What about sindhi and balochi nationalists who did not want to join pakistan? Now they want the nationhood defined from through the racism of their nationalist leaders. hate would not stop with racists approaches.
Oh, now i will have to listen the rambling like, they want to join but establishment made angry. lolz, if they were agreed to join pakistan then why would some one oppress them.
How many times these Sindhi nationalists talking of separation got elected to assemblies?
Don't you think while talking against racism you are yourselves copying them? Ranjha Ranjha kardi main aape hi Ranjha hui.
The discussion here was not about ethnic issues. hanibal asked me whether I consider Raja Dahir a hero, I told him I consider him hero alongwith Porus, Bhaghat Singh... and then came the one after one old rant about how xenophobic are people of certain provinces by those who are lovers of looters. If Raja Dahir was looter, then MBQ kiya yahan palla machli khane aaya tha?
We talked about giving coverage to contribution of historical figures without looking at their religion and only reason came from your side was of ethnic heroes. No one is asking to include local warriors, but then give equal treatment to butt-shikan and MBQ. stop glamorising them. But this is not possible, because by doing so, presenting skewed version of Islam is easy.
We are talking about inclusion of old civilisation before Islam in syllabus as they are still part of our land and our governments are looting funds in the name of such heritage. When Indian can include Moen jo Daro in their syllabus, why we failed to do so for MehrgaRh, Gandhara, etc? Fragile ideology?
Do we agree here that nationalist parties and religious ones like JI are the opposite sides of the same coin? Both have destroyed Pakistan to their ability.
I don't know of any Sindhi nationalists in 47, please guide if you have got more info. As far as balochistan is concerned, Pakistan in 47 did not include kalat. It was annexed in 48 by force, the same issue pops up very now and then.
If there was Sindhi nationalism on ethnic lines in 1947, then Pakistan would not be a reality. Wasn't Sindh assembly the first who passed resolution in favour of Pakistan? Sindhi were not separatists, but they were separated, which bring the nationalists in picture (though masses never sent them to assemblies).
How many times these Sindhi nationalists talking of separation got elected to assemblies?
Don't you think while talking against racism you are yourselves copying them? Ranjha Ranjha kardi main aape hi Ranjha hui.
The discussion here was not about ethnic issues. hanibal asked me whether I consider Raja Dahir a hero, I told him I consider him hero alongwith Porus, Bhaghat Singh... and then came the one after one came old rant about how xenophobic are people of certain provinces by those who are lovers of looters. If Raja Dahir was looter, then MBQ kiya yahan palla machli khane aaya tha?
We talked about giving coverage to contribution of historical figures without looking at their religion and only reason came from your side was of ethnic heroes. No one is asking to include local warriors, but then give equal treatment to butt-shikan and MBQ. stop glamorising them. But But this is not possible, because by doing so, presenting skewed version of Islam is easy.
We are talking about inclusion of old civilisation before Islam in syllabus as they are still part of our land and our governments are looting funds in the name of such heritage. When Indian can include Moen jo Daro in their syllabus, why we failed to do so for MehrgaRh, Gandhara, etc? Fragile ideology?
There are muslims who dont want heroes like you want. You have to keep in mind the history of Indian muslims striving for separate identity. Raja dahir could be your hero but he cannot be hero of those people I am talking about. This is simple. Dont think that all people of pakistan are religiously ethnic.
I would not consider people heroes on the basis of ethnicity. No need to feed this type of racism to people of punjab.
Point being reading about Gandhara and Indus Valley Civilization we might reconvert back to our roots… This same mentality destroys Bamiyan’s Buddha statues although they stood for thousands of years and couldn’t re convert anyone to Buddhism at least in the past thousand years.
I would not consider people heroes on the basis of ethnicity. No need to feed this type of racism to people of punjab.
No need to feed racial racism, but religious racism is fine. This is the same mentality that goes down to sect level...another attack on an imam bargah today thanks to this indoctrination. 50000 people dead, and not sure how many more will go down thanks to this mentality.
If there was Sindhi nationalism on ethnic lines in 1947, then Pakistan would not be a reality. Wasn't Sindh assembly the first who passed resolution in favour of Pakistan? Sindhi were not separatists, but they were separated, which bring the nationalists in picture (though masses never sent them to assemblies).
I know thats why we didnt get the names of Sindhi Nationalists from 47. Same is the case of Bangladesh, Bangalis were at the fore front of the idnependence struggle. Ask them and they'll tell you of the atrocities committed there in the name of religion by some organizations called Al Shams Al Badr.
There are muslims who dont want heroes like you want. You have to keep in mind the history of Indian muslims striving for separate identity. Raja dahir could be your hero but he cannot be hero of those people I am talking about. This is simple. Dont think that all people of pakistan are religiously ethnic.
I would not consider people heroes on the basis of ethnicity. No need to feed this type of racism to people of punjab.
