)



.
.



Another comment /claim

.... Someone should also tell him that Pashtuns are infact the largest part of Pakistan's population. We shaould remember that a major part of Ethnic Punjabis are actually decendents of Pashtuns "Niazi, Alizai, Isakhelwi, tareen, yousafzai etc and recently large numbers of Afridis, Mehsood and Wazir are also settling in Punjab."
..... Just you should know that the old Punjabi tribes (Jatts, Rajputs, Gujjars) do have a soft corner for India somewhere deep inside, but the Pashtoon don't, whether they follow Pashtoonwali or not.
 
Last edited:

Nexus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2013
Messages
44
Likes
28
From a comment by a Pakistani member in Pakistani forum.



..... ( Is he in other words claiming even the Baloch are a 'master race' of Pakistan lording over Punjabi and Sindhi mussalman?)



.
.



Another comment /claim

can you pm me link of these posts bro ?
 

LordOfTheUnderworlds

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
1,299
Likes
1,379
Country flag
Ashdoc's movie review---Victoria and Abdulforum/threads/ashdocs-movie-review-victoria-and-abdul.80086

He talks about the city of Agra..... , and of the iconic Taj mahal...... and of the Mughal emperor....and kings of Persia..... the sly Abdul tries to poison the Queen's ears against the hindus of his own country by telling her that it was they who had revolted against the British empire in the mutiny of 1857 , and that it was the muslims who had helped put down that revolt . But when she tells her staff of this , they tell her the opposite........ .. he had asked the Queen to learn the urdu language rather than the hindi language.... act in a play with him playing Persian king.......... His wife and mother in law wear the head to toe burkha covering every inch of their bodies in black attire . A fundamentalist he was , what else............ diagnosed with a sexually transmitted disease---gonorrhoea........... Lies......... he has claimed to be from a family of noble origin though actually his family are just clerks........ Love jihad......
This sounds like a character of a stereotypical Pakistani, doesnt it?


But there is a twist. It is from era before Pakistan came into existence and from a land far away from what is now Pakistan.

How then we see exact same mentality and behavior in Pakistanis?

Again and again we have to come back to this psychological phenomenon:
Psychological projection
https://www.britannica.com/topic/projection-psychology
https://lonerwolf.com/psychological-projection/

But there is a twist too.
Psychology: Is there an "antonym" for psychological projection? Yahoo answers.


Antonym for projection: The psychological term is "introjection," or turning inward something that belongs outside. (As "projection" is turning outward onto others or another what properly belongs with you.)

For example, my friend has very strong religious or political views. I admire him and want to be like him. So I take in his beliefs as my own, without questioning them.

This is based on the concept of "ingestion" in which one "swallows it whole" and doesn't "chew on the idea and make it his own."

 

LordOfTheUnderworlds

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
1,299
Likes
1,379
Country flag
dailytimes.com.pk/106348/pakistan-the-apartheid

Pakistan: the apartheid hub
Kunwar Khuldune Shahid
JANUARY 4, 2014
Following Nelson Mandela’s death last month, many a Pakistani politician — past and present — has been dubbed ‘our Mandela’. While all juxtapositions were respectively incongruous on their own unique scale of absurdity, what takes the cake is the inability to perceive the irony that anyone in Pakistan can have anything to do with anti-apartheid revolution. Pakistan: it has mustered the worst kinds of discrimination from all over the globe and assembled them on its own chopping board. Pakistan: it is associated with genocides that cover as wide a gamut as possible. Pakistan: it is the undisputed hub of apartheid.

Apartheid is an Afrikaan word that means ‘apart-hood’, which is used to depict the system of racial segregation in South Africa. And while discrimination is ubiquitous all over the world, with Pakistan you get the worst of the worst in a single showcase.

Historically, Pakistan owes its existence to a sense of ‘apart-hood’. The Muslims of the Indian subcontinent refused to live under ‘Hindu Raj’ and propagated the Two Nation Theory despite the fact that the Hindus and Muslims had significantly more in common than their differences. Having ruled over the Hindus for centuries, it was inconceivable for the Muslims to exist under them. And, of course, it does not get more ‘segregated’ than existing as two separate countries.

Then we had the Bengali genocide in the lead up to 1971. The remnants of that apartheid still exist in Pakistan, with the National Assembly adopting a resolution against the hanging of Abdul Qadir Molla — a man charged with massacring 344 civilians and committing multiple rapes, including those of minors. Eleven days after Mandela’s death, the leading contender to be ‘Pakistan’s Mandela’, Imran Khan, was bellowing for the innocence of Qadir Molla — the most brutal exponent of our savage version of apartheid in Bangladesh. Irony is too small a word. In 1947, we orchestrated nationalistic apartheid. Until 1971 it was ethnic apartheid. Even so, what we seem to specialise in is social and religious apartheid.

The division of economic classes in Pakistan is well documented. However, what is not as highlighted as it should be is racial apartheid and caste-based oppression. We have the ‘kammis’, and ‘mussalis’, with the masihis, bheels, kohlis and others facing both religious and caste-based subjugation. They are more often than not deemed unworthy to share food, drink or even utensils with. They are touted as the ‘untouchables’ but not untouchable enough to not be raped regularly. Women from these castes face racial, religious and gender apartheid. As you can see, as far as apartheid is concerned, Pakistan has a blend of everything — quite often for the same individual.

Pakistan’s gender apartheid can be seen through the lens of the World Economic Forum’s Gender Gap Index 2013, where we sit pretty at the 135th spot — second from bottom. With the level of physical and sexual violence, forced marriages, karo kari (honour killings) and structural discrimination faced by Pakistani women redefining their respective nadirs on an annual basis, one actually wonders what Yemen does to its women to take the honourable bottom slot away from us. With the jirga (tribal courts) system, which sanctions honour killings and female persecution, discounted as a ‘cultural’ and ‘tribal’ matter, gender apartheid in Pakistan should continue to flourish.

We have not even factored in the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual or transsexual) community in gender apartheid yet, primarily because their existence is portrayed as the offshoot of a global conspiracy. As depicted by a loathsome private news show recently, the LGBT community in Pakistan does not even have basic human rights.

