Pakistan - A Nation nurtured on fear.

The oldest civilization of Indian subcontinent, lies in the lower Indus valley basically. Its is called Indus valley civilization (most of the part lies in Pakistan today). Its the place where Hinduism was born. Its the place from where Veda were written. Indus is the river from where country derived its name India and remained integrated for the next 5000 years until partition happened on the name of religion. 

Mohd. Ali Jinnah an erstwhile secular person was the founder of an Islamic nation Pakistan (An irony that he later turned into a communal mind). Jinnah believed that Hindus and Muslims are two different people and their interests are in conflict (which are not). So they cant live together and he gave very famous "two nation theory" for partition of India. Partition is seen as the biggest blunder in the modern history of Indians. 

A partition that divided the two flourishing cultures of Punjab and Bengal. A partition that resulted in the mass refugee camps, a partition that took over a million lives, a partition that made India and Pakistan (earlier brothers) enemy forever. And eventually the false fear of Jinnah that Hindu and Muslims cant live together turn out to be true when the two countries fought 4 wars in last 60-70 years. What happened to be brothers once and fought the war of independence shoulder to shoulder are deadly enemies today.

Since the inception, Pakistan was made on fear. When north western Muslim majority areas were part of India they were taught that India will be Hindu majority country and in elections only Hindus will win. Muslims will be suppressed by the Hindu majority concept of democracy. And soon the existence of Muslims will come in danger (basically Islam was in danger). This fear was imbibed by the elite class of Muslims who was having voting rights and once after partition they also left the India for Pakistan. Leaving millions of poor/rural Muslim in India. Instead of fighting for them in a Democratic society, they chose to leave the country (to save Islam). 

I read Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. A real visionary man who was actually a cleric and knew Quran better than Jinnah (A hypocrite). Jinnah who did not know Gujarati and Hindi/Urdu and only knew English found Islam in danger but the biggest cleric of that time Azad clearly said that "Islam means brotherhood not nation hood". There must be some reason there are 22 countries in Arab/Gulf. And they are not a single country. No wonder now Shia minority is in danger in Pakistan and Jinnah was a Shia. Because when you define religion as basis of nation hood then you have to be specific, which religion, which sect what about others and why not others. He never gave a vision of Pakistan future.

Jinnah  founded a nation on the basis of religion. A nation whose more than 20% population was Non Muslims. What can happen in such circumstances? They had to leave or convert. And now the number of non muslims is less than 2% (I hope Islam is not in danger any more). Once theocracy comes in state power it becomes difficult for minorities to survive and that is what happened in Pakistan. One can imagine the level of intolerance as they are taught in this way only, like Islam is the best religion and rest of the others are enemies of Islam including the Indians, Jews, Americans, Shia, Liberals, Democrats and Secular (actually all). 

Jinnah got a separate nation but India was not an enemy of Pakistan until Pakistan broke stand still treaty with Jammu and Kashmir. Jammu and Kashmir is a diverse state with Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists. The people of J&K were not radicalized at that time and asked for Indian help. After signing the "Instrument of Accession", they joined Indian Union and their demands were taken care in Article 370.

Now when Pakistan got an enemy (out of the way). It was necessary for them to protect them self. The time when all the nations were investing on industries and education, Pakistan was investing on arms and ammunition. Because they got an enemy who is many times bigger in economy and population. This idea of fear ruined their education standard and economic prosperity.

Punjab (half of Pakistan) happened to be one of the prosperous state of Indian subcontinent is now way lower than average Indian income (considering the fact that India got "bimaru" states like UP and Bihar). 

The fear that India wants Pakistan back was routinely haunting the people of Pakistan. It gave the military legitimacy that they can coup when ever they want. Because its the military that would save them from India. And an institute that was supposed to come under Civilian government became so monolithic that it can coup anytime it wants. And no one wants to decrease the power of ISI/Military as they perceive that India (their enemy) is not attacking them because of ISI (Its the perception, not the truth).

In all four wars Pakistani military lost the battle. But such battles keep reviving the legitimacy of Pakistani armed forces and they can increase their budget, defense expenditure, more power and more recruitment (one side of the coin), with more poverty, more illiteracy, more fundamentalism and more riots (the other side of the coin). Because the fund that is supposed to be in developmental projects is going in defense expenditure.

In the worry of war they even made Nuclear Arsenal. When Pakistan made nuclear weapon it was believed that now Pakistan will not invest too much on Army as they got a legitimate deterrent. But nothing changed and they are still where "Quaid-e-Azam" left them, in the state of fear. 

