Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’
There are four of us here..........:D
Who is the 4th
Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’
Well if you've found him to be that unpopular, people must be on to something. What is your objection to this thread. I don't see anyone commenting on his economic policies. If the separation of religion and state doesn't interest you, find a thread that does. Secularism involves a discussion of religion, and his regime played a significant role in this context. If you have a soft spot for the man, that's your personal issue.
*my point was about attributing all the crap that is happening to solely to the involvement of religion with state........ i don't have a soft spot for the guy....he was a douchebag....but not any worse than others. *
What "literature" do you suggest, because apparently the Pakistani state doesn't know much about itself either. 'History' books read more like propaganda pamphlets. According to Dr. Ayesha Jalal, "Pakistan's history textbooks are amongst the best available sources for assessing the nexus between power and bigotry in creative imaginings of a national past." Zia took part in this historical revisionism. The 1979 education policy stated that the "highest priority would be given to the revision of the curricula with a view to reorganizing the entire content around Islamic thought and giving education an ideological orientation so that Islamic ideology permeates the thinking of the younger generation and helps them with the necessary conviction and ability to refashion society according to Islamic tenets." With curricula like this, is it any wonder there is little tolerance for pluralism.
*and your point is?? you seriously think that the text books taught in the shool shape how mindset of people is formed here?? that that curricula, which only a miniscule proportion has access to (talking about lack of access to education here) somehow shapes the society? see this is what happens when you just read books, haven't lived here and make assumptions about the impact of things..... *
You sound like a counter-authority; feel free to share your 2 cents. Why begrudge the input of 2nd generation Pakistanis living in the West? By the same token, those born and raised in Pakistan love to preach at length about America's foreign policy, its evil imperialism, its discrimination against its Muslim minority. But they should probably shut up because they've never lived here. Deal?
**begrudge?? no grudge.....its just that when some people are on to something...which they don't have a very good idea about..i like to point it out.........and about...... comment about american foreign policy and imperialism......guess what....thats not something living in america someone would know........... most americans don't even know where their country is waging war and for what reasons.......so ,sorry about that, your argument doesn't hold....
however, thsoe pakistanis who comment about american domestic issues, their form of govt, social issues.....i agree...those are idiots...following the likes of laal topi and rest of the stupid right wing journalists here.....**
Me, me, me. If Islamists don't effect your daily life, good for you. Those in the line of fire aren't as privileged. Enough lives are being destroyed by religious politics to inspire people to re-visit Jinnah's vision. If you find this thread frivolous and want to discuss what effects you most, start a thread.
hahha........i was giving example ... if you didn't know......i DO actually live here in pakistan........
and please identify the pople in ''line of fire'' ...what are their primary issues, how much does the religious poliltics effect their daily life.......... lets hear it.....
Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’
Why it does not matter that rulers were religious or not when all the criticism is based on Zia being ‘religious’?
Please explain the reason for this hypocritical views.
Interestingly, I have already answered all these points but you came again with same criticism.
I already mentioned Zia was not the only ruler. He came in 1970’s and gone in 80’s.
Pakistan existed before and after him with rulers who were secular and brought misery to Pakistan. Just as Zia used religion for his goal to fool the masses with wrong decisions, Bhutto family and many others irreligious did the same.
The country was divided BEFORE Zia.
He was not an elected ruler anyway so we have to move on beyond him.
Very interesting that all of the problems of Pakistan for ‘secularists’ boil down to minority issues/human rights, Ahmadis, blasphemy laws etc. 
**
It looks like secularists and many critics of Pakistan have very myopic views of Pakistani problems. **
They somehow want minority issue resolved and all other issues which relates to Pakistan at large, they conveniently forget. 
Almost every other thread in PA or this BB relates to minority issues, just like desi movies cannot be made without a love story, dances and songs.
Its getting very boring to read all the time, my friend. 
Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’
Not sure what your point is. Someone had to start the mess we’re in today. Later military commanders wanted political power, Zia followed the recently adopted religious rules with a vigor.
Actually, this whole mess started with Bhutto. He included religious persecution in the constitution, which is possibly one of the most harmful political moves in Pakistan’s history. Zia simply cemented the ground work laid down by Bhutto. What many people fail to realize is that Bhutto legitimized the religious fanatics by including their unreasonable demands in the constitution. When the government “officially” sanctions religious discrimination, it doesn’t take long for the crazies to come out of the wood works. To spell it out clearly for you, if the religious extremists don’t exist, then there is likely no Blasphemy Law, and religious minorities probably aren’t prosecuted. If you don’t believe me, read a book. My grandfather personally experienced this. He was fairly political, and often spoke against the persecution of religious minorities, and received many death threats for doing so.
The fact that you don’t care for minorities is astounding. If you legitimize violence, the government will not be stable. If the government is not stable, the economy will suffer. Econ 101. That’s one of the reasons foreigners are hesitant to invest in Pakistan.
Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’
Not sure what your point is. Someone had to start the mess we're in today. Later military commanders wanted political power, Zia followed the recently adopted religious rules with a vigor.
Actually, this whole mess started with Bhutto. He included religious persecution in the constitution, which is possibly one of the most harmful political moves in Pakistan's history. Zia simply cemented the ground work laid down by Bhutto. What many people fail to realize is that Bhutto legitimized the religious fanatics by including their unreasonable demands in the constitution. When the government "officially" sanctions religious discrimination, it doesn't take long for the crazies to come out of the wood works. To spell it out clearly for you, if the religious extremists don't exist, then there is likely no Blasphemy Law, and religious minorities probably aren't prosecuted. If you don't believe me, read a book. My grandfather personally experienced this. He was fairly political, and often spoke against the persecution of religious minorities, and received many death threats for doing so.
The fact that you don't care for minorities is astounding. If you legitimize violence, the government will not be stable. If the government is not stable, the economy will suffer. Econ 101. That's one of the reasons foreigners are hesitant to invest in Pakistan.
I never ever mentioned that I do not care about minority issues.
It is the repetitive unnecessary injunction of this issue in almost every thread is what I have problem with. In fact your post is an evidence to it.
Aur Bhi issues hain Pakistan Mein 'persecuation' ke Siwa.
Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’
This thread is about secularism, of which religious persecution happens to be a part. Ignore that part, and focus on how the introduction of Bhutto's constitution, and the subsequent hijacking by Zia, changed the country. Changes which have economic and social impacts beyond just religious minorities.
Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’
my point was about attributing all the crap that is happening to solely to the involvement of religion with state
Only no one's doing that. You're assuming things.
Addressing the rest of it requires repeating myself, which I'm not going to do. You missed the point ; I'm not concerned with where you live. Moral of the story was that you have a right to express opinions on whatever you like outside of Pakistan, and vice versa. Continue to limit your concern to the 10 mile radius that makes up your daily existence. As long as you aren't directly effected by it. Wait until the conflict is too close for comfort, after which it may become conveniently relevant.
Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’
Only no one's doing that. You're assuming things.
Addressing the rest of it requires repeating myself, which I'm not going to do. You missed the point ; I'm not concerned with where you live. Moral of the story was that you have a right to express opinions on whatever you like outside of Pakistan, and vice versa. Continue to limit your concern to the 10 mile radius that makes up your daily existence. As long as you aren't directly effected by it. Wait until the conflict is too close for comfort, after which it may become conveniently relevant.
Very well then.
Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’
Why it does not matter that rulers were religious or not when all the criticism is based on Zia being 'religious'? Please explain the reason for this hypocritical views.
^ Frankly you're the one getting carried away. It started with this quote :
Mullahs hardly ever ruled Pakistan.
Its the non-Mullahs and there parties who brought so much troubles to Pakistan!
^ Here you state that secular or non-religious parties are solely responsible for the status quo. I replied, asking if you'd forgotten Zia's contribution. Instead of addressing my point that his legacy is a good example of why religion should be kept out of government, you busied yourself with the irrelevant argument that he's not a "mullah." This is why engaging most people on this forum is useless.
Yes, 'persecution' is such an annoying thorn in your side. Being apathetic about religious minorities is one thing, but frankly I doubt it makes a difference to you that the majority of those booked under the blasphemy law are Muslim. The Hudood Ordinance discriminates against 50% of your population - women. So much for harping on about "minorities," eh. Absolutely pathetic that one has to 'sell' issues like this to make them worthy of attention.
Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’
Actually, this whole mess started with Bhutto. He included religious persecution in the constitution, which is possibly one of the most harmful political moves in Pakistan's history. Zia simply cemented the ground work laid down by Bhutto. What many people fail to realize is that Bhutto legitimized the religious fanatics by including their unreasonable demands in the constitution. When the government "officially" sanctions religious discrimination, it doesn't take long for the crazies to come out of the wood works. To spell it out clearly for you, if the religious extremists don't exist, then there is likely no Blasphemy Law, and religious minorities probably aren't prosecuted. If you don't believe me, read a book. My grandfather personally experienced this. He was fairly political, and often spoke against the persecution of religious minorities, and received many death threats for doing so.
True. We had our 'Islamic Revolution' before the Iranians. Before the 1973 Constitution, Islam was just the 'official' religion. Come Bhutto, it became the 'state' religion. His appeasement of the JI led to the declaration of Ahmedis being non-Muslims. If Zia created the religious institutions, Bhutto left the blueprint for it.
But in a way, the writing on the wall can be traced much earlier with the Objectives Resolution, adopted within a year of Jinnah's death. It forms the preamble of every Constitution we've had. It affirmed the rule of the Divine over popular sovereignty, defined the parliament's responsibilities as "sacred trust," and "enabled" Muslims to "order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah." (Full text on Wiki). So the groundwork was already laid as early as 1949.
