Liberals & the Two Nation Theory

This is a Pakpotpourri Exclusive

By:Yasmeen Ali

Many so-called liberals claim that the Two Nation Theory that created Pakistan, promotes hatred. Their claim is, it is a theory that is irrelevant in today’s world and we must promote peace in the world, irrespective of race and religion and do away with the Two Nation Theory like a redundant piece of furniture.

Unlike any geographical state, Pakistan was created as an Islamic Ideological State. The Two Nation Theory outlines the basic identity of the Muslims in the Sub-Continent. It states that it is the religion which establishes their identity, not ethnicity or race. Is the Two Nation Theory irrelevant today? Can the reason for creation of a State ever be irrelevant at any time? If yes, what is the reason for the Baluchs, the Punjabis, the Sindhis, the Pashtuns, the Urdu Speaking to share one common entity-being Pakistanis? If this identity that marks us, is irrelevant in today’s world, do we then not stand stripped of the umbrella, each ONLY with his ethnic identity? If this common platform is taken away from all ethnicities currently forming Pakistan, we become only Pashtuns, Urdu Speaking, Baluchs, or Sindhis without a common entity. Does this not hit at the very base of the creation of Pakistan, even today questioning it’s very existence-and promoting disintegration?

Allama Iqbal, the great poet and philosopher, was a great advocate of Two-Nation Theory. His presidential address to the Muslim League on December 29, 1930, paved the way for the creation of Pakistan. He made the philosophical explanation of the Two-Nation Theory. He condemned the idols of color and race as he believed in a unified Muslim society in the subcontinent.

Another favorite argument of our so-called liberals is that religion has promoted killings with Muslims killing Muslims. What crap!  It is not religion that promotes killing. No religion in the world promotes it. It is vested interest groups that use others for killings. They can and will use any weapon to brain wash available to them , this may or may not include religion.

Addressing the second question, that the Two Nation Theory creates hatred & we should instead promote peace in the world; is establishing one’s identity equivalent to  promoting hatred?

I challenge those who make this statement to prove that establishing your entity is akin to promoting hatred. How does it conclude that Pakistan created on the basis of ideology is at war with non-Muslims? Pakistan was created on basis of ideology which believes in it’s unique identity, and being a pro-active member of the comity of nations in the world. Has any other religious entity given up their religious identity to “promote peace”? What stops Pakistan as a nation to promote peace while maintaining their identity? India too, was created on basis of Two Nation Theory,yet one does not hear the so-called liberal there calling upon their religious groups to give up their religious entity for “peace”. They would be laughed out of the country.

Unfortunately, in Pakistan they are considered to be promoting “liberal school of thought”, many following for being gullible.

A friend wrote to me,” Some are questioning the validity of Two Nation Theory, whereas, some are trying their level best to manipulate its true spirit. Which is slow poison in my opinion”.

(The writer is a Lawyer & teaches in a University based in Lahore).

Advertisements
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • Zafar Akhtar  On September 1, 2011 at 9:53 am

    Yasmin, your reference to India with respect to two nation theory is so relevent.Very good effort indeed
    Zafar Akhtar

  • Sohaib  On September 1, 2011 at 10:12 am

    rightly observed. I personally believe that had Kashmir been given independence or become part of Pakistan, there would ave been no wars between the two countries and only peace and friendship within a few years. After all Indian movies were screened freely in Pakistan from 1950s, cricket teams traveled to and fro and so did trade. Once the two countries had become dependent on each other for their respective economies, it would ave been like Western Europe in the 1950s.

    • S U Turkman  On September 1, 2011 at 2:50 pm

      Not only Kashmir but there were dozens of States that were left independent by the British but Pakistan and India usurped them all. India had not tried to usurp Kashmir, it was Pakistan that had tried to overthrow the Maharaja and take over Kashmir, when India pushed Pakistan out of the part of Kashmir that Pakistan had not conquered yet.
      Does anybody know, PakhToon Khwah, Baluchistan, Northern Territories, Southern Punjab, Dera Ghaiz Khan, Dera Ismail Khan and some other states now part of Pakistan were not given by the British to Mr. Jinnah?
      All those are Pakistan Occupied territories, not Pakistan.

  • samson simon sharaf  On September 1, 2011 at 11:16 am

    Let us try to absorb Marvi’s Pint of view which is not hers alone. The Two Nation Theory as a raison for dividing India was ok and relevant then. It did not prevent 1971 and rise of parochial forces within Pakistan. Overstretching of this theory by the rightist to justify violence, wars, insurgencies and militancy cannot be denied. She is right when she says that much of Pakistan’s present internal crises are because of this this. I feel she has logic and and anyone who dis agrees has to counter her by logic and not Iqbal’s Allahbad Speech.

    • Ijaz Khan  On September 2, 2011 at 4:39 am

      If you had eyes,which I think you do not,being blind as a bat, you would have read Yasmeen’s article in which she has correctly stated,
      “Another favorite argument of our so-called liberals is that religion has promoted killings with Muslims killing Muslims. What crap! It is not religion that promotes killing. No religion in the world promotes it. It is vested interest groups that use others for killings. They can and will use any weapon to brain wash available to them , this may or may not include religion”.
      Get a pair of glasses!

      • S U Turkman  On September 2, 2011 at 6:42 pm

        Right, right. Spread of Islamic Extremism encouraged by Pak Army by creating JehaaDi Groups that is causing Mosque Bombings and killings of Pakistanis everyday has nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with our JehaaDi selfish Army that wants to keep ruling Pakistan in the name of religion and patriotism.
        You see Humans always bomb each others places of worship, doesn’t matter, what is their religion so, please stop blaming our Islam for causing all this Bloodshed just because the Killers claim to be devout Moslims. Allaho Akbar …!

    • Rizwan  On September 2, 2011 at 5:41 am

      The crisis in Pakistan is not because of religion. Though I know you would love to say so. It is due to poverty,lack of education, social disharmony & lack of opportunities.Which gallery are you playing to Brigadier?
      Smells of Vested Interests.

      • S U Turkman  On September 2, 2011 at 6:51 pm

        That’s right.
        * ‘The Crisis in Pakistan not because of religion’ because it exists in all countries of the world ‘due to poverty,lack of education, social disharmony & lack of opportunities”.
        In all such countries of the world …
        .
        * … thousands of people are killed every year by their Taliban and Army. In all such countries they have Military Staged Democracy like in Pakistan.
        * … a minority Ethnic Group rules the country.and loots it.
        * … Army has been trying to overthrow an Elected President.
        * .. USA and the West have been looting and that’s why those countries are poor, illiterate, mis-managed and corrupt.
        * … USA has been telling their rulers to loot.

  • lofty radical  On September 1, 2011 at 11:36 am

    Yasmeen.

    though it is interesting to notice your well researched and thought provoking article, may I add if you could also insert the following documented references and then place your thesis against them to further substantiate your “liberal hogwash” claim?

    1). In a letter sent to the editor to the times of india in 1938 in which Iqbal clarified his stance that he didn’t mean a “seperate” homeland for muslims, rather he wanted their provinces to be considered as muslim majority within the dominion of India as also stated by Simon Reort or as according to the lines advocated by Nehru

    2). Quaid’s first address to the Constituent Assembly in which he specifically mentioned that the division was impossible because of the issue over constitution. “You may belong to any religion or caste or creed-that has nothing to do with the business of the State.” if two-nation theory was the reason why you thought was Pakistan created, then why would not Jinnah envisage theocracy here?

    3). If two-nation theory was really the reason for Pakista, then why did the staunch orthodox clerical body not support Pakistan movement and Lahore Resolution?

    Thanks,

    Lofty Radical

  • Bajwa  On September 1, 2011 at 1:35 pm

    What is conveniently forgotten is that leadership of both was liberal and secular.

    In any case Pakistan was born out of fear of Hindu domination. It was not conceived ideologically.

    Even now the issue is not religion. Issue is domination of the Church. The two should not be mixed.

    Fortunately the Church is divided so common man has some space to himself.

    If you had one like in S. Arabia or Iran you have had it.

    A.Bajwa

    • Yasmeen Ali  On September 1, 2011 at 1:35 pm

      Mr Bajwa
      The leadership may have been liberal, that does not take away the fact that Pakistan WAS created because of the prosecution by Hindus . It was ideological. Otherwise why a state for Muslims only? There were other religous groups in India besides Hindus & Muslims. It could have been a call to create a State for Muslims & other X Group too.
      Completely tragic that to date we do not know WHY Pakistan was created?
      WOW!
      YAA

      • GRK  On September 1, 2011 at 3:56 pm

        dear yaa.this is the tragedy which pains me a lot.after creation of the country,still the wisdom has not prevailed by the thinkers who continue to enjoy thr freedom.i wish they may go to india and find out the truth about the conditions of muslims there grk

      • S U Turkman  On September 2, 2011 at 7:02 pm

        Yeah, yeah and this is why we have to now persecute our Moslim Brothers tens of times more than Hindus were persecuting them before partition and have been persecuting them in India, right?
        If Pakistan was created to save Moslims from Hindu Persecution, why has Pakistan Army killed dozens of times more Moslims in Pakistan than India has in last 64 years?
        CONCLUSION:
        If Pakistan was needed to save Moslims from Hindu Persecution, now 56% of Pakistan’s population, the Non PUnjabi definitely need their own countries so, they can be saved from persecution of Kaafir Punjabi Army and its looting for more than half a century.

    • S U Turkman  On September 1, 2011 at 2:55 pm

      I agree but Allah also did not want Moslim Domination in India. He had wanted to free Hindus, who were under 900 years of Moslim Domination by carving out Pakistan out of India. If India was not divided, Muslim League would have been a part of every government in India like it was in 1946 with MUslim League have all major Ministries and 1/3rd of the total.
      Does anybody know, the first Finance Minister of India was Nawab Liaqat Ali Khan?

  • Yasmeen Ali  On September 1, 2011 at 1:41 pm

    PUBLISHED:
    Liberals & the Two Nation Theory
    http://www.veracitynow.com/Editorials/liberals-a-the-two-nation-theory.html

  • Faisal Imam  On September 1, 2011 at 1:46 pm

    good show,Ms Ali.
    the proposition was placed before the world over a hundred years ago by the formation of the Muslim League.The concept was then accepted and okayed by the world including the Indian leadership;therefore Pakistan came into being.
    It is the illiterate leadership of Pakistan which has no awareness of the depth of the two Nation Theory and its moorings.It is the hijacking of the ideology of Pakistan by the Islamists who were opposed to the creation of Pakistan and never had belief in the concept and don’t have it to date.It is this class of people who wear beards on the face or in their bellies.They are the coterie who have taken over and robbed the country dry.This includes most of the existing leadership. They will never give anything to Pakistan,they will grab everything. they can be bought and sold as it happened even before the creation of Pakistan since the time of Mir Jaffar.They removed the true history of Pakistan from the text books and from the bookshelves,they carried out a concerted program to take away the power from the builders and believers of Pakistan and have sold us on the auction block.if u view Pakistan from the Pakistani point of view instead of the sindhi,baluchi,pathan,punjabi,shia ,sunni ,wahabi,ersiki,pakhtun,army,judiciary,executive,pol,points of view things come into focus straight away.
    I have always felt this way and have offended many,but thank God we are getting there.

    • S U Turkman  On September 1, 2011 at 3:09 pm

      Two Nation Theory was created not to have a Pakistan for all Moslims of the Sub Continent but for rule of Elite of Moslims. It was dead, when Pakistan had closed border in 1952 ending free emigration of Moslims in to Pakistan. If Pakistan believes in that 2 Nation Theory, why it does not permit emigration of Moslims in India and is so prejudice against Non Punjabis that even Visitor Visa for great grand daughter of Tipu Sultan (who had wanted to participate in Karachi Wedding of her only Pakistan grand daughter) was rejected in 1997?
      .
      It looks like Pakistan was built for Punjabis only because Punjabi Speaking Sikhs have been granted Pak Citizenship but not Behaaris living Red Cross Camps in Bangladesh for the last 39 years.
      Their only fault is, they are not Punjabi. When Pakj Punjabi Establishment has shown its prejudice against Non Punjabis for decades, its stupid to blame Non Punjabis for calling themselves by their Ethnicities. Punjabis want everybody to call themselves Pakistanis while they can keep calling themselves Punjabis. The Purpose is to keep all other Ethnic Groups like 3rd Class citizens of Pakistan in Name of Islam and flag of Pakistan they are covering their Nude Bodies with.

      • Anonymous  On September 1, 2011 at 3:54 pm

        Ahha trhe RAW RAT is here again to shed pearls of wisdom(and droppings)

  • Siddiqui My  On September 1, 2011 at 3:52 pm

    Dear ALL Liberals;
    Before we start a serious debate one should clarify all the definitions one is going to use eg :
    Liberal
    Secular
    Church Pl consult any decent dictionary
    Ideology
    Nation etc……….

    Muslims are not a NATION but an UMMAH; Western terminolgy is used to describe their political definitions. The moment a person embraces Islam he becomes integral part of Muslim Ummah.

