Pakistan, Caste and dilemma of quislings

[LordOfTheUnderworlds]

Cross posting from
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/seven-ways-india-can-rescue-pakistan.80259/#post-1377260

.... "Pakistan is in deep trouble," said Hoodbhoy, tracing its woes to 1981 when the very idea of Pakistan changed from that of a Muslim state to a Islamic state. The islamization of Pakistan has since continued apace."Pakistan is losing its South Asian roots. It's being Arabized," said Hoodbhoy, "You can see it in what we say for goodbye. We now say 'allah hafiz' not 'khuda hafiz." And in that small change is a world of loss..... :blah::blah::blah:

'Khuda Hafiz' is from which 'South Asian' language?

.
Hoodbhoy sahab may be a respectable scientist and an honest gentleman. But south asian insaan aakhir to zaat pe hi jata hai na? Our views are influenced by caste and creed often even without realizing it.
.
.


- 1981 or whatever is of no relevance to India. 1947 is.
- Pakistan was created on demand of people who said 'Khuda Hafiz'. Why should India care if Pakistanis now say Khuda Hafiz or Allah Hafiz?

That too when they can't even say 'Indian subcontinent' and invent a bullshit 'south asian subcontinent' !



Note:

• Pervez Hoodbhoy - Ismaili Shia.
• Jinnah - Ismaili Shia.
• Mani Shankar Aiyar - As a petroleum minister was strong advocate of Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline.
• Iran - centre of Shia imperialism.
• Khuda Hafiz - persian language
• Allah Hafiz - Arab language.
• Iran and Arabia - long enmity going from pre-islamic times to Islamic times to even today.

This Khuda Hafiz Allah Hafiz is none of India's business.

 

[Butter Chicken]

Plight of Hindus in Pakistan

 

[LordOfTheUnderworlds]

/forum/threads/britain-how-ignorant-a-countrys-population-can-ever-get.78604/page-15

The thing is communism here and communism in China are very different and has been different for a long time.

The Chinese CCP came to power when the nation became independent.hence they were the owners of future China then.

The communists in India just did few struggles against British and we're always the minority in religious india.they we're always the minority in positions of power like being the ruling party in different states.they could only rule few states and now they are limited to a couple of states.

This means communists in India don't own India's narrative and hence has no stake in it.if India falls it will hence be blamed on congress,BJP,the religious hindus.this is why here communists are for many anti national practices as they have to gain by India experiencing difficulty as the status quo of them being minority will change.

In China CCP owns China and it failures and successes and hence it cannot let it down as people and the world will blame CCP.this means that the CCP is inherently tied to he countries wellbeing in terms of prosperity and military power.this makes CCP defacto nationalist.it does not matter what they do outside,inside they destroy the enemies that might be pro America and tries to weaken China like democratic activists.

This means CCP will always reliably oppose forces like Muslim uighers and anti nationals.

Another example of nationalistic communists is Soviet union after stalin.

The communists in USA and the West you see are anti nationalist and we must oppose them.

The nationalist communists in China will make sure that Muslims will not grow in china.that Christians will not dominate china.even if they do have Christians they will not be able to do their usual shenanigans.

However I must say that India should not be communists if it means yechuries communism.it should become communist if it is ccps xenophobic technology driven quasi capitalist anti Muslim communism.

Anti nationalist or anti establishment? Depends on viewpoint. From their viewpoint they are honest and true to their ideology.

Generally most people would agree ☭ communists in India are more honest and true to their ideology than other political parties.

Maybe problem is that even though communism like other Abrahmic religions is supposed to be a religion of the masses (unlike orthodox hinduism which was mainly for the elites) but Indian communist parties are elitist. Most of their leaders are upper castes, majority being intellectual brahmins. Perhaps because Indian communism did not grow from grounds up. It was imposed from above. Indian communist party was created in imperialist Sovient Russia.