As far as religious apartheid is concerned, no one is under the guillotine as frequently as the minorities in Pakistan. In fact, here the non-Muslims are ‘fortunate’ enough to solely suffer from discrimination, bigotry and the occasional church bombing; it is the ‘heretic’ Islamic sects that suffer from the most barefaced butchery. Over 20,000 Shias have been targeted and killed since Pakistan’s inception with the likes of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) and Ahl-e-Sunnat Wal Jamaat (ASWJ) — formerly the Sipah-e-Sahaba — endeavouring day and night to ‘purge’ the land of the pure from ‘heresy’ through Shia genocide.

The Ahmedis are not only butchered when they are alive, their graves are not spared either. They were ‘officially’ declared non-Muslims in 1974 with the Ordinance XX, a decade later, debarring Ahmedis from “worshipping in non-Ahmedi mosques or public prayer rooms, performing the Muslim call to prayer, using the traditional Islamic greeting in public, publicly quoting from the Quran, preaching in public, seeking converts, or producing, publishing and disseminating their religious materials.”

Within 10 days of Mandela’s death, when tributes echoed for the former South African president from within Pakistan, our National Assembly was busy formulating the resolution against Qadir Molla’s hanging and, simultaneously, a British doctor ,Masood Ahmad, who happened to adhere to the Ahmedi sect, was being arrested for the ‘horrendous crime’ of reading aloud from the Quran.

The butcher of Mirpur was being hailed as innocent and a man became a criminal for reading the Quran; all this while Mandela’s anti-apartheid movement was being extolled. It is going to take a battalion of Mandelas to drag Pakistan out of its multi-pronged apartheids.




 

LordOfTheUnderworlds

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
1,299
Likes
1,379
Country flag
https://m.rediff.com/news/column/is-general-bajwa-ready-to-take-over-pakistan/20171024.htm

Is General Bajwa ready to take over Pakistan?
October 24, 2017

It is surprising that major events in our neighbourhood are largely ignored by our media.

One refers to the unseating of Nawaz Sharif as Pakistan's prime minister and his and his daughter Maryam's subsequent indictment on corruption charges.

Parallel with this, one has seen the military's increasing hold on the government apparatus in Pakistan.

General Qamar Javed Bajwa, the current Pakistan army chief, has publicly commented on the government's economic policies.

There is widespread speculation in the Pakistani media that the Pakistan military, always the country's behind-the-curtain ruler, may be planning to emerge from the shadows.

It is almost a cliché to say that while other countries have armies, the Pakistani army has a country. It is a little more complicated than this simplistic notion.

We need to understand Pakistan in its historical context to understand its present and predict its future. The history of a society and nation is what DNA is to an individual.

It is the lack of understanding of the Pakistani DNA that has seen Indian leaders from Jawaharlal Nehru to Narendra D Modi making periodic peace attempts and failing (remember Modi's surprise visit to Lahore on December 25, 2015).

Since the area that forms Pakistan was an integral part of India or Hindustan until 70 years ago, it is necessary to have an integrated approach to Islamic rulers.

The Muslims have a belief that that Islam is the final code of religion as revealed by Mohammed, the last Prophet. Hence, no new religion or fresh prophet is expected. Islamic tradition does not rule out the coming of mahdis (restorers) and mujaddids (regenerators).

According to tradition, the mahdi will emerge when Islam is in its last gasp in the world; he will restore the religion to its true glory.

A mujaddid is sent by Allah in times of spiritual decay and religious crisis.

In the early centuries of Islam, when Muslims faced great difficulties, the faithful in their distress looked for the promised mahdi who would dispel oppression and fill their world with equity and justice.

This desire for a promised mahdi has been successfully exploited by several imposters in Asia, Africa and Europe. In India, at different times, many imposters claimed to be the promised mahdi.

However, mujaddids have often been accepted and many have been officially listed in each century.

Sheikh Ahmad -- (born in 1563 at Sirhind in Punjab), the first mujaddid born in India -- is known as Mujaddid Alaf-I-Sani (Regenerator of the second millennium).

Historically, it is accepted that Emperor Akbar accelerated the natural process of the Indianisation of the Muslim community in Hindustan, politically, culturally and spiritually.

Akbar was the first great moderniser. But because Akbar attempted to chalk out a programme for the betterment of the community at the secular level, he was never accepted by Sunnis as a true regenerator of Islam.

On the other hand, Sheikh Ahmad is not only accepted as a mujaddid, but is also considered as the founder of the religio-political reform movement of orthodox Islam in India.

Sheikh Ahmad's mission in India, at a critical period in its history, ended Akbar's work and won over the emperor's successors to his view of orthodox Islam.

Sheikh Ahmad preached dynamic hatred against non-Sunnis in general and against non-Muslims in particular.

From that point of view, Sheikh Ahmad is the father of communal hatred, religious bitterness and fanaticism in India.

Because of his anti-Shia activities he antagonised Jahangir's Persian-dominated court which warned the emperor about the orthodox movement that could threaten his throne.

Sheikh Ahmad was imprisoned by the emperor on the pretext that he had neglected court etiquette. There were many moves to have the sheikh killed, but Jahangir saved him each time and released him after a year.

There is evidence that thereafter he functioned as Jahangir's adviser. The occasional outbursts of bigotry on Jahangir's part and his anti-Hindu sentiments and policies may be traced to the sheikh's influence on the fickle-minded emperor.

The work of rejuvenating Islam in India was continued by Sheikh Ahmad's sons and disciples after his death. One of his sons was Aurangzeb's adviser.

The puritan in Aurangzeb was not a sudden outburst based on whims, but the logical outcome of far-sighted reactionary influences.

But fanaticism is never long lasting.

Islam, like other great religions, is a product of the social malaise in which it was born. It is a moral and social system. Its moral theories are timeless and universal.

But its social codes and laws, which were conceived and meant for 7th century Arab lands, could not be valid in modern times.

Towards the beginning of the 19th century, because of the growing domination of the Marathas and Sikhs, the Muslim elite and ulema began to feel insecure.

After the Mughal army was defeated at Buxar in 1764, clerics Shah Abdul Aziz and Haji Shariatullah issued a fatwa in 1803 declaring that India was no longer Darul Islam, but Darul Harb (enemy country).

The 19th century saw the rise of the Barelvi sect in India. Sayyad Ahmed Barelvi went to Mecca in 1822 and became a 'Wahhabi'. In 1830 he returned to India and captured Peshawar. He declared a jihad against Maharaja Ranjit Singh.