    Now to Pakistan : Indeed many hindus had converted to Islam and thus became part of Muslim Ummah
    Mujaddid e Alaf Sani, during the reign of Akbar/Jahangir saw the danger of muslims being overwhelmed by the natives of India
    Shah Wali Ullah much later got so worried, he invited Ahmad Shah Abdali to confront the marhatta power
    During the British rule Sir Syed defined hindus and muslims as two eyes of India ( separate ?)
    In late 19th century Abdul Haleem Sharer described hindus and muslims as two DIFFERENT identities…..
    So seperate identity of the Muslims was always manifest in the body politics of the sub continent
    Iqbal clearly and in philosophical terms defind the separate muslim identity
    Quide Azam then stated it very clearly and with great articulation in 1940s

    So why are self styled liberals ( who even do not know the meaning of the word ) are so worked up now …just to show off their intellect

    Incidentally there is no church in Islam and the religious scholars are dominating because our self acclaimed intellectuals have no idea of Islam. If they were real intellectuals, they would not give space to the halfeducated moulvis !!
    Islam is not an Ideology and is not SECULAR either
    Pl look up any decent dictionary and clear your thinking instead of parroting the western
    the half educated intellectuals
    Be proud to be a MUSLIM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    with due respects

    siddiqui

    • S U Turkman  On September 1, 2011 at 9:18 pm

      Mr. Siddiqui, Shah Wali Ullah had made a serious mistake by inviting Abdali because he just looted Indian instead of making Moslims Non Secular.
      * If Ommah is one, why are there 44 countries asking for Visa from their own Moslim Brothers?
      * 1940 Pakistan Resolution had never called for a separate country. It asks for a Federation of Moslim Majority States of India under British Rule only. Where do you find phrase ‘an independent country’ in that Resolution?
      * If Islam, Christianity, Hinduism are not ideologies, what are they besides being Religions?
      We know, Islam is not secular but then why your Mollaas living in Western Countries praise Secularism and preach that Islam is also Multi Cultural-ism and Pluralism?
      How come truth of Moslims keeps changing according to direction of Wind?
      I have no idea, what the writer of the article is talking about, “India too, was created on basis of Two Nation Theory,yet one does not hear the so-called liberal there calling upon their religious groups to give up their religious entity for “peace”. They would be laughed out of the country …” because India is a Secular Country.
      The problem in Yasmeen’s head is, she thinks, Secularism means Islam would be banned in Pakistan and Mosques would be demolished. Have Mosques and Temples been demolished in India or any other Secular Country of the world?
      85% of Non Moslim Countries are Secular. Has religion been banned in those countries?

    • Mohammad Chaudhry  On September 2, 2011 at 11:02 am

      What is the meaning of Ummah according to this decent dictionary and when in history it existed.

      Two nations is not even an issue. The issue is that Muslim Ummah as it exists in the so called sub-continent should stay on a liberal course
      and prevent the Church from dominating the Ummah. Islam does’t provide for Church that is why some are so keen to raise one.

      And the Muslims in Pakistan should remain cognizant of the interests of the part of Ummah which we left behind in India.

      Shah Waliullah invited Ahmed Shah Abdali but Waris Shah fought against him. And let us not forget that Ahmed Shah plundered everyone particularly those
      who invited him. So what are you trying to prove. Liberals have been the winners so why they should feel nervous.And Iqbal was no self acclaimed intellectual.
      And he did not parrot the half educated western intellectuals. Who are these any way.

      The West has always funded the religious groups in Pakistan as a counterpoise to communism. Now perhaps they don’t. That is why the nervousness.

      A.Bajwa

  • Admiral Fasih Bokhari  On September 1, 2011 at 4:23 pm

    YAA,
    You have an advantage being a scholar and historian, in an area where most should not dare take issue with you. I am therefore not taking issue with your premises or conclusions.
    However, in the current charged environment that has found stark exposure through the Marvi Sirmed / Zaid Hamid SAFMA debate, it is important to clearly define the correct lines and not fall into the “Two Nation” debate trap, which is being mis-used by both the Muslim conservatives and secular Liberals, confusing and thereby sidelining the real issue confronting Pakistan.
    The real issue, as the PESA NSP identifies, is secure and inclusive nationhood that is being rent apart by extreme and intolerant agendae. It is being made to appear that India-Pakistan relationship is the main issue, while the pro Pakistan “inclusive centrist trajectory” is being ignored. This situation plays into the hands of those who wish to divide our nationhood.
    Pakistan is here to stay.
    It is only us who weaken Pakistan by continually debating the rationale for its birth and continued existence. There is no point in looking back and dividing our nation. We need to look forward and define where we want to go………..together.
    It is time to take up the inclusive centrist trajectory that will only be evolved through debate, tolerance, and compromise, to secure our nationhood.
    There will be no peace or economic progress till we become united.

    Fasih Bokhari

    • Yasmeen Ali  On September 1, 2011 at 4:24 pm

      Dear Admiral Bukhari
      The lines are correctly defined, I have, in my article stated that if today, certain vested groups are misusing religion, this does not mean that the logic of creation of Pakistan is incorrect.These are two different things & must be so understood. At this time,when we have gone through the bloodiest Ramazan, bringing up this stark difference, creating an on going media war on F B and TWITTER, raises the question, as to on whose agenda is this being done? At this point,where we must be united, why is the divide being promoted & to what end?
      I am no believer in conspiracy theories but cannot but question this issue raised at this point.
      Having said that,I believe in our existence, and that we must move forward as one.United.
      Unfortunately,I have received hate mails from some “liberals” once I wrote this piece, who have lashed out at killings of minorities & supporting the so called liberal point of view completely ignoring that I had already dealt with this point in my article. I am sorry to state, this reflects intolerance in the same way as extremist rightists do so.They are both two sides to a coin.
      I neither know Mervi Sermed nor Zaid Hamid . However,with elements seeking to serve vested interests with raising questions about the very logic of creation of Pakistan,this must be dealt with,one cannot walk away .
      Rgds
      YAA

    • Bakhtiar Hakeem  On September 1, 2011 at 4:35 pm

      “SECURE AND INCLUSIVE NATIONHOOD”
      may we (all Pakistanis) read, lead by the Admiral, poem by Iqbal titled, ‘Wataniayt’.

      • Admiral Fasih Bokhari  On September 1, 2011 at 4:46 pm

        Pakistan came into being as a nation state, and is a nation state today. I took a lifetime oath for Pakistan as a nation state.
        I abhor the concept of “nation states” because it divides humanity. I also abhor how Religion is used to divide humanity. But I do not hate religions or nation states. The rationalization is based on tolerance.
        Hakeem Sahib, Iqbal’s poetry stirs the soul, but please put me on the right path, if I err, by explaining how Jinnah and Iqbal rationalized accepting Pakistan as a nation state, and not as a land without boundaries in a Muslim Ummah.
        The entire world has accepted the division into Nation states. Most of the majority Muslim states are not ready to give up their distinctive nationhood, and certainly don’t see Pakistanis as their “companions”, in either the sense of “nation statehood” or “Ummah”.
        I hope I haven’t misplaced your convictions and position on Iqbal’s “Wataniyat”. Forgive me if I have.
        Fasih Bokhari

    • S U Turkman  On September 1, 2011 at 9:30 pm

      That’s right. 2 Nation Theory was created to unite Moslims but it had failed to unite Moslims and we Punjabis were dead against it. Our Punjab Assembly had told the Viceroy, we do not accept Jinnah as our leader and we are not for division of India. Muslim League does not represent us because it has always lost Elections in Punjab miserably.
      But since British did not listen, now we have every right to rule Pakistan because we were the most loyal British Subjects. Islam would be in grave danger if our Non Punjabi Slaves in Occupied Territories do not remain united as a nation and loyal to us.
      Pakistan ruled by us Punjabis would always exist because we are Pakistan, not rest of the 56% of population of this country, just like in 1971, when we had started shooting at 56% of population of Pakistan of those days.
      Fort of Islam ZinDaabaaD …!
      Pakistan sai zinDaa BHaag …!.

    • S U Turkman  On September 12, 2011 at 6:42 am

      We can weaken Pakistan Admiral despite being occupied by your Military, when actually Military is Pakistan, not us in this Fort of Islam?
      Are you forgetting Pakistan is not a country, its a Fort. Fort of Islam.

  • ID  On September 1, 2011 at 7:30 pm

    UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL…Abraham Lincoln’s ‘House Divided’ speech is as much applicable to us now as it was then 150 years ago. We are inheritors neither of a religious past nor a secular future. We are neither fit for democracy nor unfit for it. The only thing we are suited to is ‘Hero Worship’ in any form, as dictator, as monarch, as party leader, as governor, PM or president. We are trounced by charisma and where there is none, as in the case of Zardari, N Sharif, Asfandyar Wali, Altaf Husain, we create one and only then feel satisfied to follow them. Because they lack real charisma, their followers are only those who have a stake in the unfair exploitation of the present so-called democratic system. All govt is a struggle for exploitation of interests for their own & their supporters ends.
    id

    • S U Turkman  On September 1, 2011 at 9:36 pm

      That’s right ID.
      Only our Punjabi Army has never been in any struggle to loot us. It never looted us while ruling Pakistan directly or indirectly in 43 out of last 55 years of its rule. It only has been eating half to 3/4th of our Budget every year which is nothing. We should let it have 100% of our Budget to keep Pakistan strong because it is Pakistan, not us.

  • ID  On September 1, 2011 at 7:31 pm

    Funny thing is that those who do not believe in science advocate religion, and those who really understand religion, advocate science but here the orthodox neither understand Islam nor science. Liberals only stress less on formalism in religion because that has given much fertilizer to the growth of ethnicity, parochialism, sectarianism, heartburn, strife, and bigotry.
    id

    • S U Turkman  On September 1, 2011 at 9:45 pm

      No ID;,
      Religion has not caused Ethnic strife and Bigotry. We Punjabi Bigots sitting in Pak Establishment have caused Ethnic Strife by our practice of Bigotry and prejudice against Non Punjabis.
      If we were not Bigots, Army would not be 95% Punjabi. Police would not be 90% Punjabi, Government Owned Industries and Businesses would not be 70% Punjabi, when our population is only 44% of Pakistan’s.
      We use Religion to remain in power. Religion does not use us. We believe in ‘Divide and Rule’ Doctrine, not Islam.

  • Abid  On September 1, 2011 at 8:13 pm

    Fasih

    Well said. Pakistan is here to stay, except that the glue that holds these different ethnic groups is losing its stickiness. It lost its stickiness in 1971, because the West Pakistani elite usurped the economic rights and imposed their culture– for example a few simple thing , like the national anthem had absolutely no Bengali words, Tagore was considered an Indian agent, and Bengali music and dance culture was considered a Hindu influence– on the East Pakistanis. 40 years on, that glue is now again losing its stickiness because we did not learn from the mistakes of 1971 and allowed the religious groups ( and those who naively belive that only religion can be the glue for keeping these ethnic nationalities together) supported by the military to define the concept of Pakistan. Religion can never hold different ethnic groups together, if one or more of the groups feel that the common union has not been a positive sum game.
    And I question the academic and historian credentials of some one who uses terms like “so called” liberals. This is certainly neither an academic nor a history term.

    Cheers

    Abid

    • Yasmeen Ali  On September 1, 2011 at 8:14 pm

      Mr Abid
      I do not appreciate personal attacks.I do not know you & neither do you know me.
      To differ in opinion is fine, to attack others on difference of opinion is ungentlemanly conduct.
      Cheers
      YAA

      • S U Turkman  On September 1, 2011 at 9:55 pm

        That’s right Abid, you are allowed to have Personal Attacks on me only on this Forum, not Sister Yasmeen’s people because this is her Forum. She owns it.

    • Information Desk  On September 1, 2011 at 8:16 pm

      IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: In my reply to Mr. Abid Hasan below, I’ve referred to Pakistani liberals. Of course when I say Pakistani liberals I mean our version of liberals. The real liberals, who are true to liberalism, exist in western societies and they are true to their beliefs, whether you agree with them or not. Our liberals are Made-in-Taiwan copycats who think going to a dance club is liberalism and there’s nothing wrong with snatching an 8-year-old boy from a poor family to work from dawn-to-dusk in their mansions as a modern-day slave. Long live Pakistani liberalism.]

      Abid,

      Stunning how every discussion about Pakistani nationalism comes down to religion for you guys. You have a problem with religion? Fine. That’s your right. But please remember that Islam has room for all shades of Muslims, from the liberal, to the religious to the very religious. Our ‘issue’ is not religion. If the western media is hammering into you that religion is the issue in Pakistan, then I am sorry they are wrong, and they don’t get to set the agenda. East Pakistan was not lost because of religion. Pakistan was a religious statement as much as a cultural and historical one. And the Bengalis were at the forefront of this statement. You can’t deny that nor can anyone else. There would be no Pakistan, no Pakistani culture [a sum of all Muslim cultures that descended on this region], and no Pakistani language [Urdu is a cultural language, an identity statement, and an expression of a long history, and not a ‘ethnic language’ of anyone].