But still communist newspaper 'The Hindu' stands out for its quality in the trash Indian media. Of course when it comes to anything related to China or interests of communist China they would be biased. Because now there is no Soviet Russia. That does not mean they are evil people. In fact Indian communists are more honest upright and probably have higher avarage IQ. After all as Winston Churchill said, (all great quotes are said by either Winston Churchill, or Einstein, or Mahatma Gandhi) 'Any man who is not a communist at age 20 has no heart'.

Is that the same age group as used for recruiting soldiers of Mohammad? close enough. A coincidence? Or some thing related to the psychological phase of growing up when an adolescent needs a leader. Something about cult phenomenon.

Another strange thing, so many islamic countries and no one needed communism?

One is supposed to be a religion stuck in medieval period, another modern progressive fresh new ideology. Still so called right wingers always say leftist communist spectrum people as muslim apologists,pro muslim and what not.

If there is pattern could there be something common in these? What could it be. It cant be size of brain because as we have seen average Pakistani brain is smaller in size and communists probably have higher IQ. Something in basic design, some natural instinct that resonates well with each other: That both are supposed to be common people's religions and designed as inherently anti-establishment. i. e. to demolish present establishment (irrespective of its merits). Like a wildfire burning everything in its path, irrespective of what it is; to demolish old topography to make space for a new order. So is the claim.

But then organized religion/cult is a tool to control people and so they all end up being used as tool of some form of imperialism.

.
.

^^^ I am confused but this will fit in the thread somehow.

.

 

[LordOfTheUnderworlds]

Communists in India cannot be nationalists .

Not necessarily. If communists had their government in centre with a strong leader (king/prophet), they would be as strongly nationalist as Chinese communist party.

Communism being product of western civilization and born out of mind of a jew, it is natural that it has some basic needs similar to Abrahamic religions of the masses. Because our viewpoint is influenced by our caste, creed, education etc. They all need a mecca/Vatican and a prophet/king as a basic psychological and intellectual need. Old religions have these predefined but communists would need to create one for themselves. Right now their vatican/mecca and their prophet are outside India. If they had Indian mehdi they would be nationalists.

Communism is an rigid philosophy comparable to extreme religious bigotry

Hmm. So then they would need to do some terraforming to create their own utopia if they can't adapt with the present system.

Terraforming (literally, "Earth-shaping") of a planet, moon, or other body is the hypotheticalprocess of deliberately modifying its atmosphere, temperature, surface topographyor ecology to be similar to the environment of Earth to make it habitable by Earth-like life.

Terraforming is nothing more than a reclamation process, to acquire more real estate and to suit our biological necessities whilst venturing into the great beyond of space.

View attachment 21727

Islamists are more practical and tenacious than them; they can start their own little areas of terraforming in the form of ghettos. A particular group of Indian Muslims had this emotional urge for terraforming in the form of Pakistan. But they were mainly based in northcentral India. What became Pakistan army were supposed to be their loyal Janissaries.

cultural heritage and glorious past

Past glory and all matters only for those who have stakes in that. Why would anyone get emotional about it if they think they have nothing to do with that. e. g. Slave class people. Or how much emotional connect can an American or Australian have for native American or native Australian history? It is more like valuable artifacts they own.

 

[LordOfTheUnderworlds]

Pashtuns in general are in love with Pakistan. If a certain region e.g. Waziristan gets bombed, the mentality is "Waziris deserve it, we support the government" as opposed to "Our people are being bombed by Punjabis".

They are tribal and riven with internal jealousy and conflict.

The Punjabi Pakistani control of their lands is not the first time Indic peoples have controlled them and it's happened in different periods through out history.

Pashtun nationalism is basically dead. Ok, maybe preservation of their culture and language is somewhat vibrant (in certain ways) but a desire for secession is dead. They love Pakistan.

Baloch are different and are far more nationalistic (as opposed to the Punjabis successfully wooing Pashtuns with pan-Muslim brotherhood talk). If there were more of them they could perhaps have seceded.

Anyway it's a very unstable country with aggressive, violent, tribal peoples and a very violent, aggressive interpretation of religion. It will end one day, sooner or later but I don't foresee that being soon and see it limping along in its current volatile and dysfunctional manner.