Since the theory of two nations was so flawed that it was impossible for Pakistani intellectuals to convince people that Hindus and Muslims cant live together. Given the fact that they were living for last 5000 years. Given that fact that India is a second largest Muslim country today and none of them is Al-Quaida (Because Indian muslims know that Islam is not in danger). Given the fact that India is worlds biggest and vibrant democracy and probably the most diverse country. 

In these circumstances when Bangladesh also separated them self from Pakistan and became a secular nation (not islamic), the only way left for Pakistani intellectuals is to distort the history. The innocent children of Pakistan are taught in this way that, "Hindus and Muslims were always enemies". But the fact is that Muslims ruled because of Hindus co-operations (eg Akbar and Rajputs.) and Hindus ruled because of Muslims co-operation (like Sivaji and Ranjeet singh). 

They are taught in school that "Hindus were ruled by Muslims for 1000 years". A totally flawed concept. First of all the rulers was a Hindustani ruler/ Indian ruler not a Muslim ruler. That is why people respected him. They never see Akbar and Mughals as Muslims but as an Indian ruler. Second concept the Muslims of India are basically Hindus who converted (by force or voluntarily god knows!). And the rulers were the Muslims who were invaders. So how can Indian (former Hindu and now Muslim) can take credit of Turks, Afgans and Persian victory?

No wonder Turks, Arabs and other Muslim countries do not give a damm! to Pakistani Muslims. Even though they made them self on the name of foreign religion, but the place where this religion was born do not care about Pakistan very much. Pakistan could not get the attention that it was seeking in Muslim world as well. In fact Muslim world is in itself so much fractured that they cant give attention to anyone else.

Now when this generation who grew reading "Mahummad Gauri, Quasim, Gaznavi" as their leaders (who were actually foreigners). After being taught hatred against Hindus and Jews. After reading distorted history, they are brainwashed. They are so radicalized that its almost impossible to talk to them on partition of India. 

They still live in fear and will continue to live in fear. Because fear is the ideology of Pakistan. And the day this fear will vanish there will not be any differences.

Votes: 0
E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of MyEnglishClub to add comments!

Join MyEnglishClub

Comments

  • Yes Fear was the reason. That is the heading of my blog. 
    By and large I have understood your points and your views. And more you less you are also saying the same things. 
    Iqbal wanted 2 states with 2 different constitutions under the same name Hindustan. He did not wanted this kind of two different countries. And this partition has already defeated the cause for which these great people were fighting. The cause of betterment of Muslims of this subcontinent. Every country Muslims have their own set of problems.. you know it better than me. A force that united can be the biggest muslim force is fighting against each other on national interests (not religious interests).
    I am thankful not only to Sir Syed Ahamad Khan who gave us Aligarh Muslim University, enlightening all Indian today. I am thankful to Shah Jahan who gave us Taj Mahal, Red Fort and Jama Masjid, I am thankful to Sher shah Suri who gave us Grand Trunk Road from Kolkata to Amirtsar now, I am thankful the rich architecture, a beautiful language Urdu, Sufis like Kwaja Mahumadin Chist (Ajemr also the land I was born), I am thankful to Kannad leader Tipu Sultan, and Nizams of Andra Pradesh who gave us a beautiful city of Hyd. Thanks to Akbar whose life is an inspiration for all Indians. The list can go on...and will never end :D

    Finally I want to say thanks to Jinnah who took away all the people (Mojahirs) who believed that Hindus and Muslims are 2 different people and cant live together and left India with people who love their land than anything else... the true Indians. 
    I have a tough time ahead, and this blog distracts me as I am an engineering student not a history student. This site taught me english and how to write in a pattern, how to put things in front of others. The purpose is solved. Now I am going back to what I am good at, i.e. Maths and Science. And to save my time I am deactivating my account. 
    Arif Saeed you are a nice person, and we never chose where we will be born. Its just a co-incidence that you are born that side of the border. You are living with your truth. The truth you believe in. I lived for a long part of my life with the truth Indian authors projected to me. But now I am trying to understand the truths in my own way. In a scientific way. 
    Let you live with your subjective truth (which makes you happy)... Let me live with my objective truth (which makes me feel logical)... 
    And Iqbal never wrote book or vision as such on these topics... I have gone through some of his famous speeches give in Aligarh. So people take out verses and use them in any way. That is not the right way. There were differences between these leaders, but Iqbal died in 1938 in India, and for me he was same as any other national hero. 
    Have fun and Bye.