Who forced you to accept others heroes. Its your side who imposed looters like Ghaznavi and MBQ as heroes to others. Same thing goes for you, please remove these glamorise heroes which only promoted intolerance and hatred for non-Muslim Pakistanis.
yes, back to that civilization and worshiping them.
As if Islam came for expansion and is all about conquering people. Then people cry why there is an image that Islam was spread through sword. Tell me Jamat e Islami's counterpart in Egypt (Ikhwans) ever show such contempt for their civilization including pyramids.
I know thats why we didnt get the names of Sindhi Nationalists from 47. Same is the case of Bangladesh, Bangalis were at the fore front of the idnependence struggle. Ask them and they'll tell you of the atrocities committed there in the name of religion by some organizations called Al Shams Al Badr.
Don't know how Bengalis wrote their history after their separation from Pakistan, but I'm sure they are not into sectarian mess, as we Pakistanis are today.
I know what you meant, only a few posts back you were likening me to nazi. Thank goodness wrist slitter hasnt turned up in this thread so far. Muslim invaders turned up in 712 AD and in Punjab/KPK (1000 AD), why glorify only the Muslim ones only and not the ones who existed 2500 years ago (like Alexander and Darius). We are producing Nazis as a result of the current history since we are teaching kids to hate people on the base of religion. I know that you havent got your basic education in Pakistan. I and many others have had a pleasure to study in the country where we were taught that Hindus are tiny and weak, they live in squalid conditions (entirely opposite in Western countries) and other similar generalizations. While teaching us these things why did they forget that the country has a tiny Hindu minority. Why do we have inferiority complex that we cant acknowledge our past? The education system is converting people into zombies, the hatred that we see these days in people due to sects and religious differences hasnt popped out of a vacuum.
Yes, I called you a neo-Nazi because of your offhand ‘native good, outsiders bad’ aplomb. This is exactly how neo-Nazis are spreading xenophobic hatred and paranoia in West through their poisonous glorification of everything ‘native’ and demonising everything ‘foreign’. Before anyone asks, it is the neo-Nazis who think they should be the one to decide who is native and who is an evil outsider in their country - on the basis of self-defined ‘ethnic purity’. Establishing ‘ethnic purity and racial supremacy ‘of one particular group at the expense of discarding, debasing and dehuhamising all other groups with mixed heritage, is what the neo-Nazis aim to do.
If you are not a neo-Nazi, then it would be helpful to see admit that racial bigotry is just as bad as religious intolerance. So far likes of you are just acting like dogmatic Mullahs and want to ‘glorify’ and ‘glamourise’ personalities strictly on the basis of ethnicity and race. When you are just throwing the words like ‘heroes’ ‘glorify’ and ‘glamourise’ the personalities you personally like, it is incredibly hard to take your crocodile tears for the demise of history, seriously. Simply because what you are suggesting is anything, but a part of the process of learning objective and balanced History. Mindless glorification and insecurity dripping ‘hero worshipping’ is nothing but some useless piece of romantic bullcrap which is no use to any History student. Stop clinging on to these aisine ideas, and you'll find youself making so much more sense.
Yes, I am indeed beginning to hate your textbooks which great zeal now that you have named Alexander in your post. Seriously? Is he a son of soil of now? Why do you want to herofy him? On one hand, you copying and pasting internet meme’s with sentences denouncing ‘jang o jadal ki azmat’, on the other hand you want to - lick the practice that even the Greeks have spitted out - and ‘glorify’ Alexander?
In regards to your rest of the post, I have already suggested academic periodisation of history as one the quickest and easitest way to find solution to that problem. Second most obvious solution would be to invest funds in research departments - build more research centres. Pump funds in archaeology. Build libraries. Build archives to store records, and which also includes money being spent to systamtically preserve, manage and catalogue sources and evidence of historical importance, and make them acccessible to the public.
According to RSS and their counterparts, if 'Muslimisation' of Ashoka's India is so evil and unacceptable (but luckily it’s potentially reversible - don't ask me, ask them). Does that mean all Sikh invasions and Ranjit Singh's attack on Punjab will be glorified as holy and heroic deed since he was a ‘son of soil’ - in Pakistani textbooks? Sikh invaders ravaging of Punjab province during the last and weakest phase of Mughal rule will be seen as act of wonderful of charity?
If expansionist, opportunistic violent invasions and wars from Mawslums are part of lasting evil, I want to know on what basis Sikh invasions on Punjab should be ‘glamourised’ and ‘glorified’ other than the fact it feeds into some people’s racist complex. I repeat, if Ranjit Singh’s attack on Mughal Sultanate can be termed heroic according to ethnic supremacists, I want to how Shah Alam can be portrayed as villain – other than the fact he was Muslim and shared Turko-Persian roots - for protecting the Sultanate from Sikh invasion? Those who are looking to replace one extreme with another and dividing the rich complexities of Punjab’s history into the blocks of black and white – should answer this question.
