Pakistan's Ideology and Identity crisis

[Yusuf]

Well more than worshiping, its like paying homage. Grave worship is probably the wrong term.

 

[musalman]

A Taliban government would work wonders for you country?

How more they can ruin it Will they be worse then the faujis

 

[musalman]

Well, I know that most Muslims of the subcontinent are Barelvies and "grave worship" as you call it is a common phenomenon among them since centuries. Nizamuddin Aulia's site at Ajmer has been visited for hundreds of years including by Mughal kings I believe. Certainly Musharraf as your president (and he claims Arab roots in his book!) visited the site.

So I can only consider your statements as explosive. I hope that is not the mainstream thinking in Pakistan.

Yes most ppl are barelvis
Visting Nizumuddin's grave and asking him for help is a shirk
No its not a mainstream thinking, your truly is a "Wahabi"

 

[musalman]

Well more than worshiping, its like paying homage. Grave worship is probably the wrong term.

No its the correct one. They do use them as waeela aren't they

 

[Su-47]

In case of nuking the Af Pak area, although not just Taliban will be killed infact fertile areas of Punjab in Pakistan and India will also be unlivable creating an extreme food crisis in the world.
Babies born in Dehli and Lahore will be deformed. etc etc

Man i don;t even want to think about these things

not if they use hydrogen bomb.

but even then, it will be horrendous for people in the area. nuking is not a viable option. i was just illustrating an extreme example, that's all.

 

[musalman]

not if they use hydrogen bomb.

but even then, it will be horrendous for people in the area. nuking is not a viable option. i was just illustrating an extreme example, that's all.

I know , i gave u the extreme results. BTW if anyone in the world irresposible with nukes, its the US who used it on two cities

 

[Vinod2070]

Yes most ppl are barelvis
Visting Nizumuddin's grave and asking him for help is a shirk
No its not a mainstream thinking, your truly is a "Wahabi"

No its the correct one. They do use them as waeela aren't they

Just so I am clear, shirk means assigning partners to the one God. Isn't that right?

The people probably treat the Sufi saints as mediators not God itself. No?

Is that still shirk?

 

[Yusuf]

No its the correct one. They do use them as waeela aren't they

So how does using someone as waseela become worship? It's invoking the good person laid to rest who was in his lifetime a pious person as a to between you and God. You are worshiping God and using another person to reach God.

 

[musalman]

Just so I am clear, shirk means assigning partners to the one God. Isn't that right?

The people probably treat the Sufi saints as mediators not God itself. No?

Is that still shirk?

Yes it is other wise infedals of Makkah also believed in one Allah but with smaller gods to reach him.

So how does using someone as waseela become worship? It's invoking the good person laid to rest who was in his lifetime a pious person as a to between you and God. You are worshiping God and using another person to reach God.

a.a.

 

[Singh]

Guys avoid discussing religion here. You can use PM facility to clear doubts if the need so arises.

 

[nitesh]

Guys avoid discussing religion here. You can use PM facility to clear doubts if the need so arises.

why not? Pakistan is made because of religion (Islam) then why they are killing each other? Don't they follow the same religion, any way another genocide is in offing:

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

Shias and Ismailis are the majority in Gilgit, and they depend solely on the state of Pakistan for their security. But there is a real fear among the people of Gilgit that they will be left to the mercy of the Taliban much like the people of Swat. The people of Gilgit are doubly detestable to the Taliban: they are non-Pashtun and follow a different sect of Islam. Further, we have bitter memories of 1988 when these very tribals assaulted Gilgit to purge the region of the ‘infidels’ — read Shias and Ismailis. Villages were pillaged, houses were burnt and women were dishonoured as the state remained a silent spectator.

 

[Vinod2070]

Guys avoid discussing religion here. You can use PM facility to clear doubts if the need so arises.

Singh, the idea was not to discuss the religion but to clarify some issues that came out of the discussion and it is pertinent to Pakistan's identity issue as the religion is a big (perhaps the only) part of that identity.