  • As far as I get the point of your blog is two nation theory and you blamed it on Jinnah,

    I have given answers in detail that Jinnah, himself never wished to lead the movement for independence, but was given task to achieve it. Second Jinnah did not expound The Two Nation Theory, but it was expounded by your two favorite leaders Sir Syed Ahmed Khan 1867 and then Dr. Iqbal 1930.

    Note: everything happens for a reason.

    Take your full time!
  • I have explained in the blog, how the narrative was changed and why it was changed. The moment you accept that it was a political war, not a religious war then you go against 'two nation theory'. We are same people with different political aspiration and different regional concerns. Religions is something between me and my god. And power is something between me and my government. 2 different relations and 2 different issues. 
    Is it not an irony that after independence, both countries followed "Equality of law and equal protection of law" as a basic tool of governance? It means that we both believe that all the people of a country has equal rights. Then why people were projected as Hindu and Muslim in pre-Independence India by some leaders? We divided saying our way of life are different our cultures are different our languages are different and so we need different countries. Once we made 2 different nations we gave them same rights as given by others.... So one of them was wrong... either the theory of which partition was done was wrong or the rights given to people are wrong... 
    Lastly all the opinion are mine. There is an extent we read others and believe in what they think is right. I have read hisroy on my own, and interpret it on my own. I have given thoughts to these believes and ideas and came with some conclusions. After all thinking leads to growth of a brain :D I hope you will do the same.
    One last line as I see from here, 70 years after partition. What is see is that the Muslims who are already safe made different country, Because no one can dare to suppress a Punjabi muslim in Punjab (they are in majority), the muslims of today's India were insecure at that time and are insecure still today. The areas of Pubjab and Bengal were sure to get muslim seats in future, it was about the muslims getting seats in assembly where they are minority, are they getting it today? No! if the weak became weaker by partition then how can you justify it? 

  • I have a busy schedule these days. So I am not able to research that much.
    But in all this discussion consciously or Unconsciously you have accepted that it was the question of power sharing that created rift between the leaders of that time. It was not a religious war but a political war. The question was how the political set up of a young multi religious India will be and every section of the society has its fears and concerns, which is an absolutely normal thing.
    Having said that, what are you are writing are historical facts. And I do not think there is much contention/disagreement among us on 'what' happened or 'how' it happened. I put my opinion on "why" it happened. I am talking about the believes and ideologies. And judging them from today's point of view. Because those believes made two different ways we as a nation traveled. 1947, the path diverged and each nation started travelling on two different paths on the belief set up by different leader of UP and Gujarat. (personally I think that Gujarati who are less than 3% of the country's population are the most smart people in this subcontinent, Gandhi, Patel, Jinnah, Modi, Ambanis, Tatas, Adanis etc).

    The very thinking to see human being as Hinuds and Muslims, how far it is right? People are defined not by their religion but by their location in concept of power. For example my prosperity of India means prosperity of all section of the India. This is the reason once we are partitioned The Muslims of India are Indian first then Muslims and the Hindus are Pak are Pakistani first then being Hindu. And it happened in every nation. So the concern of land on which you are born are more important then the concern or some one with same religion living 1000 miles away from you. The discussion should had been (in 1940's) based on the matters of Provinces (like Punjab, Bengal, Tamils, Sindhi, Maraths, Kashmiris etc) rather than Hindu or Muslim. 
    Nehru report, A debatable issue, no doubt about it. But is it the way constitution of country is made? No! Never! constitutions of great countries are made in years. It took India almost 3 years to make one, even when most of the things are copied from Government of India act 1935. 
    Let me put my words in more simple way. We the people of India (pre Independence) were living in different parts of the country. Every part has its own concern. For example. 
    1) The people of Tamil Nadu, wants a solution of Sri Lankan Tamils, how far we can solve this problem, because its a matter of Foreign policy.
    2) The people of Tribal NWFP (Pashtuns) find them-self divided in Afganistan and Pakistan.
    3) The people of linguistic minority think that their identity is in crisis (the reason why Bangaldesh came into existence).
    4)The people from fringes think that they are not getting their share of wealth and are under-developed.
    5) According to me minorities can ask for reservation in power sharing, if they feel insecure. But reservations come with its own set of problems (I can write a blog on it) 
    6) Understand India, how far the requirement of reservation was justified, given the fact that in many provinces Muslims were in majority and were always sure to win for example in Punjab and Sindh and Bengal etc.
    7) It was the constituent assembly in which almost 600 people from every part of the country, should had decided the faith of the country. No individual has the right to make reports and ever individual has the right to differ from it. Nehru report was an undemocratic way of and Jinnah disagreement was also undemocratic. They never asked the representatives of common man, remaining 600. 
    8) In constituent assembly the people fight for their areas they represent the people who voted them they do not represent the congress or Muslim league or Akali Dal or Hindhu Maha Sabha. There happens a fierce discussion, all sort of opinions, all positive aspects and negative consequences are put on table, recording and statements are noted down. By the help of meida they are circulated and local public have discussion on who is right and who is wrong. Then decision are made. It was never done on Nehru report. But when the constitution of partitioned India was written this procedure was followed. 
    Unfortunately Muslim League never entered the constituent Assembly, the will of local leader never came on table. Some leader took decision by themself and rest of the leader followed them like cattle. 

