Some mohajirs moved to Pakistan becuase they believed in the Pakistan movement, while others simply thought they would have better oppertunities in a new country.
Mad_scientist, don't be so happy about the re-emerging of JI. Remember who is controlling them from the top and what their siblings the Hizb'sand Lashkars are up to.
why is everyone misunderstanding everything rvikz has asked. I dont see any slander or any snide remarks there, Only debatleable points are whether muhajirs are more progressive and the other point about what MQm really was.
rvikz, muhajirs in general are more educated and thus more progressive. someone said look at karachi before and after partition, that in itself should answer your question, additionally general literacy rates etc in balochistan, sarhad and sindh compared to literacy rates in urban areas which are generally where the muhajirs settled will also prove that point.
Most families that I know which moved from India, inlcuding mine lost most of their assets and had to build a life from the scratch. Some families were hit much worse than others, I can see the difference in how bad the families were hit in comparing my mothers die of teh family with my fathers and the impact of that.
I ams till not sure why people took rvikz's post in such a negative manner. he asked a simple question, debate it, agree or disagree. why are people on his case.
rvikz, there is minimal fuedalism in the people who immigrated, as you noted correctly that they did not come as landowners, those who did may be a little bit that way. I know some ppl like that so far. But essentially they are free from the feudalism that is rampant in rural areas as well teh the tribalism in sarhad and balochistan.
and the last point.. MQM sucks, it was a mafia run by hoods which terrorized entire neighbourhoods of people they were supposedly representing and their own inner wars of different factions claimed many lives on both sides and of many innocent ppl who came in the crossfire.
Your statement "most of the indian muslims migirated to pakistan wanted create a progressive pakistan and rescue pakistan from feudal land lords" is not true. The families I know moved because they had serious concerns about their wellbeing, or had fled after the riots had claimed their loved ones, housing and businesses. My family did not even want to move until safety concerns forced them to leave in a hurry.
ok
WELL when india was partitioned people who were at the foremost of the pakistan movement were mohajirs or urdu speaking muslims of india esp from uttar pradesh and bombay
it was the muslim intelligensia the business class who were the people who fought for pakistan.
when india got partitioned these people left for the new country
all educated muslims went to pakistan and the muslims who were left behind were either in the rural areas or in cities it was the rickshaw pullers or the tonga drivers who were left behind so perhaps that also explains it
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by kabir: *
WELL when india was partitioned people who were at the foremost of the pakistan movement were mohajirs or urdu speaking muslims of india esp from uttar pradesh and bombay
it was the muslim intelligensia the business class who were the people who fought for pakistan.
when india got partitioned these people left for the new country
all educated muslims went to pakistan and the muslims who were left behind were either in the rural areas or in cities it was the rickshaw pullers or the tonga drivers who were left behind so perhaps that also explains it
[/QUOTE]
how is the situation now ?muslims in india are better educated?
can they reach their full potential?
Kabir
I sdont think rvikz asked for a comparison of muslims who left India and who moved but more of pakistanis who migrated with the locals.
anyways, I have family in India and many of them are doing very well. There are some who have fallen on hard times but the others in general are educated, professionals and business owners.
Again, had it not been for the issues some families faced my family probably would not have migrated since they were doing fairly well there but had to make a last minute plan to get out for safety concerns. The sheer number of people killed in my mothers side of the family around then underlined the critical situation they were in.
I think migrants from India were more progressive. Can we please drop the term Muhajir?? When I speak about migrants I'm referring to Urdu and Punjabi speakers. Rvikz, the majority of migrants from India to Pakistan were E. Punjabis.
The reason for Urdu speakers or even E.Punjabis being more progressive was because historically they were part of the Muslim governments and adminstration. Delhi is in Punjab (just so you know), and that part off Punjab was similarly more progressive due to acess to higher education, involvement in trade etc.
Compared to the 'locals' West Punjabis, Pashtuns, Sindhis, Baluchis came from a more backward society. Although this is oversimplifying because Lahore, Thatta and Peshawar are ancient cities that have been capitals of kingdoms before. Most of Pakistan was controlled by a Hindu/Sikh elite, the Muslims wer far and few in terms of being landlords, industrialists etc.
