Partition was a mistake

[Logic note]

Originally Posted by AgNoStIc MuSliM

Here is a map of the Roman empire.



I would argue that you find not only greater cultural similarities here than within the different peoples of the sub-continent, but greater racial homogeneity as well. But that, like the Mauryan empire, is not validation of "one nation".

No difference in cutlure and language is more then the similarities in these areas at present , very much like ottomon empire and thats why the nations have originated as per the cultural and liguistics line in the roman empire itself .

[Logic note]

but this whole arguement is waste becaue Jinnah himself said he want a divided India based on Muslim majority and Hindu Majority .. so u mean to say that Jinnah was wrong ?

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

Originally Posted by Logic note

Dear Am

Culture is different from Religion so please dont confuse Islam with a culture . or may be this is the main issue . Islam has confused its followers by making faith into a culture and what you are saying is that islam as an ideology will not allow muslims to live with other religions ?

I believe in Islam culture and religion overlap - since traditional Islamic interpretation has focussed on how to conduct oneself in life, and established "appropriate" rituals and practices.

So in a sense Islam gives people both a cultural and religious underpinning.

This is not to say that all cultural practices in Muslims countries are Islamic, but you will notice that even pre-Islamic cultural practices (that almost all authoritative scholars decree as un -Islamic), such as dowry, female circumcision, honor killings etc. are in fact given the cover of "islamic practices" by those who observe them.

It indicates that culture both adapts to Islam, and adapts Islam to itself, and gives it the overarching identity of "Islamic culture".

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

Originally Posted by Logic note

No difference in cutlure and language is more then the similarities in these areas at present , very much like ottomon empire and thats why the nations have originated as per the cultural and liguistics line in the roman empire itself .

I see similar differences in culture, appearance and language within the Indian sub-continent as well. Sindhi, Pashtun, Bengali, Tamil etc.

but this whole arguement is waste becaue Jinnah himself said he want a divided India based on Muslim majority and Hindu Majority .. so u mean to say that Jinnah was wrong ?

He argued for a separate homeland for Muslims in the sub-continent to safeguard their interests - to be created out of the region when the British left.

I don't believe I have disagreed with that.

[Logic note]

Originally Posted by AgNoStIc MuSliM

I believe in Islam culture and religion overlap - since traditional Islamic interpretation has focussed on how to conduct oneself in life, and established "appropriate" rituals and practices.

So in a sense Islam gives people both a cultural and religious underpinning.

This is not to say that all cultural practices in Muslims countries are Islamic, but you will notice that even pre-Islamic cultural practices (that almost all authoritative scholars decree as un -Islamic), such as dowry, female circumcision, honor killings etc. are in fact given the cover of "islamic practices" by those who observe them.

It indicates that culture both adapts to Islam, and adapts Islam to itself, and gives it the overarching identity of "Islamic culture".

Hmm so Finally we have come back to Point where we started .. Islam confuses the person between personal faith and social culture as it makes them same and hence Muslims cant live with there own society from where they originated . and this has led to extremism all over the world among Muslims .

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

Originally Posted by Logic note

Hmm so Finally we have come back to Point where we started .. Islam confuses the person between personal faith and social culture as it makes them same and hence Muslims cant live with there own society from where they originated . and this has led to extremism all over the world among Muslims .

I wouldn't interpret it quite that way.

Cultural changes occur over time, as they do in any society/culture when interactions with external influences take place (the influences could be another faith or different cultural practices of foreigners etc.), and overtime the culture changes from what it was originally. This is nothing abnormal, and the change in cultures that convert to Islam is to be accepted as part of societal evolution.

The issue in the subcontinent was that you continued to have a second even larger culture (Hinduism) exist side by side, and some in the second culture (to me) seem to have continued to view the Islamic culture as being under its umbrella, whereas over hundreds of years the Islamic culture grew to view itself as separate.

I believe this is a process that occurs everywhere. The human race started of as one after all - then you had divisions on family lines, Tribal lines, Racial lines, Cultural lines ---nationalism.

The Muslims making up Pakistan did the same thing. Its just that the way history played out in the sub-continent makes the situation more acrimonious than it should.

[genmirajborgza786]

Originally Posted by asaad-ul-islam

most pakistani's are from monglo-turkic, persian, arab descent. I think that's where the superiority complex comes in, unfortunately.

however, some pakistani's do have the base to claim that. my ancestry goes back hijaz to abu bakr siddiq through Qasim bin Muhammad bin abi Bakr. I'm sure someone's heard of the Shaikh Siddiqui family from Badaun in UP.

who was he/family ? naah never even heard of it.

[Logic note]

Originally Posted by AgNoStIc MuSliM

I wouldn't interpret it quite that way.