Pashtuns were OK to be in India too till they were made Pakistanis in 1947. They are a heterogeneous people at various stages of the process of getting adapted to settled civilization. They have been living on frontiers of India and war ravaged for a thousand years. Also the land can not support large population so naturally there would be continuous migration towards more settled areas. This migration mainly happens towards Indian side but they are supposed to be superior central or iranic race thus making them suprior caste of Indian Muslims/Pakistani by default. They probably didn't even ask it and got it on platter. So why would anyone have problem with that?

It is very natural human tendency to identify oneself with powerful imperial centre.

They could have been claiming so called indic identity but india didn't give them that identity. It was given to them by the Turks (who conquered and ruled them and with whom they came to mainland as mercenaries and camp followers) and Iranians (barbarian turks themselves adapted Persian language and culture. Ahmed Shah Abdali, the only major sovereign king of Pashtuns from who's kingdom afghanistan derives its identity was in service of Farsi king Nadir Shah and he got a share of wealth from Nadir Shah when he invaded punjab and delhi after marathas destroyed mughal empire, but left delhi and punjab vulnerable without adequate protection). Modern west gave them a phrase to identify themselves as the 'Iranic people'.

It is not a bad arrangement for them. How would some unskilled tribals fit into Hindu caste sysyem? Become scavengers and laborers forever? Or become mafia don/king. What is king but a most powerful goon in town with political legitimacy?

They always needed land to settle in. Now they only have to wait. Their rate of reproduction is far higher than rest of Pakistanis. Because the Islamized people of Pakistan accepted this future when they accepted this Pakistani ideology created by Urdu speaking high caste elites of north-central india who likes to fantasize themselves as descendents of some turks and arabs.

This of course only applies to a section of Pashtuns that are already relatively well integrated into the system. The vast majority of Pashtuns in Pakistan however in reality are among the poorest doing petty jobs. And a section is still living primitive tribal life in pakistan's tribal areas and would probably be more comfortable with Afghan identity.

.
.

.
.

Someone wrote this on wikipedia:


"Abdali wrote in his letter to Peshwa on February 10, 1761:

There is no reason to have animosity amongst us. Your son Vishwasrao and your brother Sadashivrao died in battle, was unfortunate. Bhau started the battle, so I had to fight back unwillingly. Yet I feel sorry for his death. Please continue your guardianship of Delhi as before, to that I have no opposition. Only let Punjab until Sutlaj remain with us. Reinstate Shah Alam on Delhi's throne as you did before and let there be peace and friendship between us, this is my ardent desire. Grant me that desire"



........................................................



Sutlej river on map:

 

[LordOfTheUnderworlds]

Protests in Karachi, Islamabad, Faisalabad, Lahore

Most of these people doing this dharna are not from Saudi funded Wahabi madrassas. Majority are working class Bareilvi Sunnis. The real unwashed 'Aam Abdul' of the subcontinent. Many of this class have been silently converting to more puritanical sects but they are still the majority so far.

Real fireworks would have happened if the Wahabis of middle east funded madrassas types have been in the forefront.

For this silent majority Bareilvis they are just in initial phases showing their numbers and realizing potential power. Last big show of strength by them was at the funeral of bodyguard and murderer of minister salman taseer, when millions came on street. But so far they just show off their huge numbers and tge event passes off relatively peacefully despite a mob of hundreds of thousands.

Most importantly they are not very organized. People are generally under influence of local pirs and maulanas who themselves have political ambitions and get fitted in conventional politics as full time/part time politicians. Thus they can be controlled through these politicians (there is no external imperial power's support like saudis and qataris for wahabis, and iran for shias).

Of course this does not mean that there is no chance the mob will run amok sometimes in future. Awaam jaag rahi hai, and there is competition to show who loves Allah's nabi the most. So keep watching the show.