      We didn’t lose East Pakistan because we thought Bengali culture was heavily influenced by religion. Nor did religious parties have much of an influence anywhere in Pakistan at that time. So please stop the religion-centric reading of Pakistani history and identity that almost all the so-called Pakistani ‘liberals’ indulge in and consider a prerequisite for being a liberal. [Note: I salute the real liberals, of the western societies, for being true to their version of liberalism. Our copycats are made-in-Taiwan fake].

      Stop being apologetic about Pakistan and Pakistani nationalism or about those parts of our history that are linked to religion. There is nothing to be apologetic about. The essence of American history is Christian Pilgirms. Religion unites a modern state like Israel, and Russia. Church is part of the British constitution. Our nationalism includes our centuries-old history in this region, and it very much includes religion, in all of its splendid inlfuence in arts, culture, language and history. You can respect Pakistani nationalism with its links to religion and still enjoy a nice glass of Scotch at the end of the day. That’s your private business. Don’t be religious but don’t deny Pakistan’s link to religion and its influence on shaping Pakistani identity and nationalism.

      And just because religion is part of Pakistani identity and history doesn’t mean we are not a modern state where Pakistani Christians, Sikhs and Hindues are not or can’t be equally patriotic citizens. They are. During PTI’s anti-drones sit-in in Peshawar early this summer, a Sikh family from northern Pakistan came down to Peshawar and told Geo News reporter they would always step forward to defend Pakistan and then he stunned everyone by quoting from the Quran to support his statement. He would still be a great Pakistani if he didn’t quote from the Quran, but he showed respect to his countrymen and their religious sentiments. And we respect and will defend his, most Pakistanis would.

      • S U Turkman  On September 1, 2011 at 10:35 pm

        INFO DESK wrote: “But please remember that Islam has room for all shades of Muslims, from the liberal, to the religious to the very religious” …
        .
        TURKMAN: … but not in our Mosques and mainstream Moslims.
        ——
        INFO DESK wrote: “If the western media is hammering into you that religion is the issue in Pakistan, then I am sorry they are wrong, and they don’t get to set the agenda”.
        .
        TURKMAN: That’s right. Taliban and other JehaaDi Militant Groups on Pak Army Pay Roll are not Religious at all. Thousands of getting killed by these groups is not our problem at all because they are bad Pakistanis anyway.
        * Bombs blasting in Pakistani Mosques? No, not really because of Religious Sectarianism. Foreign Agents are doing all that.
        * Our Army trains youth recruited by our Punjabi Mollaas abroad to become Sneak Attack Terrorists? Its problem of Foreign Countries, not ours.
        * Our ISI’s hand has been found in JehaaDi Sneak Attacks from Indonesia to USA and 9/11? Its problem of the world. Not ours.
        * We had sheltered Osama in 1996 Afghanistan? That was not a Religious Act at all.
        * We had been sheltering Osama since he left Afghanistan though we had told USA that no Stone would be left unturned to find him if he was in Pakistan? That had nothing to do with Religion. It was for his $ 300 million that he had. Nothing Personal either.
        ———
        INFO DESK wrote: “We didn’t lose East Pakistan because we thought Bengali culture was heavily influenced by religion”.
        .
        TURKMAN: That’s right. We lost East Pakistan because of our Islamic Hunger for Power. JmaaTay Islami and Urdu Speaking Beharis had helped us kill Bengalis in name of Islam but we had lost it only because India came for help of those ‘Koffaar’.
        ———–
        INFO DESK wrote: “And just because religion is part of Pakistani identity and history doesn’t mean we are not a modern state where Pakistani Christians, Sikhs and Hindues are not or can’t be equally patriotic citizens”
        .
        TURKMAN: .That’s right. Sikhs are like our Moslim Brothers because they speak our Islamic Language, Punjabi but please stop asking us to treat those other Non Moslim ‘Koffaar’ our equal. How can we stop killing them and raping their Daughters, when are at war with them for the last 1400 years? You don’t have to apologize for our JehaaD against Koffaar.
        ——-

    • S U Turkman  On September 1, 2011 at 9:51 pm

      Abid, please try to understand. Whoever does not say ‘Aameen’ aloud after our Mollaas have given us a Sermon, is a Liberal and Anti Islam Secular Kafir. We have no place in Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Fort of Islam.
      All Non Punjabis have been Enemies of Islam and Pakistan and this is why all of them have been declared Traitors of Pakistan and Foreign Agents at one time or the other in History of Pakistan. Only us Punjabis, who had opposed Pakistan Movement Tooth and Nail are now Pakistanis. This is why no Punjabi Leader has ever been declared an Enemy of Islam, Enemy of Pakistan or a Foreign Agent in Pak History.

  • Yasir Ali Hashmi  On September 1, 2011 at 10:09 pm

    “Pakistan not only means freedom and independence but the Muslim Ideology which has to be preserved, which has come to us as a precious gift and treasure and which, we hope others will share with us. Today, the Islamic principles are as applicable in actual life as they were 1,300 years ago.” M.A Jinnah said in Feb 1948.

    YET SOME PEOPLE CLAIM THAT QUAID E AZAM DID NOT DEMAND PAKISTAN FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ISLAM. Amazing

    • S U Turkman  On September 2, 2011 at 2:40 pm

      But could you please Yasmeen tell us, why this Freedom and Independence has taken away safety of ‘ChaDer’ and ‘Chaar diwaari’ from us and so many of us have to be keep getting killed every year by our patriotic brave Army, Rangers and Taliban on Pak Army Pay Roll?
      What we see is, more Moslims have been killed by Pak Army in Pakistan than Non Free Moslims in India in last 64 years therefore, we were better off without this Freedom and Independence because there was less corruption and our killings under British Rule. Its Freedom and Independence of some to loot us. Why should we be applauding this?

  • Najma  On September 2, 2011 at 4:32 am

    I’m not sure what the quarrel is all about if everyone is for a Pakistan where the majority are Muslim but all citizens are guaranteed a fair deal, irrespective of religion. Most countries concede this has to be the case because most other countries have minorities of other religions too whose rights also have to be respected.
    When a partition occurs or is demanded, the reasons are not necessarily so black and white, not so cut and dry; there are usually economic and/or cultural reasons for it, a combination of reasons. Those reasons could be the exigencies at that point of time. Having achieved partition, with the passage of time, the reasons for continuing to maintain the physical borders may change, evolve, be strengthened and added to, whatever; and outside pressures may force some issues against our will. Division in one’s own ranks is usually contrived, and suits some ulterior motives which we are not ignorant of.

  • Najma  On September 2, 2011 at 4:33 am

    I am adding, just for academic interest, an enclopaedia article on the division of Bengal. Prior to 1947, the Bengalis also acted out of ‘religious’ interest (but with economic connotations). Please note the parallel with what happened here in 1947. Religious affiliation by birth (which is not the same as religious adherence), is a view people take on and interpret in varying ways. There are countless other historical articles on Bengal; I just took the first one that popped up on Google.– Najma S.

    http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Partition_of_Bengal_(1947)

    Partition of Bengal (1947)
    From New World Encyclopedia

    Previous (Partition of Bengal (1905))

    The Partition of Bengal in 1947 divided Bengal into the two separate entities of West Bengal belonging to India, and East Bengal belonging to Pakistan. This was part of the Partition of India and officially took place during August 14-August 15, 1947. East Bengal was renamed East Pakistan, and later became the independent nation of Bangladesh after the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971. When plans for a separate Muslim state were first proposed, Bengal was not included. Supporters of Pakistan argued that only in their own state would Muslims be able to flourish, that they would be discriminated against in a Hindu-majority independent India. As Britain determined to grant independence and to do so as soon as possible after the end of World War II, the government began to see accepting partition as the quickest, most pragmatic solution. Bengal had been divided earlier, in 1905. This fueled an upsurge of nationalist sentiment across India. In 1911, Bengal had been reunified. Hindus had opposed the 1905 partition, while Muslims, who benefited from this, were more sympathetic. In 1947, when the two communities voted on remaining in India or joining Pakistan, it was the Hindus who voted for partition. The government of Bengal supported a unified, independent Bengal as a third state.
    The British vetoed this option. Other provinces would also want independence, resulting in too many non-viable states. The majority of Muslims did opt to join Pakistan but wanted to take the whole province with them. They did not choose partition. In 1971, they asserted their cultural difference from West Pakistan to become Bangladesh. Throughout all discussions about partition, some wanted a unified Bengal. Some Bengalis always stressed their cultural and linguistic identity across the religious divide, asserting Bengali solidarity. There is, indeed, a strong current in Bengali literature expressing human unity, beyond but including the unity of the Bengali people. Partition failed, in the case of Bengal, to respect a people’s affirmation of solidarity. A world community that aims to establish global cooperation, that wants to minimize and eventually abolish all conflict, needs to build bridges between communities, not to partition them. The potential for bridge-building resided deep within Bengali history and culture; tragically, circumstances conspired to ride rough-shod over this in the name of political expediency.

    Background
    As the Indian independence movement gained momentum, Britain also lost her will to govern India. When Clement Attlee’s new Labor administration came to power in July 1945, Lord Mountbatten was quickly appointed Governor-General of India with instructions to end colonial rule as soon as possible. He was appointed February 21, 1947. The independence struggle was led by the Indian National Congress, which had originally campaigned for increased Indian participation in governance. However, since 1905, full independence had become the only acceptable goal. The failed 1905 partition was a crucial catalyst in shifting Indian opinion away from limited self-governance towards complete independence.
    Failed 1905 partition
    Allegedly an administrative convenience in order to deliver better governance to the large and populous province of Bengal, the 1905 partition divided the Hindu majority West from the Muslim majority East, although substantial minorities remained on either side. The 1905 partition was popular among the Muslims in the East, who now had their own province. However, Hindus on both sides of the divided province opposed partition. A series of demonstrations, strikes, and a boycott of British goods began, with support from across India. Partition was seen as an act of colonial arrogance and blamed on the divide and rule policy. “Calcutta,” says Metcalf, “came alive with rallies, bonfires of foreign goods, petitions, newspapers and posters.” Anti-British and pro-self-rule sentiment increased.[1] In fact, the Swadeshi movement itself emerged from opposition to Partition, which was regarded as “a sinister imperial design to cripple the Bengali led nationalist movement.”[2]
    Hindu Bengalis were among the most vocal proponents of Indian nationalism. Many of the “Hindus who were considered “unfriendly if not seditious in character” lived in the east” and dominated “the whole tone of Bengal administration.”[3] By dividing the province, the British hoped to muzzle their voice since they would find themselves surrounded by a Muslim majority. The plan backfired. Instead of muzzling the proponents of independence, the movement gathered momentum across India. The INC began to actively promote swaraj (self-rule), swadeshi (self-sufficiency), and national pride. By adding additional territories to East Bengal, the 1905 partition had also left Bengali speakers a minority in their own province.

    The two-nation thesis
    However, as a result of partition, the Muslims in the East began to develop their own distinctive identity as a social-economic community, in distinction from their Hindu neighbors despite the fact that previously many Bengalis from both religions had favored Bengali nationalism. Although Partition was annulled in 1911, Muslims in the East had a taste of what it was like to dominate the legislature.[4] In 1906, at Dhaka capital of what was still East Bengal, the Muslim League was formed with the explicit purpose of defending the interests of the Muslims of India should Hindus choose to undermine these, either in an India where Indians had a greater role in governance or in an independent India where they would constitute a majority.
    By 1916, the League and the INC agreed that separate constituencies should be established to protect communitarian interests. This became law in 1919. as a result, the number of Muslim seats increased in the Bengal Legislature.[5] At the Muslim League conference in 1930, the philosopher-poet-politician, Muhammad Iqbal first proposed the idea of a separate state for Muslims. In that this would consist of majority-Muslim areas, which would have to be partitioned off from Hindu-majority areas, it took its cue from the 1905 Partition of Bengal. Some geographical specificity was given to the nation of a separate Muslim state by Choudhary Rahmat Ali in “Now or Never; Are We to Live or Perish Forever?” (January 28, 1933) suggesting that a state called Pakistan could be formed from Punjab, Afghanistan Province, Kashmir, Sind, Baluchistan. As well as being an acronym, Pakistan means the “land of the pure.” This became known as the two-nation thesis; Hindus and Muslims were each a nation and when independence came two separate nation-states should be established.
    It was unclear whether Bengal was to be included, given the failure of the 1905 partition and the still strong although less strong existence of a cross-religious Bengali nationalism. Later, when it was pointed out to Rahmat Ali that he had not included Bengal, he suggested that the Bengali Muslims should form their own, third state, which might be called “Bangistan.”[6]

