LOTD - i dont think the ANP are in any way an effective party - what exactly have they given or done for Pashtuns? The one thing they may achieve this year is changing the name - once that happens they wont feel bothered to do anything else.
ANP was so far not an effective party because it was on the wrong-side of the Cold War bi-polarity and pro-center parties like Muslim League etc. were on the right side and so in power, but they didn't do any thing good for Pashtuns either. But now due to change in international political order, it has come on the right side of the divide while now Punjab etc. is swming against the tide of time....So ANP etc. togethor with nationalist parties from other provinces have bigger role to play in coming times...
[quote]
The ANP are not a moderate party - they are secular left-wingers whose policies would be rejected by most Pashtuns. Secularism is not the answer to Pakistans problems. Its just the opposite extreme to Shariah law. The ANP are just as guilty of prostituting democracry, inefficiency as all the rest.
[/quote]
It is a truly secular party like All India Congress. You will see all sort of people in it including those very religious yet secular and those even athiest...and that is the beauty of it...As for democracy, it has the strongest credentials amongs the existing parties taking into account struggle and sacrifices for democracy are cocerned...
[quote]
I would agree though the west needs the ANP and in a way pakistan is seen as a liability in its present state but then again Europe seens America the same but still puts up with it.
[/quote]
West-Pakistan relations are different from Europe-America ...how dare you even compare the two relationships...!
[quote]
LOTD - i disagree with you - punjab may not have a problem if pakistan disintegrates, which Inshallal it wont.
[/quote]
Punjab will have great problems been deprived of Karachi-Gawadar ports, natural gas, electricity, the excessive water it is consuming now, and without energy resources...It will becaome an agricultural rather than Industrial province...Moreover, India will keep it under its thumb in order to pre-empt the uprising of Punjabi nationalism and its merger with Sikh movement...It may even loose its Islamic character...
[quote]
Hazara would never join a Pakhtun country and half the the Terbela Dam and whatever its benefits would go to them.
[/quote]
Ok, let us agree on this. but I think Pashtunistan will get greater share than just one half.
[quote]
Hazara people are more likely to join punjab than a Pakhtun country.
[/quote]
Most of the Pashtuns if you talk to will not like to impose themselves on Hazara...But it would be better if it goes with either Kashmir or Pashtunistan under a contract that will gaurantee the preservation of its cultural, economic, and political rights...In this way, it will remain in the Muslim fold and with passage of time will assume more a Central Asian character...
Its culture is also an amalgam of Kashmiri and Pashtun Culture than of Punjab, although when you go to some areas of Haripur, the culture becomes more Potohari...Areas like Ogai, Baffa, Battagram, Shinkyari, etc. are more like Pashtuns...
Anyhow, greater powers will also not like the merger of Hazara and Potohar in India...that is what I think...
[quote]
If Punjab does rejoin India then any Greater Pakhtunistan/Afghanistan would have live with india, who lets face it desire the whole of pakistan.
[/quote]
Greater Pashtunistan and Greater Baluchistan have been in history, and will be, regions of great strategic importance...a buffer between imortant powers in the region ...all powers would have the interest not to interfer in them...If one power(e.g. India) will try to dominate it, other powers (e.g. China, Iran, Central Asian states, Russia, Arabs, Europe, US) would respond...Plus India has never been an aggressive power in history...
[quote]
Sindh would be at odds to - they would suffer from punjab and pakhtunisan taking water from the rivers - imagine if punjab and pakhtunistan did create the Kalabagh Dam - they wont need Sindhs consent unless there is an International Water treaty.
[/quote]
International treaties will gaurantee that Singh gets it water share...
[quote]
Kori what you say is really offensive and derogatory - you may have some valid points but people like you dont exactly help the situation. The pashtuns have to ask themselves why play into the hands of people? its an important question I guess. What you want is for the Pashtuns to lose their culture and traditions and adopt jeans etc. One of the problems of the muslim world is the battle to stop western culture taking over. You would need to adjust and create new provinces because ethnic boundaries are not reflected by the 4 provinces.
[/quote]
Pashtuns most of the history have been masters of their own destiny except for the last one and half century...they didn't play in the hands of others until their interests were involved...so what you say is wrong...the same cannot be said about other people accross Attock.
[quote]
LOTD your very wrong when you say fundamentalism and ideological islam are a genetic ingredient in Pakistan.
[/quote]
Pakistan was established as an ideological state ...there were no other basis for its nationhood except Islam...that is why Allama Iqbal's "Taba Khak-i-Kasshaghar etc."...If you know about Objective Resolution, which is a part of Pakistan Constitution, that makes sure that no law is enacted in Pakistan that is against Islam and that Pakistan evolves along theocratic lines...that is in fact one of the reasons for constitutional instability in Pakistan...You might also have heard about "Pakistan ka matlab kia ...la ilaha illalah"...
[quote]
You dont have these people trying to enforce Shariah Law in Sindh, Balochistan, Punjabi, Seraiki belt. Kori is right to an extent - many punjabis dont take time out to pray even. Have you ever travelled on a bus? its always pashtun passengers who would stop the bus journey to pray. Not that that is wrong - to pray 5 times a day is a good thing and obligatory for all muslims.