I just re-read OP's article carefully. Wajahat Masood (political analyst) recommends removing 3 articles :
- Article 2 (a) upholding the Objectives Resolution;
- Article 227, which says that no law can be repugnant to Quran or Sunnah
- Article 203 that gives the Federal Shariat Court the power to strike down any law passed by the parliament that is repugnant to Quran or Sunnah.
(How are clauses like this even enforceable, given Muslims can't even agree when Ramadan starts, let alone interpret the Quran the same way).
Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’
All I see here that the minority issues are talked about so much that the issues which cover all citizens and problems of majority gets behind.
One of the biggest tragedy of Pakistan was separation of the East Pakistan.
Was it due to religious parties?
Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’
Meanwhile a minor minority issue concerning a minor, so no separate thread,
11-year-old Christian girl accused of blasphemy – The Express Tribune
BTW, Eid Mubark to All !!
Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’
All I see here that the minority issues are talked about so much that the issues which cover all citizens and problems of majority gets behind.
One of the biggest tragedy of Pakistan was separation of the East Pakistan.
Was it due to religious parties?
Well one issue among others was that Urdu would be a the national language, even at the expense of all others. This preference for Urdu was due to the bizarre belief, which itself was based on an exclusivist and perhaps even bigoted ideology that espoused the belief that there was a Muslim language (Urdu) and a Hindu language (Hindi). So this particular issue was one that pertained to a religion based ideology. So not due to any religious party, but certainly due to particular convictions among certain segments of West Pakistan based on religion.
Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’
Whats your point?
All the answers are in the post. Re read it. There is nothing hypocritical there, you just don’t have the what it takes to understand.
Secular rulers were secular in name only. Agreed. But Zia was the worst because he was completely and utterly zealous in his Islamazation of Pakistan. Laws like the blasphemy law, and much of the intolerance stems directly from his era. You don’t agree, who gives a Sh@&. Far more intelligent people then you who have lived far longer lives then you will attest to this fact.
The biggest problem is the rights of minorities. You can excuse other things, but the treatment of the minorities, people who are weakest among society is inexcusable.
We may be myopic, but its seems CERTAIN people on this forum are completely blind.
We will discuss this issues as they arise. but the treatment of minorities is an inexcusable crime.
The biggest problem in Pakistan today is intolerance and bigotry. This is the societies biggest social issue at this point. You can deny it and ignore it, but we already know your about as sensitive as a punch to the face.
Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’
Thank you for proving my point so quickly. :hehe:
P.S. That was too quick. :naraz: You should have waited for few posts, so it wouldn’t look like I prepaid you to post that.
Hope it is not deleted like Chintu post in the past. I lost some money on that one. :mad:
Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’
Whats your point?
All the answers are in the post. Re read it. There is nothing hypocritical there, you just don't have the what it takes to understand.
Secular rulers were secular in name only. Agreed. But Zia was the worst because he was completely and utterly zealous in his Islamazation of Pakistan. Laws like the blasphemy law, and much of the intolerance stems directly from his era. You don't agree, who gives a Sh@&. Far more intelligent people like you who lived far longer lives then you will attest to this fact.
The biggest problem is the rights of minorities. You can excuse other things, but the treatment of the minorities, people who are weakest among society is inexcusable.
We may be myopic, but its seems CERTAIN people on this forum are completely blind.
We will discuss this issues as they arise. but the treatment of minorities is an inexcusable crime.
The biggest problem in Pakistan today is intolerance and bigotry. This is the societies biggest social issue at this point. You can deny it and ignore it, but we already know your about as sensitive as a punch to the face.
How can I prove there are other colors in the world to a man who is wearing green glasses? :(
Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’
The majority are not the weakest among us. its incumbent on Muslims to defend the weak. How can we defend the weak when people like you are constantly undermining us? Is your objection to minority rights or is it to Muslim obligation of protecting those who can’t defend themselves? 
Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’
Well one issue among others was that Urdu would be a the national language, even at the expense of all others. This preference for Urdu was due to the bizarre belief, which itself was based on an exclusivist and perhaps even bigoted ideology that espoused the belief that there was a Muslim language (Urdu) and a Hindu language (Hindi). So this particular issue was one that pertained to a religion based ideology. So not due to any religious party, but certainly due to particular convictions among certain segments of West Pakistan based on religion.
That's a poor argument Med.
Bangladeshis did not want Hindi to be official language anyway. And if there was to be any national language it had to be Urdu or Hindi as these were most widely understood language in subcontinent, even though these are not mother languages of majority. Even today for Bengalis, Indians, Pakistanis, Iranians expats the common language of communication is urdu/hindi.
There is no doubt in it also that urdu was adopted by muslims and hindi by hindus. Urdu due to its arabic writing style and words taken from persian and arabic, differsfrom Hindi. Though both languages have same basic structure.
Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’
How can I prove there are other colors in the world to a man who is wearing green glasses? :(
How poetic. However meaningless.
Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’
Med
What is the parameter on which u judge "size" of the problem?
Lets layout these parameters and then decide what comes out on top.