    Bengali: 1947 Vote on Partition
    In 1932, a new communal award increased the number of Muslim seats in the legislature again. From 1937, the Muslims were a majority in the Legislature and formed the government until August 1947. Out of 250 seats, 119 were reserved for Muslims; in addition, they won other seats as well. The Muslim League, though, did not form the government until 1946, when Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy became chief minister. On August 16, 1946, the Muslim League’s national leader, Muhammad Jinnah called a Direct Action Day after the INC had rejected the two-nation proposal. In Calcutta, this turned into a frenzy of Hindu-Muslim rioting in which upwards of 4,000 people, mainly Hindu, died. Suhrawardy has been accused of orchestrating this in an attempt to engineer the demographics to stack the cards even more in the Muslims’ favor. Yet he was also proposing a single, sovereign state for all Bengalis and so was reaching out to attract Hindu support.[7] Jinnah was not opposed to this plan and the British indicated some degree of sympathy. Some Muslims in the West did not regard Bengali Islam as pure enough, being too influenced by Hinduism and they did not really want Bengal included in the Muslim state. Later, Suhrawardy was briefly prime minister of Pakistan 1956 until 1957.
    By August 1947, Mountbatten had become persuaded that only by agreeing to Partition could he hope to see a speedy end to British rule. London determined that provincial legislature vote on whether to join India or Pakistan. In those provinces which would be partitioned, separate votes would be taken by each community. A majority in favor of partition from either section would determine the outcome. However, in the Muslim-majority east, the motion was not to “partition” but for the whole, united province to join Pakistan, for which 166 to 35 in voted in favor. However, the vote in the Western region favored partition by 58-21, with the West joining India and the East Pakistan.[8] Almost certainly due to the wedge that Britain’s divide and rule policy had driven between Hindus and Muslims in Bengal, partition followed more or less along the same demographic lines as it had in 1905, except that only the Muslim Sylhet region of Assam (which had been part of East Bengal 1905-1911) voted in a referendum to join (by a majority of 55,578 votes) what was to become East Pakistan. Mountbatten did not allow the legislature to vote “for independent Bengal,” because, he said, “then others would also want independence.”[9] Indeed, the Maharajah of Kashmir would also take the view that his state need join neither India or Pakistan. The British feared that the process of dealing with a series of provinces each demanding sovereignty would take too long and produce too many non-viable states.
    The Act of Partition
    The majority of people in the province were not in favor of partition. The decision was carried by the vote of the East Bengal section. Partition, though, proceeded. It was agreed that the plan for partition would be drawn up by Cyril Radcliffe and accepted by all parties. The rationale for partition was that only without this division could ensure social cohesion and justice for both communities.
    When India and Pakistan became sovereign, independent states on August 14, 1947 and August 15, 1947 respectively, one of the largest mass migrations in history began. Hindus and Sikhs on the Pakistani side migrated to India and Muslims on the Indian side migrated to Pakistan. Movement was both voluntary and enforced. Each side attacked the other in a frenzy of violence, causing Mahatma Gandhi to vow to fast even to death unless the violence ceased. Some three millions people literally went missing. However, a substantial Muslim community remained in India, some twenty percent of the population. Muslims remained some twenty-five percent of the population of West Bengal and some thirty percent in East Bengal, now about fifteen percent.
    On the Indian-West Pakistani border, some 7.5 millions Hindus and Sikhs entered India and some 7 millions “crossed the other way.”[10] Less violence occurred in the East, arguably because there, despite the Partition decision, “Bengali nationalism” still “crosscut the religious identities of Bengali Muslims and Hindus” and so reduced “the risk of generalized mass violence.” While Bengali Hindus and Muslims did “move towards their co-religionists” int “the first two years after partition” these migrations “were either voluntary or relatively minor.”[11] In 1947, movement either way across the border may have been about a million but Chatterji says that “no one knows precisely how many refugees went to India from East Bengal during this phase.”[12] She estimates that between 1947 and 1964, some 5 million Hindus left East Pakistan, and traces the cause to communitarian riots in different locations, triggered by various events. In 1964, the theft of a relic (a piece of Muhammad’s hair by Hindus from a Kashmir mosque was used to whip up anti-Hindu sentiment and some migrated at this time. However, says Novak, this type of violence was losing popular appeal as “secular parties emphasized social and economic needs in combination with appeals to Bengali solidarity in language and culture.”[13]
    Yet having religion in common with West Pakistan, over a thousand miles away, did not prove strong enough to glue the two provinces of the new nation together. In 1971, after a bloody war of independence, the East became a separate sovereign state for reasons that had to do with culture and language and Bengali nationalism. A nation was born that, although majority-Muslim, declared all its citizens, regardless of religion, equal before the law with “nationalism” as a principle of state. Bangladesh thus became a third state, as some had wanted but truncated, missing Bengal’s Western region.
    Legacy
    Edwards says that “the 1947 second partition of Bengal continues to baffle historians.”[4] Novak comments that “the spirit of the … united Bengal movement continues to haunt the land.”[14] The poets of Bengal, Hindu and Muslim, affirmed the principle not only of cross-religious Bengali solidarity but of human solidarity. Although Bangladesh declared the Muslim Kazi Nazrul Islam as its national poet, it adopted Rabindranath Tagore’s “Amar Shonar Bangla,” written in 1906 as a rallying cry for proponents of annulment of Partition, as its the national anthem. Nazrul wrote, “We Are Two Flowers on the Same Stem We are two flowers on the same stem—Hindu- Mussulman. Muslim its pearl of the eye, Hindu it’s life.”[15]
    Mountbatten claimed that he did not go to India with a preconceived plan, However, he favored Partition from an early point because he became convinced that “Pakistan” was inevitable because of the “intransigence” of the two sides, especially of their leaders and that his own arrival on the scene was “too late to alter the course of events.” Within two months of arriving in India, he took a draft partition plan with him back to London “ready to persuade the Cabinet that it was a workable scheme.”[16] If Britain had not wanted to leave India in haste, the Partition of Bengal might have been avoided, given the very real possibility that a viable third state could have been created. The issue of opening up a flood-gate of other provinces wanting independence too could have been dealt with as each situation arose. The possibility of a federation of states might also have been explored.
    Through all the events involved in two partitions and in a third separation (from Pakistan) the Bengali culture has consistently tended towards a more universal worldview, as seen in the work and lives of some of the most revered Bengali poets.
    —————————————————————

  • Dr Anwar  On September 2, 2011 at 4:34 am

    How can sincere and those who have become puppets of enemies will be “united” and if that “unity” is desired???? In the time of the Prophet (PBUH) Abdullah ibn e Ubai took his men (1/3rd of the total army) from the main battle. When Ta’loot fought Jaloot, thee condition of not to drink from river was made essential condition in order to separate sincere from munafiqeen. When we look at Quran we find that in Surah al-Baqrah which comes after surah al-Fateha ( a proper application for guidnace to which rest of the Quran is answer and hence surah al-Fateha is essential in every rakat of our salah) Munfiqeen are described in great detail even before describing the main objective of creation of man (3rd ruku) and importance of knowledge and education (4th ruku). Please see attached letter of Mr. Altaf Husain, how this Meer jafar and meer Sadiq of today and his party is offering help to enemies of Islam and Muslims against Muslims of Pakistan and Afghanistan just like Ghulam Ahmed who “prohibited” jehad and yet expressed his desire to join English army!!!!
    Unity of thieves is not our objective. free masons, rotary club, lions club are such groups of criminal and thieves, Islam does not approve such unity. Quran clearly says’Hold fast the rope of Allah and be not divided”. See here holding fast the rope of Allah (i.e Quran-e-Majeed) is essential. When we hold Allah’s rope we get are united together and connected with Allah at the same time.

    With most cordial regards;

    Anwar Ul Haque

  • Admiral Fasih Bokhari  On September 2, 2011 at 4:35 am

    Dr Anwar,
    When you stood for election against Musharref you wanted to be President of all Pakistanis, not of Muslim Pakistanis only?
    You were willing to take oath to the “nation state” of Pakistan if elected.
    You, more than most, understand that anyone eligible for a Pakistani passport is a Pakistani, and that being “more Muslim” does not make anyone “more Pakistani”.
    I would urge you to help unite “all Pakistanis”, and re-look at the evangelical fervor of some of our compatriots as being divisive at this point of time: and even supportive of anti-Pakistan agendae.
    I had invited you to join the “Save Pakistan Coalition” because only a man of your stature, respected for your adherence to higher moral values can convince our people of the need to unite to save our country.
    Ms. Najma Sadeque’s post on “Partition” gives some clarity on how our various “identities” have been politically exploited in the past, leading to death , displacement, and destruction affecting millions. This must stop.
    Our People deserve better.
    Fasih Bokhari

    • Yasmeen Ali  On September 2, 2011 at 5:31 am

      Dear Admiral Bukhari
      Let me state the term “PARTITION” is incorrectly used & negates the Two Nation Theory. It is a manifestation of Nehru’s concept of Akhund Bharat or one-ness of India. It endorses Aitzaz Ahsan’s following of Nehru’s theory that Muslims & Hindus were one before PARTITION.
      As a man who has a higher understanding than the average, I hope you will appreciate the point. The correct term is CREATION of Pakistan NOT Partition. There are subtle under currents & insinuations in the word quoted.
      Rgds
      YAA

    • Dr Anwar  On September 2, 2011 at 5:33 am

      My Dear Bukhari Sahib: Assalamo Alaikum.

      Thanks. I really appreciate your invitation. Please do not take me wrong. As Muslims and as Pakistanis we are not against any group in terms of snatching their rights, honor, dignity and respect. We utmost respect rights, honor and dignity of all irrespective of their creed, gender, faith etc. We want to unite all but would any society i.e Israel, America etc tolerate those actively support enemies and become agents of enemies for their personal gains? How many wars had been lost due to Meer Jafars and Meer Saadiqs. And I don’t mean here any particular religious groups. Many so called religious people have also damaged Islam and Pakistan. It is nothing new. With Jews and Christians same thing happened. Fazlur Rehman for example always had been in good books of dictators as well as in BJP and Ball Thakray etc. So our criticism is not directed to any particular group. You will perhaps agree that ours is a moral crisis; corruption, murder of merit, killing, robbery, violation of human rights, bribe etc. etc. And these diseases resides in the hearts. We have to cleanse hearts to the extent that persons will not commit a crime against any human being irrespective what he/she is even in the darkness of light. In my humble opinion Islam has safeguarded the rights of all. Some people misunderstand Islam. They equate Islam with clergy while in Islam there is no room for clergies. Some say that there are no equal rights. There are equal rights but of course not the same rights. Rights and responsibilities are according to the physical, biological and psychological nature. Why we pay more to commander in chief than a soldier? Women are exempt from financial responsibilities and burden and even from congregational prayers and wars keeping their nature. Similarly in case of witnesses Islam respected the modesty and haya of woman and required two women so that they can mutually consult each other as a woman may not like to talk to a particular man. This is while very explicit in Quran, has been misunderstood as half witness and wrongly projected in media etc. In the recent history we find Muhammad Ali Jinah, Iqbal and Muhmmad Ali Johar as very good, honest and true Muslims.
      Let me stress again that we respect the rights of all human beings equally. Under genuine Muslim rules minorities actually enjoyed more security and protection. A fact which has been acknowledged by staunch Jews in New England Journal of Medicine (world’s top medical journal). Sure we want to unite all but at the same time with vigilance to not letting anyone to sabotage the unity and interest of all Pakistanis. We can’t accept people with proven evil designs and activities; otherwise we will succumb to these very evil forces from within. After all Zardaris and Musharrafs came from within. why they had their guns toward Pakistanis on behest of enemies. Can we include such forces in our unity. It is simply not possible. If it were in our hands we would have long cut their journey of promotions etc and the nation would have not seen these days. Minus such people disregarding their faith etc we will certainly like to unite people i.e good and sincere people. And at the so time we must strengthen the moral and ethical basis of all as the institutions and countries are built by people of character and not by mere bricks and cement. I do sincerely hope that I have been able to clear misunderstandings.

      With kindest Regards and respect.

      Anwar

      • Admiral Fasih Bokhari  On September 2, 2011 at 8:43 am

        Dear Dr Anwar,
        You have ably identified that we can only unite under the banner of the highest human values, morality, and respect for the rights of all. All of these values can be found in our religion, Islam, as also in the religions of our minorities.
        You have also ably made the distinction between Islam and Church, which latter is not sanctioned in our religion, or indeed in the religions of people “of the book” (Judeo-Christians).
        Our Mir Jafars have exploited the destructive concept of Church for Islam, using its practitioners, at the behest of powers inimical to Pakistan’s creation and existence.
        The process of uniting our people must include clear renunciation of, and financial support for, the Church and those who make a living from it.
        There is need for clarity between State and Nation as used by Iqbal and Jinnah in their day. India at that time was a “nation state” in the Westphalia sense for both of them. “Nation” was used by both in the sense of a religious community, whose interests needed to be protected: either in creating three Muslim majority areas within the Indian nation-state, or as eventually found necessary, by “Partition” of the Indian nation-state into two new nation-states of Pakistan and India. (YAA, this is in response to your e-mail).
        The Muslim “Nation” of South Asia evolved its own religious culture from a mix of Arab, Persian, and Turkish influence: greatly imbued with Sufi thought. After the creation of the Pakistan State and Partition of both the Indian State and Muslim Nation of South Asia, the introduction of Arab political Islam and its Arab cultural essentials has created a militant and intolerant attack on Pakistan’s traditional Islamic thought. We are being made to believe that the battle is for “real” (=Arab) Islam. This is a falsehood. The battle remains the fight for equality, brotherhood, and freedom for all. That is what our Prophet fought for. In today’s Arab Islam these values are completely denied. Iqbal warned that we must “remove the stamp of Arab Imperialism from Islam”.
        We have to go back to the values of equality, brotherhood, and freedom that are a fundamental of the Pakistan Resolution, and our Constitution. If we do not hold fast to “our” South Asian tolerant Islam, and its higher human values, Pakistan will be lost.
        Fasih Bokhari

    • S U Turkman  On September 2, 2011 at 2:58 pm

      Its too late Adm. Bokhari because it sounds like uniting Slaves to be obedient Servants of the Ruling Mafia, your Armed Forces that have been ruling Pakistan directly of indirectly for 47 out of last 55 years in this Army Staged Democracy. Democracy has been staged only to qualify for membership of Commonwealth, Charity of Aid and Loans otherwise, Military would be up front ruling Pakistan openly.