But I agree, we should not try to put down any religion and I don't think anyone has done that so far.

 

[nitesh]

a good read, some excerpts please read it in full

Could Pakistan Dissolve Altogether? | Mother Jones

Could Pakistan Dissolve Altogether?
Interview: Afghanistan scholar Thomas Barfield on Pashtun rebels, a nuclear Punjab, and how Islamabad played Americans for suckers.
—By Michael Mechanic

Pakistan has from its inception defined itself in opposition to India, and that makes it difficult. But Kashmir needs to be reconciled. Pakistan could also dissolve: The four provinces have very little holding them together.

They view everything as an extension of their battle with India. They bought our tanks and planes so that they could fight India, with which they have lost three wars.

It's not clear Pakistan's military can survive without our subsidies—it's a bankrupt country.

Part of it was its India strategy, this "strategic depth" they talk about. The Pakistani belief was, "What if the Indians overran the plains? We would regroup in Afghanistan and drive them out." But one look at Afghanistan and you say, "Wait a minute, how are you going to move your equipment?" It's ridiculous. It's not strategic depth. It's nothing. The Pakistanis also have a paranoia—which they actually now might make true—that India is trying to surround them, since India has always had good relations with Afghanistan, and Afghanistan and Pakistan have always had bad relations.

Afghanistan was the only state that voted against Pakistan's admission to the United Nations on the grounds that it was an illegitimate state, it shouldn't be allowed to exist. With Partition there were only two options: Join India or join Pakistan. The Afghans said there should be two more options, that the Northwest Frontier province and Baluchistan should be able to vote to become independent or join Afghanistan—they said people weren't given those options and therefore it was an unfair process. If you look at Afghan maps of Pakistan, they always include what they call Pashtunistan, which runs to the Indus River. As you can imagine, Pakistan is not real pleased to see maps like that, which give away half its territory. So there's been this hostility. And essentially, because India's been opposed to Pakistan, Afghanistan has had good relations with Delhi. But the big thing is that Afghans hold Pakistan responsible for most of the trouble in their country.

 

[johnee]

^^^excellent article nitesh. I am posting it in full, since it has excellent analysis of pakistan's present crisis, its reasons and possible solutions.

Boston University anthropologist Thomas Barfield has been publishing relentlessly ever since the mid-1970s, when he wandered northern Afghanistan doing doctoral fieldwork. He has since emerged as one of America's foremost experts on the region, focusing on political development, provincial-state relations, and customary law. In 2006, Barfield, now president of the American Institute of Afghanistan Studies, received a prestigious Guggenheim Fellowship to complete his upcoming book on the changing concepts of political legitimacy in Afghanistan. I caught up with the professor to discuss the P-word—Pakistan—and its role in our current predicament. At the time of our interview, Pakistan's government had not yet signed its agreement with the Taliban that allowed for the imposition of strict Islamic law in six northwestern regions, including Swat.

Mother Jones: To what degree does future Afghan stability depend on reconciliation between India and Pakistan?

Thomas Barfield: The India/Pakistan relationship is probably central. Pakistan has from its inception defined itself in opposition to India, and that makes it difficult. But Kashmir needs to be reconciled. Pakistan could also dissolve: The four provinces have very little holding them together.


MJ: Dissolve into what?

TB: Four ministates or something, in which case your policy changes radically. If you're dealing with rump nuclear-armed Punjab and three separate, independent nations, then reconciliation almost becomes a moot point.

MJ: Can you make peace in Afghanistan without dealing with Kashmir?

TB: Yes, you can. Kashmir's a separate issue, and settling it would not necessarily stop the Pakistanis from meddling in Afghanistan—which they used to talk about as their fifth province.

MJ: And also an extension of their battle with India.

TB: They view everything as an extension of their battle with India. They bought our tanks and planes so that they could fight India, with which they have lost three wars. It's totally not in Pakistan's self-interest to do this, and yet they're utterly driven by it. But if you solve the India thing, I presume that would go a long way to providing regional peace.