 

[Willy2]

Someone wrote this on wikipedia:


"Abdali wrote in his letter to Peshwa on February 10, 1761:

There is no reason to have animosity amongst us. Your son Vishwasrao and your brother Sadashivrao died in battle, was unfortunate. Bhau started the battle, so I had to fight back unwillingly. Yet I feel sorry for his death. Please continue your guardianship of Delhi as before, to that I have no opposition. Only let Punjab until Sutlaj remain with us. Reinstate Shah Alam on Delhi's throne as you did before and let there be peace and friendship between us, this is my ardent desire. Grant me that desire"

Is't authentic ?

Anyway , bu this logic why not they target the Oxus basin , just north of Hindukush ? it's closer than Indian plain and fertile too ....I don't think ppl of punjub are pushover ,atleast they are better than tribes of Oxus , our Rajput roast those tribes during Shahjahan's central-Asian mission .
The segregation of Afghan/pashtun (by default) from Indian society is due to the british ego , Britishers treat Afghan as Indian , but after they fail to win Afghanistan completely , they settle with "conqueror of whole India tag by separating Afghan from India
Ties of Pashtun with India very deep genetic explanation of "Iranic ppl " came much later ,all Hindukush , the heartland of pashtun ppl was historically India , include Kubha-Kapisa etc ,they were hindu-protohindu-Buddhist-jain most of the time
They can't cut their bond/obsession with India ,it's their , Indian is their true identity .

 

[LordOfTheUnderworlds]

^^ dont know about authenticity. Copied from wikipedia.

This is what is given in wikipedia for reference:

G S Sardesai's Marathi Riyasat, volume 2."The reference for this letter as given by Sardesai in Riyasat – Peshwe Daftar letters 2.103, 146; 21.206; 1.202, 207, 210, 213; 29, 42, 54, and 39.161. Satara Daftar – document number 2.301, Shejwalkar's Panipat, page no. 99. Moropanta's account – 1.1, 6, 7"

But wikipedia can be unreliable. Could as well be from a novel from author's imagination. This period in general is ignored by historians.

 

[Chinmoy]

'After Allah you are our last hope': Pakistani boy to Sushma Swaraj asking for medical visa

http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/in...a-swaraj-asking-for-medical-visa-2448119.html

 

[Fulcrum21]

Massive anti-Pakistan protests erupt in PoK - Locals demand Freedom from Pak rule

http://www.business-standard.com/ar...erupt-in-pok-s-tarar-khel-117112700124_1.html

 

[Yggdrasil]

They could have been claiming so called indic identity but india didn't give them that identity. It was given to them by the Turks (who conquered and ruled them and with whom they came to mainland as mercenaries and camp followers) and Iranians (barbarian turks themselves adapted Persian language and culture. Ahmed Shah Abdali, the only major sovereign king of Pashtuns from who's kingdom afghanistan derives its identity was in service of Farsi king Nadir Shah and he got a share of wealth from Nadir Shah when he invaded punjab and delhi after marathas destroyed mughal empire, but left delhi and punjab vulnerable without adequate protection). Modern west gave them a phrase to identify themselves as the 'Iranic people'.

A couple of minor points:

1) Nadir Shah was Khorasani, but also from a Turkic tribe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afshar_people

The Turkic people (descendants of the Mongols) are basically military geniuses but completely barbaric in every other aspect. You're completely right in that they adapted Persian culture whole-sale, and often ruled Persia itself.

To my knowledge, no "proper" Persian ruler (not Afghan or Turkic, but ethnically PERSIAN) has ever invaded India.

2) The Pashto language is strange, and has a lot of Indic "retroflex" sounds. It sounds very Indic - not entirely Persian. Their identity is unique and fluid - they have allied with several Indic and Iranic monarchs as mercenaries or tribal collectives.

India must foment Pashtun nationalism - it can be done. Until Gandhi betrayed Bacha Khan, they were firmly in India's camp.

Right now, Pakistan has a stranglehold on the Pashtuns in Pakistan through extensive propaganda, but there have been cracks - a lot of Pashtuns in Pakistan are not entirely aware of the genocidal war the army has raged in Pashtun lands. Once the Durand line becomes more fluid, and the Afghans interact more with their folks across the border, the wedge can be forced in further. Pashtuns are easily manipulated, and have unfortunately fallen for Pakjabi narrative.