Through a network of mosques and propaganda, Barelvi attracted recruits from all over the country. Even Muslims from far away Kerala joined him. Such was his appeal of jihad.

But his strict Islam was not to the liking of the Pathans. The Barakzai tribe revolted against him.

Militarily, he was no match for the Sikhs. Barelvi and his disciple Shah Mahhamed Ismail were killed in the battle of Balakote in 1831.

At that time, Muslims in some respects were culturally indistinguishable from their Hindu neighbours.

For example, the Moplahs in Travancore observed matrilineal rules of descent and the Muslims of South Canara and Coimbatore followed the Moplahs.

Hindu laws of joint family were common amongst the Khojas, Kutchhis, Halai Memons and Bohras of Gujarat.

Muslim peasants in Punjab and the 'taluqdars' in the then United Province followed Hindu laws of succession.

The Sharia was prevalent only among the Muslim elite in Delhi and north India.

The Barelvi movement marked the beginning of a deliberate move on the part of the Muslims to culturally separate themselves from the Hindus.

The British played upon this and the Lucknow pact of 1916 granting separate electorates put a seal on this artificial divide.

Apart from the cultural divide, British agents played a major role in stirring up riots. British agents were caught red handed while provoking riots in the 1930 Chittagong riots.

As the freedom struggle intensified and the Congress led by Hindus was in the forefront, the British created the Muslim League to counter this.

Pakistan was born out of this process.

Armed might or the army was at the centre of Islamic rule in India. The rest of the country existed to support it economically.

The jiziya or poll tax imposed only on Hindus was a major source of revenue, hence, there was no incentive to convert people to Islam.

Pakistan subconsciously follows the Mughal model with the army at the centre of the State.

In earlier centuries, the vast non-Muslim economic resource base provided revenue, this was no longer available in a Muslim majority State.

Luckily for Pakistan, for most of its 70 years, the US and the West with its generous military and economic aid as well as Arab countries sustained this bloated military apparatus.

The Americans found the Pakistan army a reliable tool to control the Middle East (remember Zia-ul Haq and his Pakistani brigade massacring Palestinians?).

The conditions that permitted the militarised State of Pakistan to remain afloat economically are changing.

Thanks to the rise of fundamentalism and terrorism based on Pakistani soil, the West is no longer willing to pay its mercenary army.

The meltdown in oil prices has reduced Arab oil money flowing to Pakistan.

Caught in this twin pincer, Pakistan today stares at a bleak economic future.

What we are today witnessing is the final act of the Pakistani army trying to retain its turf.

Colonel Anil A Athale (retd) is a military historian.
Colonel Anil A Athale
 

LordOfTheUnderworlds

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
1,299
Likes
1,379
Country flag
^^^^ Some people mentioned in above article:

Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi:

Sheikh Ahmad was born in 971/1563 at Sirhind. His name was Ahmad and his surname was Badr al-Din. From his father’s side, he descended from the Caliph ‘Umar............
.... (That tells about his caste.)

.
.

Sayyad Ahmed Barelvi
(name itself has caste name which claims foreign origin which in turn claims racial superiority)

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syed_Ahmad_Barelvi

http://historypak.com/syed-ahmad-baralvi/

Syed Ahmad Rai Barelvi and the 18th century mujahidin movement in the Indian subcontinent

India's First 'Jihadi Movement,' Led By Syed Ahmed Barelvi
http://www.newageislam.com/radical-...movement,--led-by-syed-ahmed-barelvi/d/108396


Syed Ahmad Shaheed Barelvi (1786–1831), belonged to Raebareli[1] in India. Raebareli was a part of historical United Provinces of Agra and Oudh.
He got primary ideological teachings from Shah Abdul Aziz in Delhi.

Shah Abdul Aziz
.... was one of the Islamic scholar scholars of Hadith in India who is considered as Mujadid of 18th century.[1] He was initiator of Naqshbandi Silsila of Sufism and first one to declare Hindustan to be Darul Harb....... Shah Abdul Aziz was the eldest son of Shah Waliullah
he along with few hundred disciples, supported by his network, arrived in Peshawar, (now in Pakistan), to establish an Islamic state among Pashtun tribes in the area.
.....................(???? Proto Pakistan :pak: ????) .........

In 1830 he started collecting Usher (the crop tax 10% of the total production) many khans became reluctant to pay this tax. This thing agitated the chiefs who formed an alliance to undermine Syed Ahmad’s power. That alliance was defeated by Syed Ahmad and he formally occupied Peshawar,
... jihad against the Sikh community...
Syed Ahmad and hundreds of his troops and followers were killed by the Sikh army in Balakot, Mansehra District in 1831, but a number of his followers survived and continued to fight on, taking part in tribal uprisings in the North-west province as late as 1897.

Syed Ahmad Rai Barelvi (1700-1850) is considered one of the early Muslim freedom fighters of India and a great reviver and thinker of Islam in the Indian subcontinent. He is popularly known among the Indo-Pak Islamic clergy and ulema as a “shaheed” (a martyr of Islam)
But it is interesting to note that a number of Indian Islamic scholars have recently noted that Maulvi Syed Ahmad 'Shaheed' Rai Barelvi was not a freedom fighter. He was actually the chief exponent of Wahhabism in India, an adherent and fervent advocate of puritanical fundamentalism and physical jihadism
Interestingly, in the beginning, he was inspired by Sufi orders and silsilahs
But after he met the Wahhabi patrons in Saudi Arabia during his pilgrimage to Mecca in 1821, he became fascinated by Wahhabism and turned into a puritanical fundamentalist and a jihadist cleric.
he is an apt example of how many Sufi Sunni scholars, who were at some time essentially inclusive because of their adherence to the Sufi orders, drastically changed their worldview and espoused exclusivist religious ideas.
After the death of Syed Ahmed Barelvi, there were Jihadi camps in India at Delhi, at Tonk in Rajasthan, and at Sadiqpur, present-day Patna, in northern India. The British rulers ignored the presence of these Jihadi camps. In fact, the Jihadi movement's later leaders did not fight against the British in the 1857 War of Indian Independence. Noorani notes that only after 1849, when the British took control of Punjab, did they begin to pressure the Mujahideen to end the jihad
The British colonial officers also turned a blind eye to the Jihadi training camps in territory under British jurisdiction, such as in Delhi, Sadiqpur (Patna) and Tonk; to the numerous speeches at religious congregations and in mosques aimed at radicalizing Muslim youths for jihad; to the bai'yahs (oaths of allegiance) openly being sworn by Muslims for the purpose of jihad; to Syed Ahmed Barelvi's and his fighters open carrying of arms; to the fact that funds were being raised from mosques, madrasas, and congregations, and so on. Noorani cites instances when British officers even offered security cover to Syed Ahmed Barelvi.