MJ: What can the US do to facilitate this, given that India doesn't want outsiders involved in the Kashmir dispute?

TB: It's not clear Pakistan's military can survive without our subsidies—it's a bankrupt country. One of the things for us to tell Pakistan is that we may not want to get involved in this directly, but we want to see this problem solved. And in this the US is probably neutral, because there's no constituency in the United States that's keen on Kashmir one way or the other. Most people don't even know where it is.

MJ: Pakistan's army and ISI, its military intelligence service, basically made the Taliban what it is. Was this support driven by ideology or India strategy?

TB: Part of it was its India strategy, this "strategic depth" they talk about. The Pakistani belief was, "What if the Indians overran the plains? We would regroup in Afghanistan and drive them out." But one look at Afghanistan and you say, "Wait a minute, how are you going to move your equipment?" It's ridiculous. It's not strategic depth. It's nothing. The Pakistanis also have a paranoia—which they actually now might make true—that India is trying to surround them, since India has always had good relations with Afghanistan, and Afghanistan and Pakistan have always had bad relations.

MJ: How come?

TB: Afghanistan was the only state that voted against Pakistan's admission to the United Nations on the grounds that it was an illegitimate state, it shouldn't be allowed to exist. With Partition there were only two options: Join India or join Pakistan. The Afghans said there should be two more options, that the Northwest Frontier province and Baluchistan should be able to vote to become independent or join Afghanistan—they said people weren't given those options and therefore it was an unfair process. If you look at Afghan maps of Pakistan, they always include what they call Pashtunistan, which runs to the Indus River. As you can imagine, Pakistan is not real pleased to see maps like that, which give away half its territory. So there's been this hostility. And essentially, because India's been opposed to Pakistan, Afghanistan has had good relations with Delhi. But the big thing is that Afghans hold Pakistan responsible for most of the trouble in their country.

MJ: India has also been visibly doing good things in Afghanistan.

TB: Oh, a lot. When the truck bomb went off at the Indian Embassy last July in Kabul, the Indians saw that as a calling card from ISI saying, "Get out. This is our territory." And they responded by saying, "We're going to give Afghanistan another $400 million."

MJ: Wasn't Jalaluddin Haqqani the bomber?

TB: Yeah. But he's an Afghan who fights for the Taliban, and this wasn't a Taliban operation. This was a message from Islamabad to India. The bomb went off as India's military attaché was coming to work, so it wasn't just a bomb; it was an assassination specifically targeting one of their high military officials.

MJ: Does Pashtun nationalism play any role in Pakistan's military activities?

TB: Pashtuns are a small minority—something like 15 percent—so their nationalism is looked upon very critically. The government and military are dominated by people from the Punjab.

MJ: Right. In fact, many Pashtuns basically live on reservations, the tribal areas, that operate under a 1901 law.

TB: Yes, the Frontier Crimes Regulation Act. Some of the Pashtuns feel like they are a colony of Pakistan. They're not full citizens, and the act gives the Pakistani government the right to collective punishment, to burn down villages, to ban trade, and even to put whole tribes under interdict—even if they're not living in the area. So it's fairly draconian, and it comes directly out of British colonial rule.

MJ: So if the army isn't Pashtun, how does a smaller element like the ISI exert so much control?

TB: A lot of people in the ISI are Pashtuns because they had the language skills. During the Soviet War period, [Mohammad] Zia ul-Haq began Islamizing the army. Before, the army was fairly resolutely secular, but since the '80s you saw a greater and greater influence of Islamists in the army as well as the ISI. By the time they were helping the Taliban, some [army officials] were highly sympathetic to this idea of a Wahhabi-style Islamic state. Pakistan was formed as a state for Muslims separated off from India—it's name means "land of the religiously pure"—and it's always been like, "Well, are we Muslim enough?" All states founded as places to protect a religious group run into that problem. Israel has that problem with its right wing, and in Pakistan it's even stronger.