On a personal level, my family is from W.Punjab and could be classified as 'local.' The situation in my ancestral homeland propelled people to join the military, go to different brit colonies (E. Africa etc.), so in that regard a small percentage of individuals were more 'cosmopolitian' not neccessarily progressive or educated. My grandfather who was in the military, was in England back in 1920s and 30s, even married a british lady (my grandmother), spoke perfect British accented English, but he had very little formal education. While my other grandfather lived all his life in Attock, died there, but had a law and english degrees. As a society though, most of the locals were backward not because they lacked the ability but their situation did not allow them to progress. I am glad to say that the locals are reasserting themselves in every sector of Pakistan.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *
and the last point.. MQM sucks, it was a mafia run by hoods which terrorized entire neighbourhoods of people they were supposedly representing and their own inner wars of different factions claimed many lives on both sides and of many innocent ppl who came in the crossfire.
[/QUOTE]
As opposed to the angels that rule us?
ok
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Imdad Ali: *
As opposed to the angels that rule us?
[/QUOTE]
I am not making comparisons, i am just noting that MQM sucked. if you disagree then state that. MQm may suck less or more compared to other parties and other goons, but comparitively less or comparitively more, they still suck.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NYAhmadi: *
In almost all societies immigrants (Mohajir) tend to be more progressive and more educated (guest workers not included). In case of Eastern European Jewry that migrated to the US in mid-late 19th and early 20th century, they quickly rose the ladder to become leaders in finance, Law, academia, and entertainment. Same happened to all subsequent migrants (Irish, Italians, and more recently Indians). One reason put forth is that because many sectors of the society are/were “off-limits” to early migrants, so they concentrated on education and entrepreneurial activities. Same can be said of Mohajirs in Pakistan.
I have very little and a very basic understanding of Mohajirs in Karachi, but the ones in Lahore tend to be more progressive compared to native Punjabis. In Islamabad, most high level bureaucrats are Mohajirs; however, situation is changing now, perhaps because of many Punjabis returning after being schooled in the west.
My personal view is that Mohajirs are better Pakistanis than non-Mohajirs. They sacrificed a lot. It saddens me to see that their leadership (MQM stuff) has gone to extreme to create rifts. Hopefully, new and better leadership will emerge from within that community.
[/quote]
NY Bhaijaan, whenever you come to L.A., let me know, I'll throw a party for ya. :)
[quote]
Their girls tend to be better looking and sexier than Punjabi girls.
[/QUOTE]
LOL!
Some of the muhajirs WERE -and not ARE -the most educated elites. Most of them came from places such as Dehli and Hyderabad. It was never a given fact that if were a local, then you were bound to be less educated. Even in our Multan, a lot of folks went abroad for higher education, before partition.
Although, the the urdu speaking migrants who settled in Central and Southern Punjab, mostly came from the place called Rohtak. They can be easily classified as one of the most illiterate class in Punjab, even today.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NYAhmadi: *
Rajput,,Mohajir means migrant. It is not a derogatory term.
[/QUOTE]
]
Ahmadiji, I know what it means.. Were you born in Pakistan? then your a Muhajir for coming to the US. See what I mean?
It is a term that has lived out it's usefulness. If you want to say urdu speaking or anything else, I'm game :)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by outlaw: *
Some of the muhajirs WERE -and not ARE -the most educated elites. Most of them came from places such as Dehli and Hyderabad. It was never a given fact that if were a local, then you were bound to be less educated. Even in our Multan, a lot of folks went abroad for higher education, before partition.
Although, the the urdu speaking migrants who settled in Central and Southern Punjab, mostly came from the place called Rohtak. They can be easily classified as one of the most illiterate class in Punjab, even today.
[/QUOTE]
Interesting, I think your right as Delhi and Hyderabad have had Muslim rulers. I think point abt Multan illustrates a lot, but I curious, are equating education with progressivism? I'm asking because if a person is total jaahil but has progressive ideas, would that mean he/she is progressive? I think we go by that designation then I'm sure we'll find progressive people in all communities.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *
I am not making comparisons, i am just noting that MQM sucked. if you disagree then state that. MQm may suck less or more compared to other parties and other goons, but comparitively less or comparitively more, they still suck.