One of the key centers of jihad was Tonk state, which became a British protectorate under Ameer Ali Khan. It was under Ameer Ali Khan's irregular army that Syed Ahmed Barelvi had spent six years. The Tonk state supplied money and men to Syed Ahmed Barelvi. After Syed Ahmed Barelvi and his men were killed at Balakot, his wives and children were brought to Tonk. The reader of Noorani's book concludes that the British turned a blind eye to the Jihadi movement, even allowing the transfer of money and men to Sarhad, because it served their interest of weakening and taking control of the Sikh empire – as was realized in 1849, as noted above.

Noorani cites the cases of several Jihadi leaders, such as Maulana Wilayat Ali, Maulana Inayat Ali, Maqsood Ali, Faiyaz Ali, and others, who, after the Punjab came under the British rule, were asked by British officials to end their jihad and were rehabilitated.
The doctrinal seeds planted by Shah Ismail Barelvi left a big impact on Indian Muslims after the 1857 War of Independence against the British, Noorani states: "The madrasas that came into existence, mosques that were built, organizations and movements that were initiated, books that were written, all had the doctrinal stamp on them."
.
.
.
.
There is mention of one Tonk state in above articles.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonk_State
Tonk State
..... Originally established under the suzerainty of the Maratha Confederacy in 1806, it was the only princely state of Rajasthan with a Muslim ruling dynasty......... The founder of the state was Nawab Muhammad Amir Khan (1769-1834), an adventurer and military leader of Pashtun descent from Afghanistan. Amir Khan rose to be a military commander in the service of Yashwantrao Holkar of the Maratha Empire in 1798. In 1806, Khan received the state of Tonk from Yashwantrao Holkar.[1] In 1817, after the Third Anglo-Maratha War, Amir Khan submitted to the British British East India Company, he kept his territory of Tonk and received the title of Nawab
At the age of twenty-five, Ahmad joined a militia as a cavalry man. The militia was led by Amir Khan, in Northern India, one of the many military adventurers of this period, who had organized a body of free-floating demilitarized soldiers of the area to raid and conquer,
(i. e. The Pindaris)

After about six years of service, however, he left the militia........ Upon leaving the militia, Sayyid Ahmad returned to Delhi and visited his former teacher Shah Abdul Aziz........ endorsement by Shah Abdul Aziz only added to Sayyid Ahmad's reputation, and his popularity grew with adherents flocking to him by the thousands........
 
Last edited:

LordOfTheUnderworlds

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
1,299
Likes
1,379
Country flag
The boy and the country
Jawed NaqviOctober 31, 2017
The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Delhi
WE can take the boy out of the country. The challenge is to take the country out of the boy. Through all the decades since school and college, I have lived with a silent difference of opinion with classmates who thought much of the institutions where we studied. La Martinière College in Lucknow was built by Claude Martin and Aligarh Muslim University was set up by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. I trusted neither, but I was lucky to have great teachers on both occasions.

The reason for my aloofness was my early unease with the fact that that I was in Hodson House in La Martinière College, Lucknow. The house was named after an unspeakably callous British captain who had gouged out the eyes of the grandchildren of India’s last Mughal emperor and murdered them at Delhi’s Khooni Darwaza (bloody gate) now located near the Indian Express office. There was a Cornwallis House named after the man who was thrashed in the battle of Yorktown by the Americans. His British godfathers, however, elevated him as governor general of India.

My school’s founder Claude Martin had built the cannon that Lord Cornwallis used to slay Tipu Sultan with, not without the help of Maratha troops and soldiers of the nizam. This aspect of Maratha valour is seldom discussed in school books, how they helped the British and the nizam take down Tipu. Since Hindutva ideologues despise Tipu, they should perhaps build a temple around the Cornwallis cannon, which is displayed in front of the main school building in Lucknow.

Martin was himself a French mercenary who defected to the British side after Clive overwhelmed Dupleix in southern India, not militarily, but by a diplomatic subterfuge in Europe whereby the British and the French joined hands in a treaty to redistribute the spoils of colonialism.

It was the 200th birth anniversary of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan on Oct 17 and there were the familiar eulogies at seminars and symposiums. Some Indians or Pakistanis like him, a few adulate him, and most ignore him. Partly, Allama Iqbal’s towering presence as a liberating (some say revivalist) Muslim icon crowds out the older Sir Syed. A less discussed attribute of the 19th-century Muslim educationist is that he was a social snob who reserved thinly veiled scorn for the less privileged men and women in his community, at par in this way with any caste-embracing Brahmin.

There are good reasons to have a higher regard for Raja Ram Mohan Roy who Sir Syed emulated in some ways, as a Western-inspired educationist, although there was a half-century of turbulence diving them, including the great revolt of 1857. Roy initiated social reforms within his Hindu community, working to ban sati and inspiring the next generations to work against regressive Hindu practices like child marriage, while encouraging widow remarriage and so on. In the course of his reforms, he shook the hidebound caste structures.

I am grateful to Sir Syed for setting up the Aligarh University where I got to study history with Irfan Habib and Shakespeare with Zahida Zaidi. The latter had helped shape the artistic careers of Naseeruddin Shah and Muzaffar Ali, directing them in numerous Chekhov and Ionesco plays she staged in the verandah of her famed home. Habib had the hard task of fighting Hindu and Muslim communalists who stalked the campus or preyed on it from outside. Habib, a Marxist and Zahida Zaidi, a left-leaning liberal, would perhaps have more in common with Majaaz, Sardar Jafri or Jazbi who were students at Aligarh before them. I can’t see either of the two respected teachers being influenced by any significant aspect of Sir Syed’s pursuits, be they religious or societal. His academic research into aspects of Indian Muslim history has been more useful.