MJ: How has army support of the jihadis imperiled the Pakistani government?

TB: The easiest example: The jihadis took over Swat Valley, which is full of Pashtuns, but was under the direct rule of the government and always had been. It had become one of the more secular, progressive areas of the Pashtuns, because it was a resort. It had ski lodges, and was a big tourist place for foreigners in the '70s and '80s. Swat is only a couple hours drive from Islamabad. This is like rebels taking Fredericksburg and sending their representatives to Washington saying, "We want autonomy. Northern Virginia isn't good enough for us."
MJ: And Pakistan has basically bent over.

TB: Yes, it really has. They have trained their troops to fight conventional warfare on the plains with tanks, with missiles, against India. So in a place like Swat, where you've got guys with guns fighting in mountains, and who are experts on ambush, they have just trounced the Pakistan army. The army is able to take back the major roads, the major towns, but its people are not trained and they don't seem to have the stomach for taking these guys on in essentially a counterinsurgency.

MJ: Yet we've given the Pakistanis more than $10 billion, some $6 billion for the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and the border, ostensibly to fight the jihadis. Has Pakistan taken us for a ride?

TB: Oh sure. But they took us for a ride during the Soviet War, too. They feel they're experts at playing us for suckers. A lot of these problems were evident, three, four, even six years ago, but nobody, including the Bush administration, was particularly interested. All the attention has been on Iraq. So this gave the Pakistanis a lot of flexibility to cause mischief. As far as they were concerned, at some point the US was going to get out of there; their whole strategy was to keep the Taliban in reserve and keep their own options open. Now people are seeing that the whole region could go up. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. It has 173 million people. It's big. So the focus and the context—even the appointment of [US diplomat Richard] Holbrooke to be special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan—implies that both countries are part of the problem.

MJ: So what happens if Pakistan dissolves?

TB: There will probably be an independent Pashtun state, unlikely to join with Afghanistan, because for all the lip service Afghans give to Pashtunistan, they can count. If they were part of this state, they would be a minority, and that's probably not a good idea from their point of view. There could be an independent Baluchistan. That's Pakistan's major gas producing area, and there's been an insurgency there for a long time. Some people say Baluchistan might join with Sindh, the other major populated area. Sindh is mostly Shia, and they feel persecuted by these radical Sunnis. There's really a large number of Shias in Pakistan that these radical Sunnis consider to be heretics—they are mostly in the south. Also in the south, in Karachi, you have all the so-called Muhajirs, the people who left India to resettle in Pakistan. So effectively you'd get three or four states. The most powerful would still be the Punjab. That would be the one holding the nuclear arms—Islamabad, Lahore, that area.

MJ: Who would be in charge?

TB: The Punjabis. They see themselves as the dominant group in Pakistan. They're more moderate on the religious and political spectrums—as long as they can be in charge. The army that you see now is mostly Punjabi, so you'd have this large army overlooking this rump state with lots of nukes. The other thing to consider is the elites are highly modern and moderate, highly westernized: Could a social revolution break out in which the elites who have run the place since it was founded are displaced by an entirely different social class that is more radical—that doesn't have the same vested interests or education? The army has always stood to prevent that, so presumably if they would hold on to the army, the army would hold on to Punjab and prevent things from getting out of hand. But then the question would be, if it starts to fall apart like that, would India feel the need to make a preemptive strike to go after the nukes?

MJ: Yikes!

TB: Yes. They do not want to see it that way, because when people start planning three or four moves ahead and worrying about preempting this and that, things can get pretty dangerous pretty fast.