Driving wedges in Pakistan's ethnic fault-lines is the way to go.

 

[LordOfTheUnderworlds]

William Dalrymple on his new book

..... Stories about the last king are Dalrymple’s staple, but he tells me his next book will be a shift in gears. It will still feature a king, the Persian emperor Nader Shah, but it is really about a 60-year period in history when the wealthiest empire in the world is taken over by a boardroom of London merchants, giving rise to the East India Company. “It’s almost the first company in the whole world. From the Medicis in 15th century Florence, to a bunch of Sindhi merchants or Gujaratis sitting on the coast of Porbandar in Kutch, businesses had always been family affairs. But to raise the capital necessary to trade at the other end of the world in the 16th century, the British invent the corporation, they have joint stock, and that changes the world more than anything else — more than Christianity, more than democracy. It has a universal take-up,” he says.......

 

[LordOfTheUnderworlds]

The White Mughals

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Mughals
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/art...t-broke-the-conventional-boundaries-of-empire

White Mughals is a 2002 history book by William Dalrymple.

It is Dalrymple's fifth major book, and tells the true story of a love affair that took place in early nineteenth century Hyderabad between James Achilles Kirkpatrick and Khair-un-Nissa Begum.

Summary
The book is a work of social history about the warm relations that existed between the British and some Indians in the 18th and early 19th century, when one in three British men in India was married to an Indian woman. It documents the inter-ethnic liaisons between British officers, such as Major-General Charles Stuart, and Indian women, and the geopolitical context of late 18th century India. Like From the Holy Mountain, it also examines the interactions of Christianity and Islam, emphasizing the surprisingly porous relationship between the two in pre-modern times.....

During the eighteenth and early nineteenth century it was clear that it was almost as common for westerners to take on the customs, and even the religions, of India, as the reverse.

These White Mughals had responded to their travels in India by slowly shedding their Britishness like an unwanted skin, and adopting Indian dress, studying Indian philosophy, taking harems and adopting the ways of the Mughal governing class they slowly came to replace. Moreover, the White Mughals were far from an insignificant minority. The wills of the period show that in the 1780’s, over one third of the British men in India were leaving all their possessions to one or more Indian wives.

 

[LordOfTheUnderworlds]

https://www.mapsofindia.com/on-this...tive-of-the-east-india-company-lands-in-surat

https://guy8461.wordpress.com/2015/...ship-of-east-india-company-reached-surat/amp/

On 24th August 1608, the first representative of the East India landed in Surat for purposes of trade.



The East India Company was a British joint stock company founded in 1600 to carry out trade with the East Indies (a term used to refer to South and South East Asia), but primarily ended up carrying out trade with the Indian subcontinent, the North West Frontier provinces and Balochistan.

The East India Company primarily traded in silk, indigo dye, cotton, tea and opium. The company was also one among the oldest European East India companies and was granted the Royal Charter by Queen Elizabeth in 1600. Shares of the East India Company were held by affluent members of society, such as rich merchants and wealthy aristocrats. The Government of Britain held no shares of the company and had no direct control over their operation.



Even though the East India Company came to India as traders, they eventually gained control over large areas of the country using their private army. Officially, the rule of the East India Company in India began in 1757, after the Battles of Plassey and Buxar. The rule of the East India Company was brought to an end in 1858 after the Indian First War of Independence (also known as the Indian Rebellion) in 1857. Following the dissolution of the East India Company from India, the British Crown too overtook direct control of India to begin what is known as the British Raj.



The East India Company gained a footing in India in 1612 after then Mughal ruler Jahangir gave the Company rights to build a factory and trading port in Surat (present day Gujarat). Following this, the East India Company got similar permission from the Vijayanagara Empire in the South of India and set up their second factory in Madras. Twenty years later, the East India Company spread its presence to the East of India by setting up a factory in Kolkata. Around the same time, other European traders like the French, Portuguese and the Dutch were also trying to expand their presence in India, but it were the British who succeeded in firmly anchoring their presence in India for the longest time to come......