  • I copied your comment and pest here
    "(if any exist, your silence will be treated as acceptance of guilt). "
    Do you still wish to continue this debate or stop it?
  • Atfer Nehru Report, 1928, the greatest philosopher, Dr. Muhammad Allama Iqbal, first time initiated the idea of separation in his Presidential address to Muslim annual session at Allahabad in 1930. Dr. Iqbal was the poet, who wrote Taranah-e-Hindi, in which he expressed his purest feeling of patriotism and nationalism as

    " Our Hindustan is the best in the world,
    It's like a garden, and we are its Nightingales,
    Religion does not teach us to be each other's enemy,
    All of us are Indians, and India is our Country".

    Keeping in view of their fanaticism, Iqbal turned against their religious philosophy being imposed on Indian Muslim. Iqbal, who knew Islam better than Dr. Abdul Kalam Azad, was the first Muslim politician expounded Two Nation Theory at Muslim League Platform and he was the mulsim leader who convinced Muhammad Ali Jinnah the idea of separate home for Muslims and accepted him his leader.

    Imagine, how great leader Jinnah was when the greatest philosopher wanted to be led by him


    To be continued
  • Read "yes" instead of "yet"
  • It seems you are no longer interested in knowing the other side of coin. However, I would keep elucidating the raised points on your blog, as committed. :)

    My present submission is in regard of the role of Jinnah and his sincerity to All Indian Muslims is to respond to the Nehru Report, published on 1928, in which there were recommendations for immediate abolishment of Muslim League and turning down the Muslim desire for the reservation of 56% seats Punjab and 55% seats in Bengal legislatures and an effective 1/3 representation at the Central legislature. The response of Jinnah, which was announced in March, 1929, to the Nehru Report is known as "Fourteen Points", which got so much popularity among Muslims and somehow emancipated them from their mental anguish.

    The world generally knows that Jinnah laid down the foundation of Pakistan, but as a matter of fact, this unjust report had laid down the foundation of Pakistan. It had made the Hindu-Muslim rift final and irrevocable.

    Now in general sense, let me explain you in an easier way. If someone supports someone with sincerity despite having discrepancies, yet the result is Zero. What would you suggest him to do? Should he keep supporting insincere person? If it is yet, then how long?
  • I think, a gulp of knowledge is insufficient for quenching your thirst. In continuation of above comment regarding the loyality of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the leader of leaders to the Congress.

    First, have a short view at history. The Congress, which was a Hindu dominant political party as I said earlier, was formed in 1885. Whereas, All Indian Muslims League was founded in 1905 ( after 20 years) keeping in view of extreme agitation against the partition of Bengal which made Indian Muslims clear that Hindu didn't want to see even a Muslim electorate in the National Assembly. Before this incident, Muslims had showed their blind trust in all Hindu leaders without having a sense of any discrimination.

    As I said, Jinnah joined Muslim League on 1913 on condition that he would not give up supporting the Congress. Finally he was fully convinced that Ghani and Hindu politicians were busy in showing up the loyalty to Indian Muslims and playing with the feeling of them with the help of rental Islamic scholars, (as named above) who love to sit by the powerful elites.

    If you study the history of Islam. No even most powerful force could defeat Muslims unless hypocrite Muslims joined the opponents. Therefore, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, keeping in their hypocrisy, took a very risky decision of relinquishing the Congress on 1918. Besides, He was the only politician among all Indian Muslims who thought out of box and figured out hidden lies of blandished speech of Ghandi. It was because, he had ever worked and been the closest person to Ghandi.

    InshaAllah, in next comment, I will expose when their hypocrisy was exposed which turned All Indian Muslims against so-called philanthropist, Ghandi and Nehru.
  • Here is the link of that blog in which I have talked about the ideology.http://my.englishclub.com/profiles/blogs/an-insight-of-national-lea... 

    Read it... If that link is not working.

This reply was deleted.