I highly recommend this article be read in full. it brings out several factors.

notice that initially the questioner(MJ) thinks that solving the kashmir would solve the pakistan problem. but the answerer(TB) tells them that pakistan is founded as anti-indian and solving kashmir doesnt guarantee anything becoz pakistan sees afghanistan as a fifth province. he also tell the MJ that kashmir is a SEPARATE ISSUE. he is also hinting that the best solution could be dissolution of pakistan into 3/4 independent mini-states.
TB also gives insight into the fact that PA is not trained to fight insurgency and doesnt seem to have stomach to do so. here it would be interesting to remember the popular myth in pakistan that pashtuns are some super-heroes undefeated till now. could pakjabis falling for their own propaganda?!
TB also tells the questioner that US has been taken for a ride by pakistan not only now, but even in the past at the time of soviet war. he mentions how punjabis(pakjabis) are moderate and liberal as long as they are in charge. they believe its their birthright to lord over the ppl of sub-continent in a 'mughal fashion'. this mindset is the real reason for the 'jihad' against india. they cant tolerate that indians could be doing much better than them in all fields. the very fact that india exists causes strife to them, hence the proxy-war. kashmir is an excuse. the article also provides insight into the fact that army simply has been serving the interests of elite pakjabis. pakjabis control the army and army controls the pakistan.

the article tells us the deep rifts within the pakistan on the basis of ethinicity and different sects of islam. it mentions the fear of shias and their concerns.

finally, the article puts the onus on india to de-nuke pak by carrying out pre-emptive strikes.

 

[nitesh]

Johnee

I feel like people are understanding the problem but not fully. They still feels that if Kashmir is resolved the Pakistani problem can be sorted out. But they fail to understand (fully) that Pakistani problem is anti India, so long as India exist the problem will remain. There very existence is based on this. And when the basis of existence is flawed then nothing much can be done about that.

 

[johnee]

Johnee

I feel like people are understanding the problem but not fully. They still feels that if Kashmir is resolved the Pakistani problem can be sorted out. But they fail to understand (fully) that Pakistani problem is anti India, so long as India exist the problem will remain. There very existence is based on this. And when the basis of existence is flawed then nothing much can be done about that.

'once we solve kasmir, india and pakistan can live like bros, since we are same ppl', this has been the propaganda sold to us by the pakjabis and our dhimmi politicians, media and even ppl have bought it in past. but the realisation that pakistan symbolises anti-india is slowly dawning on ppl.
in the past we had politicians like gujral who unilaterally gave up india's covert capability in pakistan, hoping that pakistan would return the favor. this is the dhimmi attitude. vajpayee took a peace bus to lahore believing that pakistan and india can be friends. pakistani paid back by doing a kargil.
even today, we have journalists and media houses trying to promote peace between pakistan and india. this is dhimminess. though the recent attack in mumbai and rise of taliban has made many indians believe that india and pakistan are as different as chalk and cheese. but some ppl still persist with dhimmitude. we need to remind them that while india is multi-ethinic, multi-linguistic, pluralist, liberal, democratic society, pakistan is the exact contradiction of india. pakistan and india are neither same nor equal. pakistan's national pshyche can be explained simply by saying that it has always had a inferiority complex vis-a-vis india. they have tried to assuage it by masking it with a superiority complex. pakistan has serious problems regarding its relgion as well. the biggest problem for any common abdul of pak is: 'am I muslim enough?'
this mindset has created problems for this entire region. the only solution to this problem is the dissolution of pakistan and possible annexation in future. remember, that pakistan is an artificial country created on a false ideology. so, once the pakistan is annexed by india and assimilated, there would be a lasting peace for the region and world since the natural course would have been restablished. for that to happen, the first thing would be for all the indians to be clear with their ideas. they should not have any misconception about pakistan or the dangers its existence poses to india. so, the dhimmitude must be given up by indians. thats the first step to regional peace: all indians must give up dhimmitude.

 

[johnee]

this is the dhimmitude I was talking about.