  • TMH  On September 2, 2011 at 4:36 am

    These so called liberals are nothing but dyed in wool anti Pakistani elements of pre partition days. They were defeated then by
    The able leadership of Quaid. They are since then smarting under the shame of that defeat. Now the progeny of those dead and
    Hurried pro congress liberals/nationalists are trying to avenge the humiliating defeat. Like their dead and gone forefathers, the progeny
    of these so called liberals/nationalists are trying to avenge the humiliating defeat suffered by their elders, at the hand of two nation
    Respected leader. Like the west, their real master who have not forgotten the defeat they suffered at the hand of an other leader
    Of two theory, Slahuddin, they have not forgotten what happened to their forefathers and their backers, in 1947.
    So they come up with new slogan of global village. We as Muslim do not have any problem living in this so called global village.
    Our religion do not hender us to live with non Muslims peacefully.
    What is happening in the world, Muslims have no part, it is the happening at the hands of liberals and professors internationalism.
    Who is behind Iraq, Afghanistan in Libya’s rape and plunder.
    Pakistan have survived despite all the intrigues od our enemies and our so called friends. Now they are trying to sow the seeds of
    Provincialism, and trying to pitch provinces against each other, beware.

    TMH

    • S U Turkman  On September 2, 2011 at 3:17 pm

      That’s right TMH. Western Suit wearing, Wine Drinking Jinnah, Socialist, who had violated Islam by kidnapping a 16 years old Daughter of his Parsi Political Father and had never converted to Islam was ‘defeated’ by your Mollaas, who were dead against Partition of India.
      We are definitely Liberal Agents of the West because we oppose your Occupation of Pakistan.
      We have forgotten Salahuddin Ayubi, a Kurd and this is why his people have not no country and they have been crushed by our Moslim Countries like Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran for more than a century. We have killed 2 million of them so far and right now, Iraqi Shiyahs are taking over their Oil Wells near Basra.
      Its a Global Village in a sense that Capitalists are now free to use Cheap Labor of any country in their factories built in poor countries. We Pak Liberals have nothing to do with it because our corrupt Mafia wants to extort so much money from them that they do not build any factories in Pakistan.
      Moslims have no part in advancement like China is having because none of them guarantee a stable Non Corrupt Governmental System.
      Go ask Iraqis and Afghans if they are being raped and plundered because you are lying.
      Seeds of Provincialism were sown by us Punjabi Bigots. Injustice with East Pakistan caused birth of Bangladesh and now it has caused birth of Provincial-ism. Why do we have to loot them so much to cause this?
      If a Moslim does anything terrible, he blames on Satan. When ruling Mafia’s Crimes are exposed, they blame on Foreign Agents. Do you think, all of us are stupid, sir?

  • Khan Zia  On September 2, 2011 at 5:08 am

    The confusion about the link between Pakistan and Islam mostly arises out of lack of familiarity and misinterpretation of the Muslim struggle in the context of Indian independence. Sometimes it is deliberate and facts are taken out of context, misquoted and misrepresented to fit a particular point of view. This is an attempt to clarify some of the commonly held misconceptions.
    Firstly, Pakistan was not ‘created as an Islamic ideological state’ but demanded as a separate homeland for the Muslims of India when all attempts to secure safeguards for their political, economic and religious interests inside a United India failed. Creation of a theological state is a contradiction in terms. Islam is a universal religion that cannot be confined to or bound within any geographical limits. Secondly, a theocratic state by definition has to be run by some form of religious hierarchy. The Koran does not approve nor ordain any kind of priesthood (9:34) nor does it specify any form of government, other than that Muslims should resolve their affairs through mutual consultation (please see Maulana Maudoodi’s Khilafat-O-Malukiat).

    The proof of Pakistan’s non-religious basis can be found not simply in the numerous statements of its founder and other leaders of the movement but more significantly in the fact that with the sole exception of Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Usmani no other religious leader or party supported its creation at the time. On the contrary they had opposed it in most vicious and vitriolic terms. Naturally this would not have been the case if the demand for Pakistan was based on religion. Jinnah and rest of the Muslim League leaders always referred to the Muslims of India as a nation —- a term that by definition encompasses more than just region.

    There is evidence that members of many non-Muslim communities, including Christians and the Scheduled Castes, would have preferred to live in Pakistan rather than in Hindu dominated India. It was on the basis of these fears that the British decided not to hold any referendum in Punjab, Bengal and Assam as a whole. In a study entitled ‘The Partition of India and the Prospects of Pakistan’, published in the Geographic Review, vol. 38, January 1948 issue, O.H. K, Spate, who had been commissioned to do the study writes, ‘—– “non-Muslims” in the Punjab included some 1,250,000 Scheduled Castes (the old “Depressed Classes) and 486,000 Indian Christians, and there is no reasonable doubt that a large majority of both groups favoured Pakistan’. This would hardly have been the case had the demand for Pakistan been known to be based on exclusively theocratic Islamic terms.

    The concept of Muslims being a separate nation was not born overnight. It had a long history arising out of their subjugation and suppression under the British rule. As early as 1872 Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, a so-called ‘liberal’ Muslim if there was one, was referring to the Hindus and Muslims as two separate nations (Hayat-e-Javaid by Maulana Altaf Husain Hali, p.194). The notion was born out of the exclusive nature of the Hindu society. It is not simply the Muslims that felt excluded; Dalits, Christians, Sikhs and people of other religions are treated no differently by the Hindus.

    Interestingly, the Lahore Resolution of 1940 that forms the basis of Pakistan makes no reference to the two-nation theory not does it mention the name ‘Pakistan’ as such. More importantly, it does not mandate the establishment of an ‘Islamic State’ nor the implementation of Sharia Law (Jinnah Reinterpreted by Saad R. Khairi, pp. 376-77). Having said this, it is also true that the resolution did not specifically state that Pakistan was going to be a secular state.

    The crux of the matter was summed up by Jinnah when he said that ‘the Constitution and government of Pakistan will be what the people will decide’. He also stressed in his inaugural address to the Constituent Assembly that people of all faiths will have equal rights and will be free to practice their religion in their places of worship.

    The problems of pre and post-independence sub-continent lie not with the so-called two-nation theory but elsewhere deep in the nature of Hinduism itself that rendered the establishment of an inclusive Indian nation an impossible dream. The people of Pakistan have a lot more in common with each other when compared with those in India. The country is unified and rendered indivisible economically by the River Indus and its tributaries that sustain its life. It has a common history that extends back more than five thousand years to the days of the Indus Valley Civilisation and beyond. Its inhabitants are predominantly descended from the same Aryan stock, are culturally very similar, have the same religion and a common language they all understand. There are few social taboos and they readily intermarry. These are the primary attributes that form a nation. The rest is only a matter of time. This is far more than what can be said of India or any other country in the region, except perhaps Bangladesh.

    If we have allowed political charlatans and mavericks to exploit ignorance of the masses to sow the seeds of mistrust and division where none need exist, the fault is ours. It has no bearing on the legitimacy of the concept. We are where we are due to our own inability to manage affairs of the nation properly and professionally. It is illogical and grossly unfair to hand over the country to illiterate crooks, thieves and military adventurers and then proceed to blame the so-called two-nation theory for the outcome.

    • Yasmeen Ali  On September 2, 2011 at 5:22 am

      Dear Khan Sahib,
      You are contradicting yourself.You write:Firstly, Pakistan was not ‘created as an Islamic ideological state’ but demanded as a separate homeland for the Muslims of India when all attempts to secure safeguards for their political, economic and religious interests inside a United India failed.
      Why a country for Muslims only? Why not also for other religious sects besides Muslims(barring Hindus)of India?When it was was Muslims only, it is based on an Ideology as people of a certain religion mostly were being subjugated. Please also remember in your definition of an Ideological State, the requirements given are of RUNNING of a State not it’s creation.Seldom will we find PURE forms of infra structures. Normally, it will be mixed.Barring maybe Russia pre Cold War & other Communist States.
      Two, you write:
      Creation of a theological state is a contradiction in terms. Islam is a universal religion that cannot be confined to or bound within any geographical limits.
      Very true.But then no religion has geographical boundaries, people following different religions form a part of different states. That is creating a confusion regarding creation of Pakistan.
      Yes we are all aware of the process of how Pakistan was created, it is the misrepresentation today by certain vested interest groups that must be addressed.
      YAA

      • Dr Anwar  On September 3, 2011 at 3:13 am

        I fully agree with and endorse the views of Yasmin Ali.
        Is black water a Muslim organization. Is Raymond Davis a Muslim? Was Musharraf a Muslim (In true sense)? Is Mr. Malik who has been rightly regarded as compulsive habitual born liar and hand in glove with criminals a Muslim? Is MQM which is a terrorist organization fully protected and utilized by International Terrorists a Muslim or islamic organization? Is Pakistani Taliban which had been regarded by learned Americans as a CIA outfit a Muslim? All terrorism in Pakistan is creation of these evil forces. Many times they use heroin addicts whom they deprive from drug and later by promising to provide heroin if they parked that car etc at a particular place. Poor guy does not even know what was in the car. As car is exploded by a remote control the poor addict guy and other innocent people die. Are these Islamic or Muslims??????? In Taliban Government of Afghanistan world agrees (You can see he chart year vise by Nom Chomsky ) heroin production was zero and now truck loads of heroin is shipped every day! Who is minting and making this money?
        We are not apologists and we do not suffer from inferiority complexes. We know who is doing what and we call spade a spade. We are proud of our Islamic identity and we thank Allah that we have final and ultimate book of Allah in our hands which He himself protected and preserved letter by letter, word by word and fresh frozen its language so it is as refreshing today as on day 1 i.e. 1450 years back; a living miracle indeed. Many many Americans and Europeans have realized this fact and are reverting to Islam.
        I have personally collected DNA samples of the victims of blasts etc at PIMS and categorically say that no suicide bombers head ever found despite claims of GEO etc. This myth is created by those who are themselves are the culprit. In order to fool and confuse people such rubbish is spread through our media some of which in fact literally become Voice of America! The suicide bombing dramas remind us the Qila al mot of Ismailis in history. Please read novels of Abdul Haleem Shrar “Firdous e bareen and book by German historian titled “the Assassins”. So the history is repeating itself with modern technology.
        Pakistan was created for the best and the most progressive way of life i.e. Islam and we have no shame in acknowledging this and we guarantee full rights to all minorities as opposed to India which makes tall claims but where according to Govt. statistics Muslims have only 3% jobs in Government while they constitute over 20% of population. And these jobs are also of low paying types. So we have seen so called secularism which has inflicted numerous injuries to poor and weak. Zardari, Musharraf, M. M Ahmed, Shaukat Aziz are all secularists although the last two or three may claim that they were Qadyanis. In Pakistan Islam was never given a chance except for a very brief period in time of Jinnah and yet all blame is ascribed to Islam. Funny and phony indeed!

        Anwar

    • S U Turkman  On September 2, 2011 at 3:30 pm

      Zia its not true ” … when all attempts to secure safeguards for their political, economic and religious interests inside a United India failed” we had wanted partition because we had won right to have 1/3rd of Ministries including the most important ones. ShaheeDay Millat was the first Finance Minister of India in 1946. Congress had called for Partition after it found out Moslims are blackmailers and backstabbers because all the Tax Burden of the Budget was put on Hindus.
      Mr. Jinnah had gifted India the best fertile land of Moslims to Hindus by agreeing on just East Bengal, West Punjab and Sindh betraying more than 1/3rd of Moslims of India leaving them in India to have his coronation as Founder of a new nation. He had killed the purpose of Muslim League for more than 1/3rd of the Moslims of India and left them on mercy of Hindu Majority Congress Party. He had caused looting, rape and killings of a huge number of Indian Moslims by partitioning India.

    • TMH  On September 5, 2011 at 12:11 pm

      Dr. Khan,

      If you do not believe in two nation theory, then better move over to India and live with them, your guru was called Sarhadhi Ghandi
      any way and you were very proud of it. Even he do not wanted to be buried in Pakistan, but was not ashamed to accept
      a bag of IRS.500,000 from Indian government was it blood money for the over 2 million Muslim murdered by your so called
      liberal Hindus?
      Pakistan was created on TWO nations theory, whether you like it or not. IT IS A GREAT TRAGEDY THAT WE WERE NOT BLESSED
      BY ALLAH FOR ANOTHER SET OF SINCERE AND HONEST LEADERSHIP, AND PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND THE PROGENY OF OUR ENEMIES OF REPARTITION DAYS, ARE SITTING ON THE SEATS OF POWER,AND ARE TAUNTING US, THE PEOPLE WHO MADE PAKISTAN. WE WHO MADE ALL THE SACRIFICES, WHO GAVE BLOOD, AND WHO WILL AGAIN GIVE BLOOD TO PROTECT IT FROM VULTURES WHEN TIME COME, BEWARE.
      THE LIBERAL AND NATIONALISTS OF YESTER YEARS WERE AT THE PAY ROLE OF USSR,AND NOW ARE BEING FED
      BY THE USA.