[/quote]
There was no such case before 1947. Pashtuns in history have established many states e.g. Swat. Dir, Afghanistan, in India ---Khiljis, Lhodis, Suris, etc....In Iran Khijis again...but none was a theocracy...The whole idea of Khalafath came with the idea of Pakistan and the main originators of the idea were non-Pashtuns like Mualana maududi, Dr Israr Ahmad, Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, etc.
There was one Syaed Ahmad Barelvi that came to our areas to enfoce Sharia...Pashtuns found in him a good ally and tool against Sikhs but when he tried to enforce Sharia, he was kicked out because Pashtuns wanted to live by their own riwaj instead of sharia...
Unfortunately, during Afghan War, after 1979, our area became a battle ground between capatalism and communism and West+Pakistan+Saudis manipulated to fight that war on the basis of Islam so the Muslim world in large would be involved and the war would be more effective...later Pakistani generals wanted to annex Afghanistan using Islam and that is the whole story...but now that is being reversed because big powers cannot tolerate Pakistan taking Afghanistan and influencing Central Asia using Islam...
As for saying prayers by passengers what is wrong with that until they impose it upon you...more how do you know all that say prayers are Pashtuns...? Agains if you go to Khyber and Bara people say prayers but also drink wine, sell wine, etc...what does that mean...
But i find you people to be strange...sometimes you would call Pashtuns to be Islamic and sometimes blame them for homosexulaity etc. which obviously is un-Islamic...you people change you stances so quickly and the way the winds blow...and inconsistency is your geatest weakness...
[quote]
You mention those organisations such as deoband, Tablighi jamat, Jumat islami, Tnzim Islami as products of Indian muslim culture - WHY is it that these organisations become a BIG problem when intertacting with pashtuns? Why is it that they only take the law in their hands when in the Pashtun areas?
pashtuns have played a big role in constantly attacking india over history and "bringing" islam to the hindus.
[/quote]
That has been answered above...there was no such problem before 1979...Pashtuns attacked India out of their own worldly motives and not for Islam...Remember how Sher Shah expelled Hamayun even though Hamayun was a Muslim...and how Allauddin Khilji and later Bahlool Lhodi snatched power from Muslim rulers...Mir Mahmood Khilji occupied Iran snatching power from Safavids who were Muslims...He even fought Ottoman Empire defeating its forces so all you say is just a misinterpretation of history...
[quote]
By electing secularists twice before partition does not mean anything? how many jihads against the British were there back then? the Pashtuns have constantly risen up when they heard Jihad shouted - it does not mean that was a bad thing but it hardly makes them secularists.
[/quote]
now a days many non-Pashtun Pakistanis are trying to shift the responsibility of extremism towards Pashtuns just to disguise their own hand in the creation of subversive pan islamist, militant islamist, and political islamist ideologies and spreading them the world over...
Let me answer you...
Pashtuns fought for their own worldly gains and not out of jehadi sentiments as many Pakistanis will like the world to believe...they fought against themselves and against non-Pashtun Muslims...e.g. there was Pashtun resistance against Mughals throughout the reign of Babar (just read memoirs of Babar), Hamayun, Akbar, and even Aurangzeb...rather Mughals and Pashtuns were the worst enemies of each other...During Akbar time, many Mughal armies were destroyed by Pashtuns...including the one brought by Zain Khan Koka and Bairbal to Pashtun areas which was dessimated in Buniar, Swat by Yousafzais...Aimal Khan Momand and Darya Khan Afridi defeated many Mughal armies...
Mir Wais Khan Khilji expelled Safavids from Kandahar and his son Mir Mahmood snatched Persia from Muslims (Safavids)...He also fought against Ottomans...Ahmad Shah fought against Muslim Uzbaks, Takaks, Persians, Mughals to expand his own empire...
Pashtuns never fought or stuggled for establishing a theocracy or an Islamic ideological state like Pakistan...Even in 1946, they voted for Congress whereas non-Pashto speakers like Hazaras voted for Muslim League out of Islamic sentiments...
[quote]
How many people voted back then - how many of them would have been pashtuns? Surely non-muslims of the NWFP would have also added a significant chunk to the vote bank.
[/quote]
answered above...non-Muslims were very less in numbers...out of 50 seats 35 were won by secular Khudai Khidmatgars whereas the rest by Muslim League mainly from Hazara...
[quote]
Its like judging Pashtuns on the 2002 election.
[quote]
I think you should judge by all elections ever held in Pashtun areas...
[quote]
You mention that all those organisations are a part of Indian Islam - islam is islam and its holy book is the same wherever you go to settle -its meaning does not change. there is no such thing as indian islam, afghan islam, arab islam ......yes youhave islam influenced by local cultures but when the local culture goes against the beliefs of islam, quite simply its not islam then.
One thing - is secularism a product or creation of Pashtuns or does it also come from outside?
[/quote]
There is an Indianized (indegenized) version of Pan, political, and miltant Islam that talks of the holyness of Urdu, Pakistan, and superiority of Indian Muslim Culture and is trying to annex Kashmir and Afghanistan using Islam as a tool...Deoband, Jumaath-i-Islami, Tabligh etc. are homegrown Indian Islamic ideologies that have tried to expand thanks the choas created by the Cold War and Afghan War...