Gandhi kin asks India to resume talks with Pakistan
By Jawed Naqvi
Wednesday, 29 Apr, 2009 | 04:31 AM PST
NEW DELHI, April 28: A grandson of Mahatma Gandhi has joined demands by a growing number of Indian activists for resumption of talks with Pakistan, saying the beleaguered country needed “neighbourly support”(neighbourly support?! how about the same ppl demand this neighbourly support from pakistan in prosecuting ppl responsible for training, arming, abbetting, guiding monsters like kasab?) as well as a self-help strategy(wat would that strategy be?! is it more bheek from US and kashmir from india?) to overcome its many challenges, a statement said on Tuesday.

In a petition signed by senior Indian citizens, including former prime minister I.K. Gujral(no we dont want another gujral doctrine), peace activist Rajmohan Gandhi said: “At this time Indians must express total and unqualified support to all Pakistanis striving to preserve normal life in their country.

“Threats to Pakistanis are not only threats to close neighbours; they are threats moving towards India, and threats that can easily scale the international border.”(yea, india and pak equal equal only. dhimmitude at its worst)
The statement said: “Self-interest plus the simplest humanity demands that Indians, citizens and the government, do all they can to make the challenges before Pakistanis less arduous. Despite India’s ongoing elections, and notwithstanding Indian complaints against Pakistani governments, agencies and groups, let India and Indians offer every encouragement and support to the people of Pakistan in the difficult times they face.” (I wonder wat support and encouragement offered by india would tempt the PA to take on talibuddies?)

Indians could not remain mute witnesses of the serious danger that Pakistan faces and of the brave effort of many Pakistanis to meet that danger, the statement said.(brave effort?!! now, this is getting funny. are you referring to swat deal by any means?)

“Going to work or school is today a hazard in several parts of Pakistan. Many children remain at home. Trust in institutions of government and in security forces has dropped steeply.(just a minor blowback of its thousand cut policy) Mutual blame often replaces joint action.”

Signatories to the public petition included former foreign secretary Salman Haider, rights activists(now get ready for some stellar names) Teesta Setalvad(isnt she the same woman who fabricated victims affidavits in post-godhra riots?), Aruna Roy(is she related to arundhati roy?!), legal activists Fali Nariman and former Justice Rajinder Sachchar.(is this the same one from sachchar committee?)

“We extend our solidarity to those Pakistanis who in this crisis are working for reconciliation among Pakistan’s divided groups, thereby making the Pakistani soil less hospitable to extremism and violence.
“We express the earnest hope that Pakistan will overcome its internal trust-deficit --- whether between parties, ethnic groups or sects, or between the political class and security forces, or even among relatives --- and thereby emerge stronger.”(and once they unite, the can collectively wage jihad against the kufr hindustan. fascinating)


The petition came as a departure from the relentless pressure mounted by the mainstream Indian parties and the government on Pakistan to dismantle terrorist infrastructures they accuse Islamabad of allowing on its territory.

Even as the statement was circulated, Indian Army chief Gen Deepak Kapoor said infiltration of terrorists into Jammu and Kashmir, helped by Pakistani establishment, had risen substantially, with March recording the highest influx as compared to the corresponding month in the last seven years.(yea, even as terrorists are being pumped into india, there are morons wanting piss with the pakistan)

DAWN.COM | Front Page | Gandhi kin asks India to resume talks with Pakistan

 

[jackprince]

Whom do these morons represent? The moronic community of India? And what do they propose about the sort of helping hand should the GoI give the Pakistanis? These ppl are all for their 15 seconds of fame. How could they forget the treacherous acts of Pakistan so easily!

 

[nitesh]

Desicritics.org: Talibanization of Pakistan: Realizing the Dreams of Founding Fathers

Pakistanis have been fooled for too long by Jinnah to begin with, depriving them of a truly Islamic state. Thanks to the Taliban, they are about to realize their ‘dream state’, for which they relentlessly fought and sacrificed immensely.

 

[Vinod2070]

^^ Made for really gross reading.

Pakistan is an unnatural state carved out of our motherland. I think it is India's holy duty to get it back.