Pakistan: The demon the West created

[The Messiah]

And I expanded on your argument.

Fair enough, let's get back to the topic then.

Allright lets get back to pakistan.

Tell me why balochs are wanting independence from pakistan ? another nail in the two-nation theory coffin ?

 

[Iamanidiot]

Pakistan is de-facto balkanized

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

why doesn't pakistan become single entity with indonesia ? Im not even asking for saudis because they would kick you out with there jootis.

Hey, I am not the one that started this argument, I am merely playing Devil's Advocate to illustrate how the original argument of 'Pakistan has no reason to exist if it has a peaceful relationship with India' is flawed, given the peaceful coexistence of nations like the US, Canada, Australia and the UK.

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

Why is bangladesh not co-existing with you then ? Why did they break away from pakistan ?

They are co-existing with us peacefully, are they not? Both Pakistan and Bangladesh have diplomatic and economic relations with each other. What else would you want?

 

[Cliff@sea]

They are co-existing with us peacefully, are they not? Both Pakistan and Bangladesh have diplomatic and economic relations with each other. What else would you want?

Yeah . . . But not under Two Nation Theory

 

[blank_quest]

Hey, I am not the one that started this argument, I am merely playing Devil's Advocate to illustrate how the original argument of 'Pakistan has no reason to exist if it has a peaceful relationship with India' is flawed, given the peaceful coexistence of nations like the US, Canada, Australia and the UK.

They took away India's land on some Ideological basis and that "Idea" was itself opposing "India as a peaceful co-existential entity". Pak was/is/will be in psychological turmoil with relationship conundrum of India.... "damned if you do , damned if you don't".

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

Yeah . . . But not under Two Nation Theory

Who cares what rationale they coexist under, the point being made by some Indians was that nations cannot coexist peacefully together if they started off as one nation, and that point stands debunked.

 

[Zarvin]

Hi, If I can be bold to quote another member from another forum whose post might help here.

Not really, the founding father of Pakistan had an entirely different idea of the kind of relationship the two countries would have.

It was the primarily the rich Mohajirs of Pakistan who lost much when they migrated from India and always felt a sense of animosity towards it for their loss.

You people have been brought up with this mentality that Pakistan was created in opposition to India and it may be true now but it wasn't the case.


The premise was that great distinction had occurred between the two communities whereby everything was looked through the prism of religion. Muslims and Hindu's rather being one as Indians were known as Indian Muslims and Indian Hindu's. Although Jinnah was a great proponent of Hindu-Muslim unity, but the reality dawned on him that the ever increasing hostility between the communities would result in great catastrophe if India remained united.

Its not a matter of co-existing but instead the dominating mentality of South Asians, everyone here is always competing to get to the top rather than working together and being content with what they have. Muslims and Hindu's would also remain in competition in a single environment but a partitioned country would have helped both co-exist.

The ideology behind Pakistan was very different to what it is perceived to be.

 

[blank_quest]

Who cares what rationale they coexist under, the point being made by some Indians was that nations cannot coexist peacefully together if they started off as one nation, and that point stands debunked.

clapping with one hand as always! !

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

They took away India's land on some Ideological basis and that "Idea" was itself opposing "India as a peaceful co-existential entity". Pak was/is/will be in psychological turmoil with relationship conundrum of India.... "damned if you do , damned if you don't".

The argument is flawed to begin with - the land never belonged to India since India did not exist as the nation-State we see today in 1947. If anything, the land belonged to the people who lived on it, and a majority of those people (through their support for Jinnah, AIML and allied parties clearly chose in favor of a separate nation-State).

 

[Cliff@sea]

Who cares what rationale they coexist under, the point being made by some Indians was that nations cannot coexist peacefully together if they started off as one nation, and that point stands debunked.

You two are separated by 2000+ Kms of Indian Territory . . .

Hell . . .If that wouldn't have kept you peaceful after separation nothing would have.

Anyway Pleased to know that you dont care about TNT anymore . . . the Ideological Foundation of your existence is clearly falling apart .

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

clapping with one hand as always! !

Metaphors don't really refute my point - the argument stands debunked.

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

You two are separated by 2000+ Kms of Indian Territory . . .

Hell . . .If that wouldn't have kept you peaceful after separation nothing would have.

Anyway Pleased to know that you dont care about TNT anymore . . . the Ideological Foundation of your existence is clearly falling apart .

How is it falling apart any more than the foundations of the UK, Canada, US, Australia as separate nations rather than one single nation?

 

[blank_quest]

Hi, If I can be bold to quote another member from another forum whose post might help here.

You people have been brought up with this mentality that Pakistan was created in opposition to India and it may be true now but it wasn't the case

I have read some reports by some Asian Sociological organizations that Pakistan teaches distorted biased history of Extremism !

 

[Cliff@sea]

How is it falling apart any more than the foundations of the UK, Canada, US, Australia as separate nations rather than one single nation?

None of These Nations was founded on the noble notion that 'We can't live with those "other" guys'.

You were .

the 'We' has already devided itself into Two and many more fractures in this 'We' have already emerged . . . .

If this isn't a sign of Foundations falling apart i dont know what is .

 

[blank_quest]

The argument is flawed to begin with - the land never belonged to India since India did not exist as the nation-State we see today in 1947. If anything, the land belonged to the people who lived on it, and a majority of those people (through their support for Jinnah, AIML and allied parties clearly chose in favor of a separate nation-State).

Baloch never supported... nor did Abdul Gafar Khan. pakis have another history as always .

 

[Zarvin]

I've quoted above someone who answers most of the questions that are being asked here. Feel free to read it.

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

Baloch never supported... nor did Abdul Gafar Khan. pakis have another history as always .

Baloch did support actually, the main issue was the Khan of Kalat and Kalat did not alone comprise all of Balochistan province as it is defined today.

KAGK can disagree as much as he wants, the facts are that his views lost in the referendum that was conducted in the NWFP, and the tribes of the tribal areas entered into agreements to become part of Pakistan provided their autonomy was left intact.

 

[Daredevil]

The two nation theory that Muslims cannot live with Hindus has failed at 4 stages in the history of Pakistan.

1) when majority of Indian muslims decided to stay back in India during partition

2) when Bangladesh seceded from Pakistan in 1971

3) When ethnic groups like Balochs want to secede from Pakistan

4) And finally when it has become difficult for Shias, sunnis ans Ahmedis to live together if one goes by the rampant sectarian violence.

No one can deny the possibility that once arch enemies cannot live as peaceful neighbours in the future. But for that to happen Pakistan must shed the ideology of "two nation theory" and pathological hatred against India.

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

The two nation theory that Muslims cannot live with Hindus has failed at 4 stages in the history of Pakistan.

1) when majority of Indian muslims decided to stay back in India during partition

2) when Bangladesh seceded from Pakistan in 1971

3) When ethnic groups like Balochs want to secede from Pakistan

4) And finally when it has become difficult for Shias, sunnis ans Ahmedis to live together if one goes by the rampant sectarian violence.

No one can deny the possibility that once arch enemies cannot live as peaceful neighbours in the future. But for that to happen Pakistan must shed the ideology of "two nation theory" and pathological hatred against India.

Thanks for the lecture, but I think whether the identity and ideology of a nation has failed is a question that the citizens of a nation can answer, and the citizens of today's Pakistan, even with the minuscule Baloch insurgency, have chosen to continue as a single State independent of India and Bangladesh.

You can wish and rant all you want about why YOU think the ideology has failed, but at the end of the day it is Pakistani citizens that make that decision, and they have decided the exact opposite of what you believe.