Yes, I called you a neo-Nazi because of your offhand ‘native good, outsiders bad’ aplomb. This is exactly how neo-Nazis are spreading xenophobic hatred and paranoia in West through their poisonous glorification of everything ‘native’ and demonising everything ‘foreign’. Before anyone asks, it is the neo-Nazis who think they should be the one to decide who is native and who is an evil outsider in their country - on the basis of self-defined ‘ethnic purity’. Establishing ‘ethnic purity and racial supremacy ‘of one particular group at the expense of discarding, debasing and dehuhamising all other groups with mixed heritage, is what the neo-Nazis aim to do.
If you are not a neo-Nazi, then it would be helpful to see admit that racial bigotry is just as bad as religious intolerance. So far likes of you are just acting like dogmatic Mullahs and want to ‘glorify’ and ‘glamourise’ personalities strictly on the basis of ethnicity and race. When you are just throwing the words like ‘heroes’ ‘glorify’ and ‘glamourise’ the personalities you personally like, it is incredibly hard to take your crocodile tears for the demise of history, seriously. Simply because what you are suggesting is anything, but a part of the process of learning objective and balanced History. Mindless glorification and insecurity dripping ‘hero worshipping’ is nothing but some useless piece of romantic bullcrap which is no use to any History student. Stop clinging on to these aisine ideas, and you'll find youself making so much more sense.
Yes, I am indeed beginning to hate your textbooks which great zeal now that you have named Alexander in your post. Seriously? Is he a son of soil of now? Why do you want to herofy him? On one hand, you copying and pasting internet meme’s with sentences denouncing ‘jang o jadal ki azmat’, on the other hand you want to - lick the practice that even the Greeks have spitted out - and ‘glorify’ Alexander?
In regards to your rest of the post, I have already suggested academic periodisation of history as one the quickest and easitest way to find solution to that problem. Second most obvious solution would be to invest funds in research departments - build more research centres. Pump funds in archaeology. Build libraries. Build archives to store records, and which also includes money being spent to systamtically preserve, manage and catalogue sources and evidence of historical importance, and make them acccessible to the public.
What would you like to call yourself as you want to glamorize people only on the basis of their religion?
According to RSS and their counterparts, if 'Muslimisation' of Ashoka's India is so evil and unacceptable (but luckily it’s potentially reversible - don't ask me, ask them). Does that mean all Sikh invasions and Ranjit’s attack on Punjab will be glorified as holy and heroic deed since he was a ‘son of soil’ in Pakistani textbooks? Sikh invaders ravaging of Punjab province during the last and weakest phase of Mughal rule will be seen as act of wonderful of charity?
If expansionist, opportunistic violent invasions and wars from Mawslums are part of lasting evil, I want to know on what basis Sikh invasions on Punjab should be ‘glamourised’ and ‘glorified’ other than the fact it feeds into some people’s racist complex. I repeat, if Ranjit Singh’s attack on Mughal Sultanate can be termed heroic according to ethnic supremacists, I want to how Shah Alam can be portrayed as villain – other than the fact he was Muslim and shared Turko-Persian roots - for protecting the Sultanate from Sikh invasion? Those who are looking to replace one extreme with another and dividing the rich complexities of Punjab’s history into the blocks of black and white – should answer this question.
On the contrary to RSS and some mullahs in Pakistan I don't think Islam spread through force in the subcontinent. It was spread by the sufis but that's another discussion.
How would you consider the acts of Muslim rulers fighting against each other during their glorious period? Son sending the father and brothers to dungeon and so on? Even in recent times one can see the havoc Muslims are wrecking havoc on each other. 50000 dead in Pakistan, all Muslims...go back a few decades hundreds of thousands dead in Bangladesh were all Muslims. Boko haram and isis are all curses on muslims. Do we need enemies? Sadly this has been Islamic history.
My question remains why single Ranjit Singh's out (when his pm was also a Muslim) since he was just a ruler like many before him? All of them were power hungry and fought for the throne, why should we glamorize only the Muslim ones? Is the religion the only deciding factor?
What would you like to call yourself as you want to glamorize people only on the basis of their religion?
Nothing, because I don't want to 'glamourise', 'glorify' personalities to turn them into 'heroes', either on the basis of race or religion, and present the account as 'objective History'. You lot are the ones constantly chuking in these terms, and justifying them while I'm totally against this concept of poetising the past in its entirety. This is not the History I'd studied, and I am extremely proud of that.
If I'm calling Mullahs just as nasty as Nationalists thoughout the thread, chances are, I wouldn't want to be on either side. But nice try.
This same mentality destroys Bamiyan’s Buddha statues although they stood for thousands of years and couldn’t re convert anyone to Buddhism at least in the past thousand years.