      TMH

      • S U Turkman  On September 6, 2011 at 5:01 pm

        Why should not we kick Punjab Province out of Pakistan also because Punjabis did not believe in partition also until they were forced to be a part of Pakistan by the British and Mr. Jinnah?
        * Had not Punjab Assembly passed a resolution that Punjab does not want to be a part of Pakistan and does not back 2 Nation Theory?
        * Had not Punjab Assembly passed another resolution before that saying Jinnah is not representative of Punjabi Moslims and proof is that no more than a couple of people, who ran on Muslim League Ticket have ever been elected to Punjab Assembly?
        .
        Looking at the history of us Punjabis, I can safely say, if Punjab was kicked out of Pakistan, we would be saying, “We had never wanted a country that had other Ethnic Groups like Sindhis, Balochis, Pathans and Saraikis in it” just like we had said, “Thank God Pakistan has been saved …! … Bengalis were actually a burden on us” after fall of Dhaka.

  • TMH  On September 2, 2011 at 5:23 am

    Madam, you have taken a lead to protect the ideology of Pakistan, may Allah protect you and your family for
    All evil, and give more expressive power to stand firm in the defense of our beloved Pakistan.
    Pakistan Zindabad.
    TMH

    • S U Turkman  On September 2, 2011 at 3:32 pm

      Yeah, thanks for defending right of us Punjabis to keep looting Pakistan, Sister …!

  • Admiral Sirohey  On September 2, 2011 at 6:51 am

    Bravo YAA.

    We shall, without that theory, have no justification to exist. TNT is being denied with the fundamental aim of removing the faith from our ethos. The western world has been after our faith and compelling, coercing and persuading the Islamic world to become Protestant Muslims ie Secular. After the end of colonial era and creation of 57 Muslim countries (not Islamic) the West took on itself to ensure that these countries did not return to true Islamic teaching fearing that it will be an engine of returning to the grandeur of the time of 7th to 14th century. They were splendidly successful because the elite rulers, of most of these, were educated and trained in the systems of the erstwhile rulers land. The end of USSR ushered in a unipolar world. Their political and corporate conglomerate had, to sustain their hold, to find an enemy. Islam was found to to be close at hand meet their goal.

    In their subconscious they remained under fear of this great potential power. Hence all that has happened since the demise of the USSR has been engineered by that driving fear. Add to it the controlling power of sources of energy in hands of the Muslims. The rebellion in Arab world will change the scenario in not too distant a future. The sharia the west fear most will destroy the exploitative system designed to control the wealth of the world. Bush and Blair vowed not to let that happen. They both are fanatic anti Islam. The future of the world financial system is heading towards its doom. The pillar held them high is destined to fall. These are the analyses of their economic experts not mine. I only agree with them as I have held that view for a long time.

    The liberals attacking the root of the existence of this great country are acting in support of the secularism that has no place, not only in Pakistan but the whole Muslim world. The west has voted a large sum for the promotion of ideology of pursuit of happiness, initially advocated by ancient Greek system of governance. This pursuit has ruined the west morally. It is painful even to write about it.

    Islam grants freedom of thought, expressing and action but within bound of the Law of Allah and Sunnah of the Last prophet pbuh. Notwithstanding all efforts of the enemies of Islam and their spokesmen they shall but fail in their obnoxious effort. This religion shall overwhelm all other isms so says Allah swt.

    I respectfully urge all to read and understand the holy book and learn what it says. Acting on conjectures is dangerous and counter productive. A believer who irrespective of colour, country. fiqh, muslak and type of system who has said he was a Muslim and stand firm on it his belief is only skin deep when needed.

    • S U Turkman  On September 2, 2011 at 4:00 pm

      Adm. Sirohy, which 57 Moslim Countries are you talking about?
      There are only 44 countries in the world that have 51% of their population Moslim. How ignorant can you be …!
      Is this the level of your Research Abilities, sir?
      Please tell us, in which of these countries the Christians went and told us to be Secular?
      Let me provide you some Facts:
      .
      *176 of the countries in this world have no State Religion..
      * Christianity is State Religion of 14 out 141 Christian Majority Countries.
      * Buddhism is State Religion of 2 out 6 Buddhist Majority Countries.
      * 24 of the 44 Moslim Countries have Islam as their State Religion.
      .
      How much more Islam you want in Moslim Countries in this 21st Century world, where State Religion has become something obsolete?
      For how long more you people are going to keep fooling Non Punjabis of Pakistan in the name of Religion?
      In Bangladesh they have banned all books of your Molana MoDooDi but it has not caused end of that country.
      Please also tell us, if USA and the West are at war with Islam, why last year USA had ordered Bangladesh not to ban Religious Parties, when its Parliament had approved ban on all Religious Parties because it was proven in court of law that they had been receiving money from your ISI?
      Can we ask, why money of poor Pakistanis is being wasted on Bengalis?

  • Yasmeen Ali  On September 2, 2011 at 8:46 am

    Dear Admiral Bukhari,
    Partition means “batwara”. Batwara is only of one entity ie a house ka batwara, rioti ka batwara. But Muslims & Hindus never were one entity. Therefore, the term Partition is incorrect & endorsement of Nehru’s Akhund Bharat. Something as different as chalk & cheese cannot be partitioned.
    Regards
    YAA

  • Rafiq Mian  On September 2, 2011 at 10:30 am

    YAA: “So called liberals” is rather a loose term. There are that many types of liberals out there as there are non-conservatives out there. I would call myself a liberal – per the simple say – if nature has proclaimed that change is permanent and permanence has no place in its order – who is man to make an effort to conserve? Then again, a liberal simply stated is one who always holds all values (his included) to continual reckoning and stays out of the box – and, that to me is anything but not a bad word.

    I believe and trust that the usage of religion as basis towards creation of Pakistan was a means to the end. Once the end was acquired, religion as such basis became non-basis. Read Jinnah’s earlier speeches. His bent in favor of secularism.

    Let us forget about the two nations or more (Bangladesh included) and ask ourselves, what is a nation anyway? What if any and ever is it based upon. Norway, Sweden are predominantly Christian – are they a nation. Sudan and Erithria – the same – class of questions? Pakistan and Afghanistan – Oh, my God.

    At the dawn of August 14, 1947 – Pakistan was not a nation. It had to be built into a nation. Nations do not become – by demarcation of boundaries – out of “Aladdin’s Chragh”. A lot of seeding, nurturing, pruning and sleepless nights by the “maali” must take place. The orchard must then be passed along from generation to generation – to better – but by the same exercise.

    Bangladeshis left us. God bless them. As we speak, we as Panjabi’s, Sindhi’s and Pathan’s are wrestling with Baluchi’s, Urduite’s, Shiia’s, Ahmadi’s and on and on – I wonder how many “on’s we have”.

    That is how a down to earth liberal sees us.

    • Yasmeen Ali  On September 2, 2011 at 11:10 am

      Kindly read INFORMATION DESK input here on my definition of pseudo liberals.My opinion in creation of Pakistan & importance of religion as binding factor is well explained in the article itself.
      Rgds
      YAA

      • Rafiq Mian  On September 2, 2011 at 12:16 pm

        This of course is for the history books:

        When our elite echelon discovered (in spite of Jinnah’s efforts) that the united India was not (the Muslim’s) our destiny – he (too) took the plunge.

        The others Iqbal and like were cajoling him all along.

        But he was a LBERAL with the thought that goes behind it.

        Let us you (YAA) and I talk about NATION and its ingredients – that should be your and mine premise!!!!!!

  • S. Cadri  On September 2, 2011 at 11:04 am

    Mr. Ghulam,
    While I agree with Ms Yasmeen on the two nation theory being the binding force, I can’t agree, like some Muhajirs from Karachi do, with you on the bemoaning of Muslims who have been left behind and face the consequences of partition.

    Instead of empathising and feeling the responsibility and rising to the occasion you seem to rejoice at their plight of those who cheer for you, for no benefit to themselves but put themselves at risk, just to support their coreligionists. No. Mr. Ghulam you are not right. This is being selfish.

    You have to show more sovereign responsibility, more Ummi responsibility, you should be better than Hindus and Jews and Christiansl who feel for their kind wherever they are.

    If they are in a bad situation due to whatever reason they do not rejoice but take some remedial action to address the issue and help them as a matter of responsibility and eventually alleviate the problem. They can be selfless and we Muslims selfish is it?

    Please I want you to start the thinking process anew on more humane and Muslim lines.
    SB

  • GRK  On September 2, 2011 at 11:05 am

    kia baat hey bajwa saheb .very rightly described in few words.the sooner we revert to sufi isam the better it will be fondly grk

    • Amir Rana  On September 2, 2011 at 11:06 am

      This is sort of a discussion which ultimately shaped me up as a bit anti-liberal. Unfortunately this term has somehow attached some traits to it which lead towards negating some of the basic principles of humanity. It has become one extreme of the thread the opposite of which is hardcore radicalism. In my opinion the right path lies somewhere in between.

      What happened 64 years back cannot be reversed now. Isn’t it simple enough to call such discussions off? How to move forward with realities of today should be the point to be focused instead.

      I remember mentioning in one of my previous posts that our anti forces are trying various tricks to get this nation CONFUSED. To be in a state of confusion is the worst shape to generate action. Keeping us inactive while they keep achieving their ulterior motives is the name of this game. So lets try not to get stunned and read between the lines of what various factions of our so called FRIENDS are planning and executing.

      • S U Turkman  On September 2, 2011 at 4:09 pm

        That’s right. ‘move forward with realities of today’ and reality is, people who opposed Partition Tooth and Nail, the Enemies of Pakistan and Traitors of our Homeland have been ruling Pakistan through their Army’s direct and indirect rule for past 47 out of 55 years and its an Army Staged Democracy that it wants to overthrow now because it does not trust Zardari.

    • Mohammad Chaudhry  On September 2, 2011 at 11:08 am

      One can’t be surprised by multicolour thinking in a nation of 180 millions when clarity of concepts,well-defined action plans and sincerety of purpose was missing in most of top leaders to provide conducive environment to sort out slants in the perspective of peope
      MSC

      • S U Turkman  On September 2, 2011 at 4:11 pm

        That’s right Pak Army has been selfish stealing half to 3/4th of Pak Budget every year for decades. It wants everything for itself, nothing for Pakistanis.

  • Naveed Tajammul  On September 2, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    With reference to the term,’Partition’ it implies,a division of an
    entity,what most automatically perceive is that,of united British
    Indian empire or the Mughal empire
    or what Nehru propagated as oneness of India.
    The British further created a confusion,by the Act of 1935,and the
    Federation clauses.
    We broke from the Mughal empire,much earlier,first arose the Kalhora
    state,and then came Nadir shah,in 1739.
    The Annexation of talpur and sikh state came about in the fourth
    decade of the 19th century.
    by the British.
    So for the majority of the people of the sindh valley,1947,it is the
    rebirth of an old civilization.
    Etched in Time,Mehrgarh 7500BC,downwards.
    Linguistically the majority still speaks a totally distinct
    language,which has been a Wedge
    in between the western Iranian,and Eastern,that of the Ganga river.for
    the thousands of years,
    From the Buddhist fold we went to the Islamic.
    As to the Sufi orders,which number around 14,or so,well tell me a
    religion which does not
    have this mysticism in it.in any case check the time-lines of their
    entry and Establishment.
    with reference to our sindh entity.
    Yes we are in our Evolutionary phase,this will continue till that
    leader emerges who
    unifies all.
    .

    Naveed Tajammal,

    • Information Desk  On September 2, 2011 at 12:23 pm

      It is time Pakistani intelligentisa showed nationalism and owned Pakistan by renouncing the use of the word ‘partition’ when referring to Pakistan’s independence.

      I second Ms. Yasmeen Agha’s view on the word ‘partition’.

      In fact, the Pakistani State should cease the use of the word ‘partition’ in history books.

      India in its present form was not a legal entity before 15 August 1947. It’s wrong to say Pakistan was ‘partitioned’ out of India.

      Before that year, there was a British occupation. A Muslim dynastic rule preceded the British. India, ruled by Indians and its Hindu majority, never existed for almost a millennium. This is not a personal interpretation but history as taught in India itself and around the world.