Masood Alam Falahi has worked closely on the Urdu sources of the period to throw light on Sir Syed’s worldview. In an address to the second convention of the Muhammadan Educational Conference in Lucknow in 1887, Syed Ahmad claimed that “lowly [adna] families” were “not useful [mufid] for the country or for the government”. In contrast, the “nobles (ra’is) of high-status [’ala] families” were loyal to the British and so “are useful to the country and the government”.

He referred to “Pathans, Syeds, Hashmis and Quraishis” as his “own brothers [hamarey bhai]”, “from whose blood ... the smell of the blood of Abraham emanates”. He shared their hope that they would be employed in top posts in the British Army, “wearing shimmering uniforms”. He assured them that this would happen soon, but for this, he added, they would have to win the favour of the British. He also advised the Muslim ashraf attending the conference that only through higher modern education could they succeed and progress.

Sir Syed was not unique in his avowed casteism but merely following a tradition of elitist Hindu-Muslim bonhomie to the exclusion of Hindu-Muslim hoi polloi. In this sense, Begum Hazrat Mahal, the valiant warrior of 1857, may have set the example for Sir Syed’s clear prejudices though he disagreed with her role in fighting the British.

“Everyone follows his own religion [in my domain],” Hazrat Mahal wrote in a pamphlet she circulated from exile. “Everyone enjoys respect according to their worth and status. Men of high extraction, be they Syed, Sheikh, Mughal or Pathan among the Mohammedans, or Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaish or Kayasth among the Hindus, all these retain the respectability according to their respective ranks. And all persons of a lower order such as a Sweeper, Chamar, Dhanook, or Pasi cannot claim equality with them.”

I am not surprised that Begum Hazrat Mahal lost the battle against British colonialism. As for Sir Syed and Claude Martin, they represented colonialism’s positive moments but only in the interest of colonialism. There is much for the boy to learn still.
 

LordOfTheUnderworlds

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
1,299
Likes
1,379
Country flag
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...ourage-modi-baiters.77611/page-4#post-1222098

Cultures, institutions, and individuals are, among many other things, information-processing mechanisms. As they become overwhelmed with information complexity, the tendency to retreat into simpler narratives becomes stronger.

The emotionally satisfying decision to accept a weaponized narrative inoculates cultures,institutions, and individuals againstcounterarguments and inconvenient facts.......
Narrative is as old as tribes. Humans are pattern-seeking storytelling animals. We cannot endure an absence of meaning. Rather than look up at the distribution of lights in the night sky and deal with randomness, we will eagerly connect those dots and adorn them with the most elaborate – even poetic – tales of heroesand princesses and bears and dippers. We have a hard-wired need for myth. Narrative is basic to what it means to be human.
Truth can be overwhelmed with constantly repeated and replenished falsehood.

It’s a self-reinforcing loop.
.
.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/narrative

narrative
[nar-uh-tiv]
noun

4. a story that connects and explains a carefully selected set of supposedly true events, experiences, or the like, intended to support a particular viewpoint or thesis:
 
Last edited:

LordOfTheUnderworlds

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
1,299
Likes
1,379
Country flag
Ambedkar is as relevant for today's Pakistan as he is for India

Written by Auwn Gurmani
Published on 01 November 2017

Recently, a video was making the rounds, wherein a ponytailed man wearing glasses could be seen slapping a hapless man at the shrine of Bahaudin Zakariya.


This man was Syed Mureed Hussain Shah, brother of Shah Mehmood Qureshi who is the vice chairman of Pakistan's Tehreek-e-insaaf (the major opposition party in the Parliament). Qureshi's family is the caretaker of the Bahaudin Zakariya shrine, however, Mureed Hussain Shah who doesn't belong to any party is often seen appearing in news and castigating his brother Shah Mehmood. The bone of contention between the two brothers is the fact that Shah Mehmood is the appointed caretaker of the Sufi shrine and working as a politician simultaneously. According to his brother not only has he besmirched the legacy of sufis but also that he has continuously been using the name of saints for votes.

On the first day of urs of Bahaudin Zakariya, Mureed Hussain Shah, in an attempt to keep his brother away from the shrine and its administrative tasks, tried to perform rituals himself while as per the customs his brother, who is the appointed caretaker of the shrine, had to perform these duties. Upon one of the devotees refusing to offer the bathing ritual, Mureed Hussain Shah went berserk and started slapping the devotee who may not have belonged to an upper caste Syed family. It could be literally seen in the video that the devotee fell at his foot and asked for forgiveness.

This event in itself is not something that we can overlook because it exposes us to the immensity of the problem that we face in the form of casteism and how violent and exploitative the caste system of Pakistan turns out to be. It is a fact that can't be denied whatsoever. As a matter of fact, caste system exists in Pakistan in its ugliest form. The video adequately presents us the despicable feature of caste system that dehumanises people from lower castes. People like Mureed Hussain Shah are left with nothing if for a second we take away his caste privilege from the whole scenario of hin being on a position of power.

We can't hide away from the reality that there is a caste system in Pakistan too and it continues to grow more brutal with each passing day. It's about time that we made it a mainstream discourse. Appallingly though Mureed Shah beating a devotee in the presence of cameras was portrayed as a commonplace event by his brother's political opponent simply for political mileage but nonetheless they failed to forge a narrative that the sort of violence we witnessed was an outright consequence of the caste system that subordinates non-syeds/qureshis/hashmis.

Unfortunately, the tale of violence doesn't end here. Rather what we saw in the video was only the tip of the iceberg because the caste system of Pakistan is more exploitative than we usually imagine. Once you travel to the rural areas of Pakistan where caste system seems to be intact and exists in its repulsive forms, you see how caste-based hierarchies have enslaved people. Upon investigation, one comes to know that it is quite common for upper caste Muslim families - commonly known as Ashraf in India and Kashmir- to enslave people, especially women, who spend their entire lives in serving them for nothing in return, except dozens of rape attempts.

What ruffled me to explore the truth was people presenting the issue as if the class gap precipitated the violence while knowingly or unknowingly ignoring that class gap exists because of caste particularly in our current context. It's true these families in rural areas of Punjab and interior Sindh own large swathes of lands but as I see it as feudalism and casteism in these areas are entwined. Also, it's true that these people possess political power but majorly because of caste privilege and wealth that they amassed through wielding caste privilege.