Cultural changes occur over time, as they do in any society/culture when interactions with external influences take place (the influences could be another faith or different cultural practices of foreigners etc.), and overtime the culture changes from what it was originally. This is nothing abnormal, and the change in cultures that convert to Islam is to be accepted as part of societal evolution.

The issue in the subcontinent was that you continued to have a second even larger culture (Hinduism) exist side by side, and some in the second culture (to me) seem to have continued to view the Islamic culture as being under its umbrella, whereas over hundreds of years the Islamic culture grew to view itself as separate.

I believe this is a process that occurs everywhere. The human race started of as one after all - then you had divisions on family lines, Tribal lines, Racial lines, Cultural lines ---nationalism.

The Muslims making up Pakistan did the same thing. Its just that the way history played out in the sub-continent makes the situation more acrimonious than it should.

Yes you are saying the same thing . Culture of a society changes with time and with interaction with external universe . while other influences either changes the whole society or bring a change in small part of society but it doesnt isolate that section by extremism . but islam does it because islam forces persoanl faith as social culture . it has done everywhere . Islam has forced it followers to deny its non islamic past .

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

Originally Posted by Logic note

Yes you are saying the same thing . Culture of a society changes with time and with interaction with external universe . while other influences either changes the whole society or bring a change in small part of society but it doesnt isolate that section by extremism . but islam does it because islam forces persoanl faith as social culture . it has done everywhere . Islam has forced it followers to deny its non islamic past .

Islam hasn't forced anything - the people who have adopted Islam have chosen to change their lives voluntarily, and this change has occurred over hundreds of years - it is a natural evolutionary process.

The stronger ideology (relative strength in terms of how the people exposed to an ideology perceive it, not a direct comparison of two ideologies) wins in the end, though it is affected and changed itself as it evolves.

Notice that even Islam does not create an absolute "Muslim identity". There has always been tension between Afghanistan and Pakistan for example. Islam does not create a homogeneous "Islamic Culture" the world over. It changes within whatever existing culture there is, and the result, in Pakistan's case for example, is a culture that is neither "Vedic", nor is it "Arab". This new hybrid culture still has roots in the land of Pakistan - the Sufi saints, Muslim academics, the empires created by Muslim rulers in South Asia etc.

So there is a connection to both land and religion. This should also address your point Malang, of "Pakistan could have been anywhere".

It couldn't.

The process of evolution of a Pakistani Muslim identity is not solely based on faith, though faith plays a very large part.

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

P.S:

Some of you have been very kind with your comments in private, and I would like to apologize to the Indians who participated in this discourse if I offended in anyway as I tried to articulate my POV.

Any offense was unintentional. I understand that there are strong opinions on both sides, but that is what makes for a interesting discussion.

I have myself expanded upon how I view the situation through the course of this discussion. I think I have a better understanding of how a "Muslim Identity" has played a role, and how perhaps that explains the consternation among some Pakistanis over alleged atrocities against Muslims in India.

Thank you for keeping it civil everyone.

P.P.S: No this doesn't mean I am trying to wiggle out of the discussion.

So let the games continue!

[Energon]

Sorry, I haven't had the time to go through the entire thread. The topic is however very interesting and certainly warrants a lot of thought.

From personal experiences, I can honestly say that I have never heard any Indian, or person of Indian origin ever state that the "partition was a mistake." The only "regret" in this matter seems to come from uber-conservatives who say that all the Muslims within India should have been repatriated to Pakistan after the two nations were created unless they explicitly asked to stay back and swore allegiance to the nation they lived in. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone denying the existence of Pakistan akin to what many states have done with Israel; nor are there any organized movements of any importance (that I know of) lobbying to usurp Pakistan or Bangladesh back into India.

I haven't given this matter much thought because it seems like a futile exercise to me. Hindus are convinced that they are being threatened by Muslims and use numerous historical events to support their positions and Muslims do the same. Chances are that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Splitting up a subcontinent on the basis of "religious identity" wasn't a very easy thing to do in the first place; it was a mêlée the first time around which set off a free-for-all with each side shoring up their positions. In the bargain, a disastrous humanitarian disaster occurred bringing about a horrific level of morbidity and mortality. I don't think there are going to be any more border changes in the near future. Which is why I think It would be far better to solidify the borders and move on instead of wasting valuable time and resources launching insurgencies, military operations and sabotage to incite ethnic violence or tactical victories to make a point.

Ample time has been wasted and copious amount of blood has been shed. It's time for South Asia to move on and start the long arduous process to healthy growth and development.

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

^^^ Well said Energon!

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

Moving Kashmir posts here:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/current...-new-post.html