      Pakistan is a natural continuation of the rule of Muslim elites and dynasties in this region. And it has been a rule of enightenment, culture, progress, in music, arts, literature, religion, etc. The only gap — of 90 years exactly between 1857 and 1947 — was filled by the Brits. Hence, Pakistan enjoys a far more glorious pre-Independence history than the one we are taught in school books. It is time we get out of the brief ‘Congress-All India Muslim League’ history that preceded Independence and embrace our larger history and presence in the region. We do embrace that history but in a vague and apologetic way. Pakistan is the natural inheritor of the Mughal Empire and Muslim dynastic rule in this Central-South Asian region in the same way that Iran prides itself in the Safavid history and Turkey in the Ottoman history, and Arabs in the Omayyad and Abbasid histories.

      To Mr. Abid Hasan:

      Raiwind and Akhora?! What’s with you and religion? Bad memories with a Mullah?!

      If mullahs are ignorant, self-hating defeatist liberals like yourlself are equally bad. You need to learn to respect your countrymen. I say the same thing to Islamists.

      Your reply shows the classic shallowness of someone who lacks knowledge and good manners. Thank you for confirming whatever that was said earlier in describing your ilk: a minority of arrogant, self-hating Pakistanis who lack pride in their worth and in their history and future. I credit Pakistan’s first and second generations after independence for producing doormats like you. This is why it has become crucial that we lobby our policmakers to introduce indoctrination in Pakistani nationalism in our schools. A forward-looking generation of Pakistanis in 21st century with firm national pride will definitely do better than what you have done in the past century.

      aq

      • S U Turkman  On September 2, 2011 at 7:18 pm

        INFO DESK wrote: “Before that year (1947), there was a British occupation (of Indian Sub Continent)”
        .
        TURKMAN: … and before British the Sub Continent was under ‘Occupation’ of Foreigners called Moslims.
        ——
        INFO DESK wrote: “Pakistan is the natural inheritor of the Mughal Empire and Muslim dynastic rule in this Central-South Asian region in the same way that Iran prides itself in the Safavid history and Turkey in the Ottoman history, and Arabs in the Omayyad and Abbasid histories”..
        .
        TURKMAN: … and this is why Punjabi Rule is natural because only they are the Pakistan though they had opposed Pakistan tooth and Nail and were arresting Muslim League Workers until March 27, 1947, declaring them ‘Danger to Peace’ in Punjab. All Non Punjabis are Traitors of Pakistan and Foreign Agents because only Punjabis have never been declared that by our Government. Allaho Akbar …!
        We have to keep killing Kaafir Non Punjabis to keep them obedient to us in our Fort of Islam. Pakistan ZinDaabaaD …!

  • ID  On September 2, 2011 at 6:37 pm

    YAA je,
    Everyone speaks of the need and desire for unity without attempting any measures and generally remaining committed to the Jewish trait of rigidity. Example of Abdullah bin Ubai is given forgetting that he and his ilk remained an inclusive part of the Islamic ummah even after their actions were exposed. We have become exclusivist in the name of Islam which is patently false. Islam is the most liberal and tolerant ideology & ‘Deen.’ Islam is the best science. Nothing is more true than that Islam embraces all people and asks each creature not to exceed the bounds set by Allah. In that, the primacy is to good conduct towards all creation irrespective of age, sex, colour, caste, creed. Tolerance is the first principle of consideration towards others. It is only after the confidence in humanity is obtained that the enlightening & better principles of life i.e. Islam, are adopted & observed. Till then ‘sabr’ is the rule. (sura 103…wa-tawasau-bil-haqqe wa-tawasau-bis-sabr)
    idrees

    • S U Turkman  On September 2, 2011 at 7:21 pm

      ID, Pakistanis believe in what you wrote. Why don’t you preach this to Punjabis also so, they stop being Bigots and stop killing Non Punjabi Moslims in Pakistan through your JehaaDi Groups and Taliban on Pak Army Pay Roll?

  • Anonymous  On September 3, 2011 at 3:01 am

    I think the best that the theory can be gaurded is not to put a filter on the liberals’ thought but to close the window through which the cultural breaz of “one nation” enters Pakistan.This can be done by the following:
    -We introduce Arabic and Persian as cultural languages.With English as working language and the local as optional ,we will be detached completely from the Indian cultural commonality.
    -Our attention be turned to Iran,Afghanistan,Middle East and Central Asia.The heads turned to the West will give us exposure and take us out from the sub continental gluttony.
    -More strengthened relations be started with enlightened ones like Turkey,Malaysia,Jordan,and others so that our liberals tune their extremism to moderate levels.

    But the key is: We shun india, and whatever therein

    • S U Turkman  On September 3, 2011 at 3:21 am

      Yeah and tell Scientists to find a way to change our DNA also so we would not be found to be related to Indians because we have sold our souls to Arab Islamic Culture because this is what Allah had told us to do in Qoraan.

  • Freda Shah  On September 3, 2011 at 3:09 am

    Some of the above arguments are mere academic quibbling. I tend to agree that ” Pakistan was not partitioned out of India “. The nation that adopted the name of “Pakistan” already existed within the amalgam of religions, cultures and ethnicities that formed pre-1947 India. The reality is that the Indian sub-continent, then under British rule, was territorially partitioned to create the two separate countries of Pakistan and India with their own distinctive religious and cultural characteristics and distinctive political and economic goals.

    • S U Turkman  On September 3, 2011 at 3:27 am

      That’s right because nobody had ever called this portion of Sub Continent, India. We were always Pakistan for last thousand years and Europeans had stolen name of one of our River, Indus to call the Sub Continent, India, right?
      They should be told, since we have changed name of Indus to River Sindh, they should now change all their History Books written hundreds of years ago, right?

  • Pervez  On September 3, 2011 at 3:09 am

    I am reading with growing dismay the increasing hardening of positions without any convincng the other; this is the usual norm in arguments of this sort.

    It is therefore necessary to respectfully point out that such debates do not make an iota of difference to Pakistan and its future – the mass of voters do not really care about the topics under discussion. What they do care about, and what does make a difference, is the production of high quality goods, products and services on which, they can build personal, and national prosperity. I quote from one of Madadgar Pakistan’s publicity brochures:

    “…prosperity can always be had in the right conditions. The right conditions are work, which keeps all productively busy, an orderly society that provides the means to work, and bases all decisions and appointments on merit.

    Once people set out to build such a society, all differences of religion, cast, creed, political views and ideology are relegated to a level where people lose interest in enforcing, justifying or defending them, and treat them as very personal and private matters.”

    So, I request you divert your energies to increasing the quantum of work, order and merit in Pakistan. If I have failed to convince you, I apollogize – I’ll get you next time!

    Kind regards,

    Parvez Amin
    SB Mech E MIT ’56; FRSA
    Chairman Madadgar Pakistan

    Gulkalee, Harbanspura Road
    LAHORE
    Cell: 0333 422 77 51

    • S U Turkman  On September 3, 2011 at 3:29 am

      Please tell this to our Ruling Mafia and Pak Army that has been running the country, not us. All Non Punjabis were Pakistani and would remain Pakistani until Allah frees them from our Punjabi Occupation.

  • TMH  On September 3, 2011 at 3:37 am

    We can try to stand fast and keep on exposing the evil designs of these liberal
    slaves of the west.
    It is a great tragedy how cheaply these liberal sell their souls to these slave traders.
    You might not remember the days of USSR, and queues at the consular parties,
    for free every thing, which catches the fancy of these so called liberals. I still remember
    the faces flushed with vodka, having fun and praising Stalin and Linen. Now the same
    crowd is lining up on the gates of US consulates for even bigger fun and games.
    TMH

  • Naveed Tajammal  On September 3, 2011 at 4:25 am

    S.U.TURKMAN.
    IT IS GOOD TO GIVE INPUTS,HOWEVER FIRST UNDERSTAND,WHO THE ‘PUNJABI’ IS -;FROM LINGUISTIC AND GEOGRAPHIC POINT,
    THE LAND EAST OF SUTLEJ AND WEST OF DEHLI,IS THE ACTUAL
    PUNJAB.AND PUNJABI THEIR LANGUAGE OR DIALECT.
    THIS REGION WAS NEVER PUNJAB,TILL THE BRITISH IN THEIR WISDOM
    MADE IT SO.IN POST 1849.KINDLY KEEP IN MIND TILL START OF 20TH CENTURY NWFP (KPK) TOO WAS INCLUSIVE OF PUNJAB,AND FORNTIER FORCE REGIMENT IS ACTUALLY PUNJAB IRREGULAR FORNTIER FORCE(PIFFERS).AS TO WHO THESE PUNJABI ARE HERE,THEY CAME WITH A EARLIER WAVE OF SIKHS,AND LATER WITH THE 9 CANNAL COLONIES,POST 1880.AND FOR YOUR GENERAL KNOWLEDGE,SINDHI IS A TERM WRONGLY USED HERE,THE RIVER IS CALLED ‘MEHRAN;IN THIS BRITISH CREATED PROVINCE,ACTUALLY SINDHI IS THE RESIDENT OF LANDS/REGIONS, ABOVE, THE PRESENT SINDH PROVINCE.
    NOW YOU MAY ENLIGHTEN US TO THE GUILTY PARTY. ????

    • Ijaz Khan  On September 3, 2011 at 5:42 am

      Turkman & his ignorant droppings! HA HA.

    • S U Turkman  On September 3, 2011 at 6:28 pm

      Mr. Tajammal,
      * … You claim, the Region was never Punjab till British started calling it Punjab. If so, why word Punjab exists in records of Persian, Khilji and Mogul Empires?
      * … British did not rule Punjab in 1849. How did they start calling it Punjab?
      * … Why are you blaming the British for creating Punjab, when it had existed for since rule of the region by Persian Empire more than a thousand years ago?
      * … What should have British called it if not the name given by Persians, ‘Punjab’, meaning ‘Five Waters’ in Persian because they lived between 5 Rivers?
      * … You are lying that NWF Province of British India was a part of Punjab Province because it never was. Officially, NWF Province was carved o9ut of Afghanistan only after British had granted autonomy to an Afghan King in 1921 by creating Durand Line though Afghanistan had remained a Dominion of British Empire.
      .
      Are you trying to say NWFP was Punjab despite that even now population of Pakistan’s PakhToon Khwah Province west of River Sindh speaks PushTo, a major language of Afghanistan and PushToons are not actually Afghans?
      .
      If you can go change all the Ancient Records sitting in Museums and replace word Indus with word ‘Mehran’, I would consider you God on Earth but until then, you are just a Liar, sir.
      .
      British did not call the region, what we presently call Sindh in Pakistan. British called Province of Sindh the area from East of River Sindh in present Pak Province of Sindh to RajisTan and Bombay. Provincial Capital of Sindh was Bombay or present Mumba so, you are showing lack of your knowledge again on this issue also.
      And Ijaz, I love to be called ignorant by Imbeciles so, be happy …!

  • Bajwa  On September 3, 2011 at 5:38 am

    We are the only one who don’t have that Ummah fraternity with Muslims left in India.Your hear of Spanish and French community which subsist on a common language

    We have a common literature and religion.

    We should encourage a liberal migration route for them and trade concessions for Muslim owned firms.

    Following the Jews encourage/help them to migrate to Jammu, if anyone wants to.

    • S U Turkman  On September 3, 2011 at 6:54 pm

      But who says Moslims are an Ommah?
      Who says these people are really Moslims?
      They are selfish Ethnic Wolves and countries of most of Moslims are Human Jungles, where the most powerful of the Animal Tribes rule just like in African Jungles. .
      The kind of Immigrant Fraternity you are talking about exists only in Punjabis, Agha Khanis, QaDiyanis, Jews and Bahais.
      OTHER CASES:
      * There was a small such Fraternity of Immigrants from Hyderabad Deccan in Chicago but it now seldom helps any new Hyderabadi because Mollaas have taken it over and they only build Mosques.
      * There is an Organization of rich Punjabi Physicians in USA that works for ISI, bribes US Politicians and tries to influence them.
      * MQM has also built a Free Medical Clinic in Chicago and its open for all Pakistanis, not just for Mohajirs but please do not tell this to anybody because Mohajirs are hated declared Traitors by Government of Pakistan just like Bengalis, Pathans, Sindhis, Balochies, Saraikis etc, etc.
      * There is an ‘Aashram’ built by a Hindu Millionaire, who was son of a Moslim young Girl that was sold to his rich Punjabi Hindus father in Sargodha before Partition. 30 years ago he had built this Aashram for all Abused Women of the Sub Continent including Moslim Women like his Mother from what is now called Pakistan but please do not talk about this either because Hindus are Koffaar and Islam prohibits taking any help, Charity or Loan from Non Moslims except in case your Government needs it. It says clearly in Qoraan and HaDees that Moslim Countries can beg for Charity and Loans from Non Moslim Countries but otherwise, its ‘Hraam’, right?

  • Ayesha Khan  On September 3, 2011 at 9:50 am

    First of all accept my good wishes and prayers for continued blessings of Allah, and prosperity and peace for you all, i.e. my belated Eid wishes. Secondly thank you Yasmeen for sharing this. I would add that I too agree with your definition of partition. I would also like to remind you of the role of economic security and distributive justice in the current situation. Lack of equal access to “roti, kapra, makan and our unpreparedness to be part of a global community plays a large role in bringing us to the situation in which we find ourselves.