Coming to the Parliament of Pakistan, that too unbearably reeks of casteism. Not everyone in Pakistan except the ruling elite is upper caste. Majority of the people who elect these parliamentarians are nai, jamadar, lohar, kumhar, changar and other lower Caste communities. But these are all names/slurs used by the parliamentarians when denouncing each other. For instance, a few years back when Zulfiqar Mirza (husband of ex-speaker of national assembly Fehmida Mirza) became a media hype when he openly called Rehman Malik a jamadar. He remarked, "Rehman Malik is a jamadar and is here- in the party- to take our shit away. Besides that, Sheikh Rashed Ahmad, who is currently serving in the Parliament and is quite popular for the fact that he's been lambasting Nawaz Sharif for years, called Nawaz Sharif a lohar even during the time Nawaz Sharif was ruling the country.

Needless to say, our parliament is inundated with politicians who belong to upper castes. Makhdooms, Syeds, Hashmis are in abundance and they have been brought to Parliament not because they genuinely served the downtrodden of their respective constituencies but because their caste privilege came in handy while electing them for parliament.

Obviously, they are accountable to no one during their time in Parliament because if one seeks accountability especially talking about people who elected them, in no time would that person be declared blasphemer. As justification, people say why shouldn't he be a blasphemer because he's dared to point a finger at Prophet's kinsfolk. I'm saying this because recently a picture on a pamphlet brought to the notice of many, said: "Syed Khurshid Shah" the leader of the opposition from interior Sindh is Prophet's kinsfolk and any word of contempt against him equals to blasphemy.

In conclusion, I must say that Ambedkar is as relevant for today's Pakistan as he is for India. Given what Dr Ambedkar said "caste is a notion, it's a state of mind" we have to prevent people from becoming victims of this hideously constructed notion of caste and eventually the state of mind that divested poor people of their right to social liberty. It's possible only when we recognise caste as a problem.

~~~
 

LordOfTheUnderworlds

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
1,299
Likes
1,379
Country flag
The saga of militarisation in Pakistan
Kamil Ahmed
November 6, 2017


The history of Punjab has long been imbued with the culture of violence and militarism and this social setting persisted in the 19th century as well. For 800 years from 11th to 18th century, Punjab saw at least 70 invasions and the rise and fall of non-Punjabi rulers which left this frontier society of Indian Subcontinent restless and prone to violence. In wake of weakening of Mughal Empire and its eventual collapse Punjab galvanised into a ‘military fiscal state’ under its Sikh ruler Maharaja Ranjit Singh.

Ranjit Singh died in 1839 and his death was followed by leadership succession crisis in the Sikh empire which started disintegrating. The military became the major arbiter of Punjab’s politics and within few years, strength of Punjab force rose from 80,000 in 1839 to 123,000 in 1844. Militarisation coupled with internal strife in Punjab prompted British to intervene and after two successive military campaigns in 1845 and 1848, they completely defeated Sikhs and annexed Punjab with the Empire in 1849.British rule over Punjab ushered in the period of Pax-Britannica in which demilitarisation and paternalistic civil administration was supposed to pave the way for rapid and massive economic development in the newly annexed state of Punjab.

New colonial masters of Punjab inherited remnants of 60,000 Sikh soldiers and demilitarisation of Punjab was conceived as the need of the hour to curtail chances of revolt against the Raj as memory of recent defeat was fresh in the minds of Sikhs. So the colonial administration backed by coercive force of Bengal Army initiated the process of demilitarisation. A decree was issued which banned possession of arms and gunpowder and violators of decree were threatened with heavy punishments.

As many as 120,000 weapons were confiscated ranging from daggers to muskets. Around 50,000 soldiers were called in Lahore, paid off and disbanded. All military strongholds and establishment except the ones required to hold Punjab were dismantled.

Owing to revolt by the Bengal Army in 1857, the British plan to demilitarise Punjab never really culminated and they had to re-militarise it. On May 10, The 11th and 20th Bengal Native Infantry Regiments and the 3rd Light Cavalry mutinied against Raj, murdered their European officers and moved towards Delhi which was captured by the sepoys of Meerut within 24 hours and Bahadur Shah Zafar II was proclaimed as the Emperor of Hindustan. Unlike Madras and Bombay Army, Bengal Army was very selective in their recruitments. High-caste Hindu Rajputs and Brahmins from northern India had established monopoly in Bengal Army. There were very few European soldiers in India and due to their numbers they were not seen as a viable option to counter revolt where raising regiments from Europe would have taken atleast six months and was not financially feasible.

Punjabis didn’t sympathise with the Hindustani mutineers and sided with British during the revolt. Despite the official line, there was no illusion amongst the colonial administrators that Punjabis did this out of loyalty. Revolt paved way for re-enlistment of disbanded Sikh and Muslim Punjabi soldiers who were mainly lured by the opportunity to plunder wealth of Delhi, there was also a hope British will open Punjab as a recruiting ground and they would get a share in the largesse once the revolt was over.

In post bellum Bengal Army, Punjabis became a large part. Punjabis and Purbiyas had a natural antagonism towards each other. Recruitment of Punjabis in the Bengal Army provided a convenient counterpoise to the Hindustani element of Bengal Army who before Mutiny of 1857 enjoyed monopoly. Roots of historical hostility were found in difference of religion, race and language and British preserved this antagonism by introducing localised recruitment and services of troops which not only provided physical segregation between classes but something else was on minds of British as well.

Russian threat and the Indian Army

It was erroneous to claim that the colonial Army was Punjabicised after the revolt, till 1875 out of 44,690 recruits of Bengal Army only 12,558 were Punjabis and only 4,525 Punjabis in Bombay Army (Hardly any Punjabi enlisted in the army of Madras Presidency).

There was this uneasiness in the Empire hierarchy regarding the inclusion of Punjabis in the Imperial Army. British believed that just as easily as Punjabis sided with Raj during the revolt, once they form a monopoly within the army they were likely to forge a revolt themselves. So the Punjabi recruits were thus restricted to the limit deemed necessary and practicable by Punjab Committee.

Up to 1885, the army was strictly maintained on the principle of internal security and protection of Raj. The views of Punjab Committee dominated the British decision making. However, by early 1880s a series of frontier troubles culminating on the Russian front led to the restructuring of the colonial army. Now it was to be redesigned to counter the internal and external security threats. The ban on recruitment of Punjabis was completely lifted which eventually paved the way for Punjab’s domination of the army.

Although, Anglo-Russia Pact in 1907 waived off Russian threat from North Western frontiers of Indian Subcontinent. As a consequence of the pact, Russia accepted Britain’s influence in Afghanistan. It was agreed upon that neither country will interfere in Tibet. The pact further delineated spheres of influence in Persia.

World War-I and Indian Army

When the war broke out on July 28, 1914, no one speculated that India will be directly involved in what was considered a European war then, as it was physically segregated from the major battlefields. The government of India wrote to the Home Department that in case of war, India will not be able to contribute more than two divisions and any contribution beyond will put India’s internal security at risk.

The civil and military administrations (only in Punjab) which at first worked independently were integrated in 1916 to form a formidable war machine aimed to provide gun fodder for the war. Despite censorship locals got to know the real horrors of war in Europe through letters of soldiers which created problems in the process of recruitment.

During the final months of war there were isolated incidents of violent resistance against the recruitment. But British through local collaborators-landed gentry tribes, the aristocracy and men with local influence not only managed to persuade locals for recruitment in their respective areas of influence and that too without resistance. Dangling titles, land grants and patronage was what local collaborators got in return if they played their parts well and this was exactly what military administration wasn’t able to pull before the merger to stimulate a response from local population, only civil administration had powers to reward people in such a manner.

Although the ‘Sword Arm of Raj’ came out relatively unscathed after the war but its political fabric got destroyed owing to the civil-military integration which persisted beyond the war. During the war Punjab was administered by the military bureaucracy and its tentacles reached to lowest levels of society and economy. Punjab government’s assumption of a military function and its intervention in the society on behalf marked the beginning of quasi-military state in the Punjab. This civil military integration (which became a characteristic of Punjabi society) and the Punjabicisation of the military during the colonial times was inherited by Pakistan in a rather acute form and the rest is history.



The writer is a political activist and a researcher based in Lahore

Published in Daily Times, November 6th2017.
 

LordOfTheUnderworlds

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
1,299
Likes
1,379
Country flag
Sharif’s ouster shows Pakistani Establishment is a banyan tree keeping a viceregal control
HUSAIN HAQQANI 9 November, 2017

The corruption trial of Pakistan’s ousted Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is unlikely to usher in an era of genuine accountability or rule of law. It simply reinforces Pakistan’s viceregal tradition. Elected politicians are subject to the whims and ‘superior judgment’ of appointed generals, judges, and civil servants, just as they were during the British colonial era....
.... The viceregal system harks back to the introduction of representative institutions in the subcontinent under British rule. Then, the Viceroy and his appointees held the veto over local councils and legislatures elected under limited franchise.

The people’s representatives could not be trusted to make all decisions. They needed a guiding hand. Pakistan’s chequered history shows that Pakistan’s Military-Judicial-Bureaucratic Elite has inherited.....
 

LordOfTheUnderworlds

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
1,299
Likes
1,379
Country flag
http://carnegieendowment.org/2017/1...very-stable-pub-74682&grqid=aYqdb59e&hl=en-IN
A: There is definitely a Pakistani identity vis-à-vis the other countries that surround it. This is, however, an identity that has been superimposed from above but not created from below, for instance through an education system or media network, which would have helped. So, there is a tension between the national identity and the ethno-linguistic identities and since the country is not federal or decentralised enough, instead of defusing these tensions by devolving power, Pakistan has hardened the identity tensions. That said, Pakistan is more culturally integrated today than it was in 1971.

This is partly because of the media, partly because of cinema and partly because of popular culture that sometimes adopts different languages but plays within the same arena. The frame of reference for the people in Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad is becoming more and more common, it is national.

In Pakistan, identity tensions may not be more acute that the social divide, even if inequality is not talked about much now that the left has been marginalised. But that is affecting national identity and unity. There are horizontal social divisions apart from vertical ethno-linguistic divisions, which may also partly explain the popularity of some forms of religious extremism.
 

LordOfTheUnderworlds

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
1,299
Likes
1,379
Country flag
Bahawalpur (princely state)


Bahawalpur state was founded in 1802 by Nawab Mohammad Bahawal Khan Abbasi after the breakup of the Durrani Empire. His successor was Nawab Mohammad Bahawal Khan Abbasi III. On 22 February 1833, Abbasi III entered into subsidiary alliance with the British by which Bahawalpur was admitted as a princely state of British India. When India became independent of British rule in 1947 and partitioned into two states, India and Pakistan, Bahawalpur joined the Dominion of Bahawalpur remained an autonomous entity till 14 October 1955 when it was merged with the province of West Pakistan.
The Abbasi tribe from whom the ruling family of Bahawalpur belong, claim descent from the AbbasidCaliphs. The tribe came from Sindh to Bahawalpurand assumed independence during the decline of the Durrani Empire. Bahawalpur along with other Cis-Sutlej states were a group of states, lying between the Sutlej River on the north, the Himalayas on the east, the Yamuna River and Delhi District on the south, and Sirsa District on the west. These states were ruled by the Scindhia dynasty of the Maratha Empire, various Sikh sardars and other Rajas of the Cis-Sutlej states paid tributes to the Marathas, until the Second Anglo-Maratha War of 1803-1805, after which the Marathas lost this territory to the British.[1][2][3]

As part of the 1809 Treaty of Lahore, Ranjit Singh was confined to the right bank of the Sutlej. The first treaty with Bahawalpur was negotiated in 1833, the year after the treaty with Ranjit Singh for regulating traffic on the Indus. It secured the independence of the Nawab within his own territories, and opened up the traffic on the Indus and Sutlej. The political relations of Bahawalpur with the paramount power, as at present existing, are regulated by a treaty made in October, 1838, when arrangements were in progress for the restoration of Shah Shuja to the Kabul throne.

During the First Anglo-Afghan War, the Nawab assisted the British with supplies and allowing passage and in 1847-8 he co-operated actively with Sir Herbert Edwardes in the expedition against Multan. For these services he was rewarded by the grant of the districts of Sabzalkot and Bhung, together with a life-pension of a lakh
State of Bahawalpur was the first state that joined Pakistan................... Moreover, Nawab and Quaid-i-Azam were close friends and they had great respect for each other even before the creation of Pakistan....................

.............In 1953, the Nawab represented Pakistan at the installation of Faisal II of Iraq and at the coronation of Elizabeth II.

[/QUOTE]
.

.

http://storyofpakistan.com/nawab-sadiq-muhammad-khan-v
Another contribution he made to the promotion and development of Urdu language in the State of Bahawalpur. It began to be used as the official language in the administrative work of the state. During his era the decisions of the High Court were also written in Urdu language.

After partition Nawab proved to be very helpful and generous to the government of Pakistan. He gave seventy million rupees to the government and the salaries of all the government departments for one month were also drawn from the treasury of Bahawalpur state.
The Royal House of Bahawalpur is said to be of Arabic origin and claims descent from Abbas, progenitor of the Abbasid Caliphs of Baghdad and Cairo
o_O
.
.

The Nawàb’s Musical Bed
https://alaiwah.wordpress.com/2013/08/31/the-nawabs-musical-bed/

In 1882 Sadiq Muhammad Khan Abbasi IV, Nawàb of Bahawalpur, anonymously commissioned a bed in rosewood covered with about a third of a ton of chased and engraved sterling silver from La Maison Christofle in Paris.........

clip_246.jpg
 
Last edited:

LordOfTheUnderworlds

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
1,299
Likes
1,379
Country flag
The Pakistan Paradox: Instability and Resilience
By Christophe Jaffrelot
From the description of the book
Pakistan was born as the creation of elite Urdu-speaking Muslims who sought to govern a state that would maintain their dominance. After rallying non-Urdu speaking leaders around him, Jinnah imposed a unitary definition of the new nation state that obliterated linguistic diversity. This centralisation - 'justified' by the Indian threat - fostered centrifugal forces that resulted in Bengali secessionism in 1971 and Baloch, as well as Mohajir, separatisms today. Concentration of power in the hands of the establishment remained the norm, and while authoritarianism peaked under military rule, democracy failed to usher in reform, and the rule of law remained fragile at best under Zulfikar Bhutto and later Nawaz Sharif. While Jinnah and Ayub Khan regarded religion as a cultural marker, since their time theIslamists have gradually prevailed. They benefited from the support of General Zia, while others, including sectarian groups, cashed in on their struggle against the establishment to woo the disenfranchised. Today, Pakistan faces existential challenges ranging from ethnic strife to Islamism, two sources of instability which hark back to elite domination....
2017-11-19-16-47-07.jpg
2017-11-19-16-48-34.jpg
2017-11-19-16-49-24.jpg
2017-11-19-16-55-48.jpg



Hmm. Ismaili Khojas, Bohras Memons = new sects that emerged during British times (or even if claimed older origins, came into prominence during British rule)...... Composed of mainly converts from business castes and became part of group controlling economy/capital...
....... British empire = Rise of capitalism.

Is their some pattern there?

Another new sect created during British rule is Ahmadiyya/Qadiyanis.
Anyone knows how much influence Ahmedis had over businesses or power politics at the time of creation of Pakistan?
 

mayfair

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
6,032
Likes
13,109
It was an Ahmadi missionary who exhorted persuaded Djinnah to return to India and accelerated the events that culminated in the bloody partition of India in 1947.

Shitistan's first foreign minister and the draftee of the 1940 Napaki resolution was Chaudhry Sir Muhammed Zafarullah Khan, the first Foreign minister of Shitistan and he represented Napaki view on Kashmir at the UN.

Abdus Salam, the nobel laureate in theoretical physics served as the head of Pakistan atomic energy commission (now Djinn research organisation) and also kick started their space programme SUARCO (Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission), left Shitistan in 1974 after the new constitution was framed where Ahmadis were declared non-muslim.

Many officers in the Napaki fauj were Ahmadi, some distinguished themselves in 1965 and 71 wars.

The current Napaki COAS is rumoured to be a closet Ahmadi since his father was a known Ahmadi convert.
 

LordOfTheUnderworlds

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
1,299
Likes
1,379
Country flag
Ahmadis and middle-class anxieties
Daanish Mustafa
in Op-EdOn October 24, 2017


Fast forward to the 1940s, as soon as Pakistan came into being, we went on to make the distinction between real martial Muslim — West Pakistanis — and the ‘less martial’ Bengalis of East Pakistan. Soon afterwards, we decided that Ahmadis were not real Muslims, the rest of us were. The day after, we decided that the Shias do not belong in the pale, and then the Barelvi Muslims and so on and so forth. On the nationalist front, we reckoned that after the Bengalis, the Baloch and the Sindhis were Pakistanis with a hyphen, and nowadays the Pashtuns are terrorist Pakistanis. We’ve managed to fulfill every nightmare that Tagore had foreseen to be a consequence of nationalism.

Sir Zafarullah Khan, the first foreign minister of Pakistan, had been the president of All India Muslim League between 1931 and 1932. He belonged to the Ahmadia community. Under his leadership, the relatively better educated Ahmadia community was one of the most fervently pro-Pakistan constituencies in India.
Anti-Ahmadia rhetoric to my mind is symbolic of the middle class anxieties in Pakistan. Middle class is always insecure about its upwardly mobile pretensions and has to stake out space between the elites, who hoard the cultural capital of the society, and the working class that has to keep a sharp eye on questions of material production and redistribute justice. In the increasingly middle class, petty bourgeoisie dominated politics of Pakistan, the declaration of authenticity in spirituality, morals and manners is the currency of respectability. And what better way to do it than to create a diabolical other against whom your spiritual authenticity can be confirmed. After all the other’s beliefs really have little functional effect on one’s own. It has to be for the optics of it. The Ahmadia community is a victim of nationalism, which is again a middle class phenomenon from the French Revolution through the modern world history. In the pre-independence period, the Ahmadia middle class politics had aligned with the Pakistan movement. Post independence, the middle class politics of Pakistan ended up targeting the community as an internal other against whom Muslim, and hence Pakistani, credentials were authenticated

The historical joke, if there is one, is on us, indeed.

Not sure what he is trying to say but sounds like something intellectual, almost like a communist or a big lawyer's farrebaaz intellectual english.
 

mayfair

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
6,032
Likes
13,109
He'll blame everyone but the real reason. After all he's using the same arguments to spread HIS faith elsewhere
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top