[/QUOTE]
No, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I find it humourous that why some people will go to such great lengths to tell us how evil MQM is, and these same people will flip out if anyone mentions some bad points about the ruling mafia and army. I'm not pointing at you, but certain other people who know who they are.
RP: Being Jaahil and illiterate does not necessarily equate to any lesser progression; monetarily and politically. Muhajir influence on Multan city’s economy and politics is one of the examples, where they have performed well in the past, despite the lack of education. There are a lot of ways of looking at progressiveness for instance, even now, one of the National Assembly seats from the city is held by a muhajir. He may be a class idiot and a renowned drug trafficker, but he managed to progress enough in his personal life, that he got himself elected to the parliament :k:
For those who did not get what rvikz meant by progressive, here is a definition. Edit your posts appropriately ;)
progressive
/pr"gresv/ adjective 1 moving forward. 2 proceeding step by step; cumulative. 3 (of disease etc.) increasing in severity or extent. 4 favouring rapid reform. 5 modern; efficient. 6 (of taxation) increasing with the sum taxed. noun (also Progressive) advocate of progressive policy. progressively adverb.
·adjective 1accelerating, advancing, continuing, continuous, ongoing. 2cumulative, developing, escalating, gradual, growing, increasing, steady. 4avant-garde, dynamic, enterprising, forward-looking, go-ahead, radical, reformist, often derogatory revisionist, revolutionary. 5advanced, contemporary, modern, modernistic, up to date.
Main Entry: 1pro·gres·sive
Pronunciation: pr&-'gre-siv
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1612
1 a : of, relating to, or characterized by progress b : making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities c : of, relating to, or constituting an educational theory marked by emphasis on the individual child, informality of classroom procedure, and encouragement of self-expression
I see. Then by that defination, it would be “locals” that are more progressive, relative to the migrants. Earlier I had given a more personal example, and that changes everything then. I must admit at first I thought progression=education, with Fraudz defination and your clarification, I think the progressivity is more individualistic isn’t it? I mean every family might have progressive individuals and gauging entire groups of people becomes greatly difficult.
Outlaw, glad to hear your example from Multan. I can’t say that I’m glad this person has been elected, given his background, however indeed he has been progressive in his life.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *
The MQM is a terrorist organisation that in the interest of peace has become a political organisation. It's entire claim that muhajirs being discriminated against has just been totally discredited by the fact that a Muhajir is the single most powerful man in Pakistan - the President and Chief of Army Staff, General Pervez Musharraf.
[/QUOTE]
i agree MQM is a disgrace to the Muhajirs
My grandparents were Muhajirs, they came to pakistan to live in peace and to practice their religion without any descrimination
yet what the MQM is practicing shows there are humans in existance who lack even the milk of human kindness
It is interesting how stereotypes abound, since the Mohajir community who migrated to Pakistan on partition were generally more able to migrate. That does not mean the whole community was the same, poverty levels for Urdu speaking Muslims who stayed behind in India, is generally far higher then those who came to Pakistan.
Taking the Urdu speaking "Muhajir" community in Pakistan in isolation is wrong, while the community that migrated were better educated, that does not mean all of that ethnice group are the same.
Another example of a stereotypes is Sindhi's in pakistan while Sindhi's are stereotyped, as being insular, dominated by Feudals and not able to fight. Some of the most successful South Asian business communities in the West Indies and caribean is dominated by Sindhis. Another example is of early Pakistani's who migrated to the Middle East. They were enormously successful. And as far as Fighters go, the Hurs of Sindh inflicted some of the heaviest losses to the British Raj in the 1940's.
In any case, groups who are minorities generally tend to be more progressive, because they feel the need to stand out. That is a universal fact, The Afghani Muhajirs in Peshawar and Quetta are probably far more hard working then their ethnic cousins born and brought up in Peshawar or Quetta who were not displaced.