By 1750, the Mughal Empire was in a state of collapse. Regional states emerged in India and the Company began to get involved in power politics. It raised its own armies and prepared for war.

Having seen off the rival French in the Carnatic, in 1765 the Company assumed the Diwani of Bengal (i. e. replaced Nawab of Bengal, originally a mughal subedar)

Company rule in India (sometimes, Company Raj,[2] "raj", lit. "rule" in Hindi[3]) refers to the rule or dominion of the British East India Company over parts of the Indian subcontinent. This is variously taken to have commenced in 1757, after the Battle of Plassey, when the Nawab of BengalSirajuddaulah surrendered his dominions to the Company,[4] in 1765, when the Company was granted the diwani, or the right to collect revenue, in Bengal and Bihar,[5] or in 1773, when the Company established a capital in Calcutta, appointed its first Governor-General, Warren Hastings,

The French and British East India Companies and their respective Indian allies were at war with each other. The East India Company led by Robert Clive defeat the French ally, Siraj Ud Daulah, at the battle of Plassey ending the rule of the last independent Nawab of Bengal. This is judged to be one of the pivotal events leading to the formation of the British Empire in South Asia. The resulting central administration and governance starts a process that leads eventually to the formation of unified India.

 

[dhananjay1]

There was a sort of Puritan revival in late 18th and early 19th C. Britain. These people looked down on "Indianized" Brits as degraded and Unchristian. Once the British rule was established in India after Second Anglo-Maratha wars, there was a conscious moving away from Indian culture by colonial Brits. They also let loose missionaries which were prohibited by the EIC earlier.

 

[Suryavanshi]

@LordOfTheUnderworlds who are these people of Bangladesh do they genetically resemble their counterparts in West Bengal.

 

[LordOfTheUnderworlds]

Beautiful hindi movie, especially the songs

Jane Woh Kaise Log The - Guru Dutt, Hemant Kumar, Pyaasa Song

Strange thing, the filmmaker is Bengali, the story in Calcutta, hero too Bengali, everything has a bengali feel, but the hero is Urdu poet. All the guests in the song gathered at the house party for a urdu mushaira, where poets recite their urdu poems about love and wine etc. like so many old bollywood movies.

.
.

Shatranj ke Khiladi
http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0076696/

Very nice movie by Satyaji Ray portraying lifestyle of elite class of Lucknow (Awadh State) at the time of last days of Awadh state and tranfer to British Raj.
Is this only hindi movie by the great bengali filmmaker? Incidentally the one he he decided to make in hindi is all about Urdu, Shia Muslim Nawabzadas, British raj and all such things.

Umrao Jan is also probably depicts same era bit this is more historically significant with political overtones.

 

[LordOfTheUnderworlds]

^^^

What movies old times had. Pakiza, mughal-e-azam. Like some different fantacy world.

All these narratives sound so similar. Be it the British William Dalrymple's novels, history of Pakistani or so called Nehruvian or even so communist historians or bards of bollywood. Mughals, Nawabs, Urdu poetry, British. That is all about the history of modern India (and Pakistan). But has anyone seen any india resembling like that? Real India looks so different. Kaha gayi wo duniya? Kaha gaye wo log? so many different narratives match exactly with each others. Or may be they are not different narratives but same one?

 

[LordOfTheUnderworlds]

@LordOfTheUnderworlds who are these people of Bangladesh do they genetically resemble their counterparts in West Bengal.

Don't know man. I'm no expert.

 

[LordOfTheUnderworlds]

There was a sort of Puritan revival in late 18th and early 19th C. Britain. These people looked down on "Indianized" Brits as degraded and Unchristian. Once the British rule was established in India after Second Anglo-Maratha wars, there was a conscious moving away from Indian culture by colonial Brits. They also let loose missionaries which were prohibited by the EIC earlier.

Not all Brits/Europeans were 'Sahabs' to lord over poor slave Indians initially. India was rich. They were here for trade, employment.
.
Anyway, in Islamic caste system, light skinned ruling class of foreign origin was at top so the class affinity for Europeans as 'white mughals'.