    A nation state is never defined by its religious or ethnic groups but by its raison d’etre, by the sacrifice of a few visionaries so the majority can have the right to live in freedom under law and with human dignity. A nation state shares a common history and geographic boundaries, they suffer or thrive under the same government and legal system. Having a certain nationality does not deprive you of belonging to a range of different ethnic backgrounds or religions. The liberals and pseudo intellectuals enslaved to alcohol, need for gora acceptance and their own fears have forgotten what it is to be free. If anyone wants to be a part of another country then send them to me I will give them all material comfort without their personal freedom, then they can speak of theories and wanting to give up the very humble Pakistani identity. I am amazed at the lack of “thinking through” ability of the majority of these so called liberals or what have yous!

    I have always believed that being Pakistani was standing up for your inherent rights primary (for me) among them being the right to worship as you please. Pakistan is a reality handed over to us, a unique gift, to start over and forge ourselves into a strong nation and play our due role in the comity of nations. We are still very young, and the (txt) messages of love and concern and call for unity among ordinary citizen is a testament to who the Pakistani people are.

    We allowed our insecurities and fears to overtake us, we lacked unity, faith, discipline. We colluded with the evil and were silent when our brothers and sisters within the country suffered by psychotic governments. The few manipulators in the bureaucracy, the few in the Army, the few in the Judiciary and almost all the Presidents have served the people poorly and we have allowed them to continue abusing us, in fact now we have welcomed outsiders to *%^# us ,over. We are united over the issues but stand divided over the solutions. I guess when feeling overwhelmed by the problems and lacking faith, it is is easier to be divided.

    When I step back and look at the history and current policies and practices of other nations, I see us as a resilient, caring and intelligent nation. We are the only peoples who question ourselves and hold ourselves up to high ideals. Our students excel in all fields of academic discipline, despite great odds. Our hospitality knows no bounds, we even welcome foreign criminals with honor. As Muslims we cover peoples weaknesses to give them a chance to remedy their shortcomings but we Pakistanis collectively do that to such an extreme that we allow ourselves to self destruct. Yet still we will not come out and stop our own destruction. We will die in our homes and streets singly but God forbid that we come out and stand shoulder to shoulder with anyone of a different ethnicity for the truth that glares us in the face.

    Coming to the current scenario: I have said it before and I say it again. We were invaded physically and very clearly in 2007 by the same foreign force that invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. If you read their history especially since they lost wars in the 60s, you will see how they fight for their expansion and how the international community allows them to be in the front line and then they come in to share in the spoils. We are no longer a sovereign country, therefore, the sooner we admit this the sooner we can come up with an appropriate solution.

    The turmoil is all a sign of the times we live in and no different than experienced in any other nation state growing without intellectual and moral infrastructure and trying to define who it wants to be in a world with a single global power whose economy survives on arms manufacture.

    To make non issues, an issue is a very old political ploy of regimes who are busy looting the people and want to distract attention from themselves.The real tangible issue is bad governance and we should use our existing platforms to hold our public servants and public representatives accountable; the president should step down for having failed to deliver and having failed in stopping his team from engaging in embezzling public monies and extorting the middle class and the low income groups.

    The political parties that colluded with allowing foreign powers to compromise our sovereignty must be duly dismissed from government and an interim government set up based on merit with “unknown” but technically sound individuals for three years until the political parties reorganize and clean themselves up. The ISI and civil society organizations should work together to set up this interim govt. People first and people want real change and effective and efficient government to do their job. Theories and political discussions can continue and may the best argument win. But right now we want transparent and accountable public services. We should be mindful of our rights and responsibilities as citizens and government officials have to be mindful of their duties. And this is but a glimpse of what Islam teaches me.
    Ayesha

    • S U Turkman  On September 3, 2011 at 5:50 pm

      AYESHA wrote: “Coming to the current scenario: I have said it before and I say it again. We were invaded physically and very clearly in 2007 by the same foreign force that invaded Iraq and Afghanistan”.
      .
      TURKMAN: Thanks for revealing this secret because nobody knows this. Great Research Work. You should be awarded a Nobel Prize for this Research as soon as we find this US Occupation Army that had taken over Pakistan from our Military 4 years ago. We had no idea that Pak Army is POW in US Jails.

      • Ayesha Khan  On September 5, 2011 at 8:49 pm

        Haha, the dimbulb speaks….kindly check how invasion is defined in dictionary and get a broader sense of perspective about War games. Yes, it is my opinion the whole-country is POW to CIA…so sue me…

        You’re getting a little boring, you could have commented a lot more on many other points.

        best wishes
        Ayesha

  • Mehboob Qadir  On September 3, 2011 at 2:24 pm

    Dear Yasmeen Ali,
    It is a thought provoking article and touches a sensitive nerve.One is left with a desire to hear more about it.

    As a matter of fact the very spirit of craetion of Pakistan seems to have been hijacked and then vuklgarized unfortunately by our Mullah class into purely a theocratic view of a state.This is not what it was meant to be.
    It was to be a model country where muslims would set up a modern muslim state that was to be at peace with itself and with the world.We have most regrettably ended up with being the ‘epicenter of terrorism’ in the world madly killing and blowing up men, women and children fron other sects.Most pathetic.

    Thank you very much for the personal note.

    Regards, Sincerely, Mehboob Qadir

    • S U Turkman  On September 3, 2011 at 5:53 pm

      Mr. Qadir, I think, you had meant ‘vulturized’, not ‘voklgarized’ because this is not a word.

  • Naveed Tajammal  On September 4, 2011 at 6:59 am

    TURKMAN,ONE CANNOT ARGUE WITH A FOOL,WHO IS CLUELESS ON OUR HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY,BUT ELUCIDATE ONE,MUST, TO CLEAR THE AIR,FOR THE DOUBTS CREATED;
    NWFP,WAS OFFICALLY CREATED FROM BRITISH INDIAN PUNJAB,IN THE START OF 1901.PRIOR TO THE ANNEXATION OF SIKH STATE,THE NORTH WESTERN PROVINCE OF THE BRITISH,HAD ITS HEADQUARTERS,IN LUDHIANA AND JULLANDAR,THE ACTUAL PUNJAB,AFTER ANNEXATION OF SIKH STATE THE SAME NAME WAS EXTENDED TO OUR,UPPER SINDH REGIONS,YOU ARE REQUESTED TO READ MY ARTICLE ON WAKHAN,WHICH IS ON GOOGLE,THAT WILL EXPLAIN YOU THE DATELINES AND BACKGROUND AS TO HOW THE TERM AFGHANISTAN,WAS CREATED AND WHY SO,THE SIKHS WERE RAIDING EVEN JALALABAD.AT ONE TIME,THE BRITISH CREATED THE ENTITY OF AFGHANISTAN TO WARD OFF THE RUSSAIN THRUST TO THE WARM WATERS,AND SO LIKEWISE CREATED THE BUFFER-ZONES,IN A ARC,FROM OUR NORTH AND DOWN TO THE SEA,IN THE SOUTH,
    PERHAPS TURKMAN,YOU HAVE YET TO READ ON THEIR FORWARD POLICIES CONCEPT ?????.
    SITTING IN DEHLI,BEHIND A DESK,SUPPORTED BY GHOST WRITERS MUST BE FUN-NO,TURKMAN.????

    • S U Turkman  On September 4, 2011 at 11:44 pm

      Sir, you were first saying, word ‘Punjab’ is fake and British had given this name to the present Punjab in Pakistan and India. I proved you wrong so, now you have started arguing that NWF Province or PakhToon Khwah is also Punjab.
      Similarly, you are telling us that Sindh is actually Mehran. I have no idea, what is the purpose of your these antics.
      I am waiting for you to declare whole Pakistan is actually Punjabistan now.

      • Naveed Tajammal  On September 5, 2011 at 2:06 am

        Turkman;
        For those who understand
        No explanation is needed
        For those who do not understand
        No explanation is possible.

  • Naveed Tajammal  On September 4, 2011 at 7:10 am

    TURKMAN-AS TO THE TERM;MEHRAN,THAT IS WHAT INDUS/SINDH RIVER IS CALLED,IN THE LOWER HALF,OF OUR SINDH VALLEY,BASIN.
    THE EASTERN ‘NARA’ FELL IN THE RANN OF KUTCH,EAST OF PRESENT UMARKOT,THE WESTERN FELL AND WAS THE FEEDER OF MANCHAR LAKE,THE MAIN STREAM,WENT TOWARDS,BAHMAN’NIH,LATER,MANSURA AND MAHFUZA OF EARLY ARAB CITIES 8TH CENTURY AD.THESE CITIES WERE ON THE BANKS OF MEHRAN.
    THE SLOPING GROUNDS OF LOWER SINDH ARE CALLED ‘LAR’
    AND HENCE THE LARI.DIALECT OF SINDH.
    ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE ENLIGHTENED ABOUT.????.

    • S U Turkman  On September 6, 2011 at 4:20 pm

      You mean, Japan should be called ‘Nippon’ because that’s what Japanese call their country and the world should stop calling a country China because they say, they were only ‘Men of Chin’ during ancient Chin Dynasty. Hungry should be called ‘Magyar’, Spain “Hispaniya”, Italy “ITaaliya”, Norway “Norgay” etc, etc.

  • Faisal Imam  On September 5, 2011 at 12:32 pm

    in order to get a concept of two nation theory;on has to read the Quaid’s advocacy of this theory and how he convinced the world regarding this topic. no State has been created for Islam including one persons domain of “saudi Arabia”.

    • S U Turkman  On September 6, 2011 at 4:30 pm

      And we should read the Letter that Governor General of British Dominion Pakistan Mr. Jinnah had written to P.M. of India Nehru, when he had found out that his Mansion in Bombay was about to be nationalized by Indian Government because in it, he wrote, “I want to retire in my that House later”.
      It proves, he had not thought of getting Pakistan out of British Dominion status that Pakistan had sought so vigorously later and he had no intention of declaring Pakistan an independent Republic.
      FACTS:
      India was granted full independence in 1951 and Pakistan on 23rd March, 1953 making Governor General Gen. Iskander Mirza the first President of Pakistan and this is why we celebrate Republic Day on that date every year even now.

  • S U Turkman  On September 6, 2011 at 4:00 pm

    Ayesha wrote: “… Yes, it is my opinion the whole-country is POW to CIA…so sue me…”
    TURKMAN: If whole Pakistan is POW of CIA, tell us why not your Taliban? Why they and Pak Army Commandos disguised as them are still infiltrating in to Afghanistan to kill Soldiers of 46 Countries?”
    POWs are supposed to be in an Army Camps. Are all Pakistanis living in a US Army Camp?
    Who is giving you access to Computer to B.S. if you are a POW of USA?

  • Muhammad Abd Al-Hameed  On September 10, 2011 at 4:41 pm

    Yasmeen Sahiba,
    Rather than posting directly, I want tp send my article to you and leave it to you to publish it or not. Please send me your email address.

    M A Hameed
    mahameed40@gmail.com

  • Usman Khalid  On September 12, 2011 at 2:17 am

    Dear Yasmeen,

    ASA. I agree with you fully.

    Before we discard the Two Nation Theory as ‘out of date’ or ‘counter-productive’ we need to remind ourselves what is the Two Nation Theory. On the web site of Rifah Party, the Theory is summarized as under:

    The Two Nation Theory

    Political ideas do not make sense or carry weight unless they are articulated in the current international language of political discourse. The Two Nation Theory in the present day language of politics asserts that the Muslims (of South Asia) are a nation apart from the other nations in the sub-continent on three counts:

    BELIEF VS BIRTH. The Muslims (of South Asia) identify themselves by their belief (religion) while the others by their birth (race, caste or language).
    VIEW OF HISTORY. The Muslims have a view of history opposite to that of the other peoples of the sub-continent – Muslim heroes are their villains and Muslim rule over India is seen by them as their dark age.
    SOVEREIGN PURPOSE. is a profound purpose which cannot be achieved without being sovereign. The Muslims ruled South Asia for 800 years and gave it a profound purpose – equality. That purpose provided a foundation for socio-economic progress and national solidarity. The Muslims lost their role in South Asia to the British; the Ottoman Turks alone held up the flag for all Muslims. When Turks embraced western nationalism the plight of the Ottoman Turkey gave rise to the Khilafat Movement which led to the ‘role’ being taken up by the Muslims of South Asia. When Palestine as a British protectorate came to be colonised by the Jews and passions grew it became obvious that the aspirations of the Muslims of the Sub-Continent were very different to that of the British rulers or the Hindus. After independence, that divergence became sharper; India and Pakistan have been on opposite sides on almost every international issue thus underlining that Pakistan continues to have a unique sovereign purpose.
    Pakistan, which is now a nuclear power, has been in the forefront in the Muslim world despite the ordinariness of its rulers. Its quest for Sovereignty has been a model for struggle against colonial rule; sovereignty is now enjoyed by almost every Muslim nation.

    I would like the detractors of the Theory to say which part of it is ‘out of date’ or ‘counter-productive’. The eminent critics of the Theory in Pakistan are not just ‘secularists’, they are ‘subversives’ who have come together on the Indian surrogate platform of SAFMA.

    Carry on the good work, Yasmeen.

    Usman Khalid

    http://www.rifah.org

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: