Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

[Med911]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

@queer

but icono, that is punjabi, which is a much older language than urdu, and in all likelihood even older than hindi; and has been the buffer between central asia and the gangetic plains of hindustan. its vocab holds words from ancient and middle persian that don’t exist in modern persian, as well as words from modern persian and turkic.

secondly, baba fareed was well travelled in the persian-speaking world. amir khusro who lived after baba fareed, in what is considered the heartland of urdu, and was muslim and turkic - wrote in two languages - farsi, and hindavi (there was no urdu then) - his hindavi poetry is pretty damn sanskritized.

the urdu-hindi official divergence in common people didn’t happen until the mughals were dismantled and the brits started divide and rule by institutionalizing the script and educational division to further their hold.

From the book:
“Rahman quotes from Amir Khusrau, Sheikh Bajan, Shirani, Sheikh Burhanuddin Janum, Khub Mohammad Chisti, Mohammad Qutab among others to substantiate his point. It was only the British who did not appreciate the historicity and dignity of a composite culture and helped establish distinct identities of Hindi and Urdu. “In short, the British perception of the distinct identities of Hindus and Muslims helped to associate language with religion, weakening the perception that a composite language could be shared between the two communities’ (p. 37).”
Book Review: From Hindi to Urdu: A Social and Political History | Arts & Culture | Newsline

[Med911]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

@pakistanimard

^what?? you blame the oh-so-holy white brit masters? Med guy don’t like that :nono:

^Where did this one come from? I wonder what sex he is…

[Iconoclast]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

@queer

but icono, that is punjabi, which is a much older language than urdu, and in all likelihood even older than hindi; and has been the buffer between central asia and the gangetic plains of hindustan. its vocab holds words from ancient and middle persian that don't exist in modern persian, as well as words from modern persian and turkic.

secondly, baba fareed was well travelled in the persian-speaking world. amir khusro who lived after baba fareed, in what is considered the heartland of urdu, and was muslim and turkic - wrote in two languages - farsi, and hindavi (there was no urdu then) - his hindavi poetry is pretty damn sanskritized.

the urdu-hindi official divergence in common people didn't happen until the mughals were dismantled and the brits started divide and rule by institutionalizing the script and educational division to further their hold.

queer, common sense will dictate otherwise. I agree with u that poetry of Baba Farid & Amir khusro has lot of sansikrat in it and i was actually surpirsed to see lot of arabic and persian words. However, remember that mughals used persian as their official language. I visited Istanbul a few years back and was surprised to see that all the writings & ingravings on the Topkapi palace are in persian and not in turkish. Persian was official language of turks as well, inside turkey. Therefore, urdu adopted the persian writing alphabets (which happened to be arabic). I don't think its fair to say that brits divivided the two languages, divergence had happened during mughal era and the biggest factor was writing style. However, urdu/hindi can still be considered by and large the same language had it not been for the different writing.

[Iconoclast]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

@Med911

Well everything is biased if it doesn’t agree with what you consider to be reality.

Sure there are, you can’t get rid of it all. After all, they only had 100 years or so.

Check it out
Oxford University Press, Pakistan
interesting passage from the book:

Excerpt

A more extensive review of the book and its content… Book Review: From Hindi to Urdu: A Social and Political History | Arts & Culture | Newsline

Argue with the facts, why debate me?
“The first steps were perhaps taken by the Urdu elite, during the 18th and early 19th century, to purge Hindustani of its Sanskrit and Prakrit expressions, replacing them with stylised borrowings from Persian and Arabic. It was inevitable that this would draw a political reaction from the Hindus who pull the same language in the direction of extreme Sanskritisation. “These language-planning processes led to the splitting of a language (Hindi-Urdu) into modern Persianised and Arabicised Urdu at one extreme and modern Sanskritised Hindi at the other. Between the two ends is a continuum which veers towards one end or the other according to the speaker, the occasion and the environment” (p. 99). Rahman shows the emergence of elitist Urdu with an exaggerated focus on a certain idiom and pronunciation. Azad, in his history of Urdu, completely ignored Hindu writers and for Acharya Ramchandra Shukla (1883–1941) “Hindi and Urdu are two very different languages. The Hindus of this country speak Hindi, while Muslims and those Hindus who have studied Persian speak Urdu.” Languages flourish in each other’s company; they suffocate in isolation. Politically motivated language-engineering alienates native speakers and, as Alok Rai tells us, makes the idiom incapable of engaging in any serious discourse.
The tolerant sufi religious and cultural traditions shared by Hindus and Muslims also suffered a major setback. The Deobandi interpretation of Islam, which is strict and puritanical, goes against the tolerant and folk Islam of ordinary Indian Muslims. Urdu soon became the dominant language of Islam and started playing a central role in religious education. It was deliberately taken away from the mainstream Indian life, including education and the mass media.”

The bolded part is hardly a fact, a mere assumption and God knows on what does the writer base it upon while simply ignoring that the court language of mughals, turks, pathans that occupied India at the time when urdu developed was persian. Its no wonder that elitist language of the court would be heavily influenced by persian and arabic.

And the last three sentences in the qoute, vow, i would class them as,

false, false, false and unrelated.

While u may consider them as true there is hardly anything linking deobandi, urdu and taking it away from masses, what a load of crap.

[Med911]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

@Iconoclast

The bolded part is hardly a fact, a mere assumption and God knows on what does the writer base it upon while simply ignoring that the court language of mughals, turks, pathans that occupied India at the time when urdu developed was persian. Its no wonder that elitist language of the court would be heavily influenced by persian and arabic.

And the last three sentences in the qoute, vow, i would class them as,

false, false, false and unrelated.

While u may consider them as true there is hardly anything linking deobandi, urdu and taking it away from masses, what a load of crap.

Its based on citations and research. If you have ever taken a basic research course in university, you would know that citations give credibility to a paper. These are historical facts, used to draw conclusions.

Now you can argue that the author misinterprets history, but you yourself have to prove this, by providing evidence to counter his claim from historical records. The author of this book backs his assertions with historical fact and context. You do not.

So who should we believe, a thoroughly researched paper, with points supported by historically accurate FACTS, or the rambling of some anonymous Internet surfer on Pakistani web forum?

Lets all take a vote: Who is more credible, a recognized scholar who writes a book with proper citations and historical context, or you, with no research what so ever to back you say.

[Med911]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

@Iconoclast

queer, common sense will dictate otherwise. I agree with u that poetry of Baba Farid & Amir khusro has lot of sansikrat in it and i was actually surpirsed to see lot of arabic and persian words. However, remember that mughals used persian as their official language. I visited Istanbul a few years back and was surprised to see that all the writings & ingravings on the Topkapi palace are in persian and not in turkish. Persian was official language of turks as well, inside turkey. Therefore, urdu adopted the persian writing alphabets (which happened to be arabic). I don't think its fair to say that brits divivided the two languages, divergence had happened during mughal era and the biggest factor was writing style. However, urdu/hindi can still be considered by and large the same language had it not been for the different writing.

The book also makes the point that Urdu and Hindi had begun diverging in the 18th century at least, which would mean around the 1700's. So it wasn't the British per say. The Book simply points out that this division was exhacerbated by the British, and the distinction the British made between Muslims and Hindus engendered this belief that each language is associated with a particular religion.

[Iconoclast]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

@Med911

Its based on citations and research. If you have ever taken a basic research course in university, you would know that citations give credibility to a paper. These are historical facts, used to draw conclusions.

Now you can argue that the author misinterprets history, but you yourself have to prove this, by providing evidence to counter his claim from historical records. The author of this book backs his assertions with historical fact and context. You do not.

So who should we believe, a thoroughly researched paper, with points supported by historically accurate FACTS, or the rambling of some anonymous Internet surfer on Pakistani web forum?

Lets all take a vote: Who is more credible, a recognized scholar who writes a book with proper citations and historical context, or you, with no research what so ever to back you say.

Now you are sounding like the madrassa student handing out the pamphlets on democracy is un-islamic and when u confront him his answer is, everything is written in the pamphlet with citation of Quran&Hadith. LOL

If you can't back up your claims then make, just regurgitating that it is written in that book is not good enough my dear.

I don't know which university teaches not to critically evaluate a work. Citations does not mean a piece of writing becomes a fact, its merely a way to let the reader know of the source, which the reader can go to and judge for himslef.

Its absurd to think that every book with list of citation becomes a fact.

[Med911]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

@Iconoclast

Now you are sounding like the madrassa student handing out the pamphlets on democracy is un-islamic and when u confront him his answer is, everything is written in the pamphlet with citation of Quran&Hadith. LOL

If you can't back up your claims then make, just regurgitating that it is written in that book is not good enough my dear.

I don't know which university teaches not to critically evaluate a work. Citations does not mean a piece of writing becomes a fact, its merely a way to let the reader know of the source, which the reader can go to and judge for himslef. Its absurd to think that every book with list of citation becomes a fact.

Your to much talk and to little substance.

Criticism is based on evaluation of historical facts. Can you show that the author is inaccurate some how? You have not shown any facts, just something you say, not based on anything. You WISH that the history of Urdu were a certain way, and so you pretend to know what your talking about, and attack actual research. Your "common" sense is useless.

A citation shows that someone has done actual research to back up what they say. You have nothing... Where is the problem? You equals nothing. Simple equation. Stop arguing.

[chaibiskut]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

@Iconoclast

I agree with you on this, but i don't agree that this is the only reason or even the biggest reason for the problems Pakistan is facing. India had seen rapid rise of right wing extremist ideology but has progresses inspite of that. Now don't take this as condoning oppression of minorities.

Loaded topic, but the difference in this thread's context is legal recourse. Every society experiences bigotry. But what is the ultimate antidote to extremism? Checks and balances, in the form of a Constitution that neither uplifts nor degrades anybody based on religion, ethnicity or gender. If you have the legal framework in place, social and cultural norms will eventually conform to them. India does not restrict minorities and women from becoming heads of state, nor has it officially ex-communicated groups that self-identify as Muslim. Pakistan's Constitution does both.

[chaibiskut]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

So now we're discussing the dominance of Urdu? Why do you guys indulge Diwana's strawman retorts. He ignores responses that corner him, but continues to throw whatever he can in the hope it will stick. "What does religion have to do with E. Pakistan seceding?" Democracy relies on a certain degree of secularism, so the question has value. 1971 is the result of refusing to accept the outcome of fair elections. According to some of you, democracy is un-Islamic, but you also want to grieve the break-up of your country. Well, this is what happens when you deny citizens the outcome of their vote. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Those who continue to insist the separation of religion and state is a non-issue are myopic or naive. It's the equivalent of dismissing the purpose of one's existence. The goals of a nation-state are informed by the identity of the nation-state. That identity is what is being explored here. Seems my generation has no sense of, or respect for history. We're only concerned with what happened after we hit puberty, which some of us are still experiencing. "The past is past", "let's move on." Illiterates talk like this. There is no simple answer to the issues that exist today, but you cannot ignore the pervasive role of religion in shaping political and social policies. The Constitution has been amended and distorted in the name of Islam. These laws gradually legitimized fringes into the mainstream, who now seek even more political clout. Add the Cold War, the spill-over of the Iranian Revolution, the WoT and over decades this creates a social and political fabric starkly different from my parent's generation who grew up in the 60s. You have to start somewhere to make sense of the present. The Constitution is a good place to start.

For instance, Article 31 makes it the "country's duty to foster the Islamic way of life." (Zia's policies could hardly have been challenged with such a Constitution in place). What business does the state have in fostering religious views? Who's to decide what constitutes an Islamic way of life? Who's to decide how far it goes and where it stops? We are a Muslim majority society, always have been and always will be. Yet the state is paranoid about forcing religion down our throats in case we forget we're Muslim and the handful of Hindus, Christians, and Parsis who have managed to survive shove us into the Arabian Sea. Seems we share common ground with the Israelis. Paranoid about our religious existence and constantly on the religious defensive.

[diwana]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

Still waiting for the answer.
How many religious parties ever held position of power in Pakistan so far?

How many religiious parties were involved in the separation of two parts of Pakistan in 1971?

It is like people are judging someone's performance who did not even come to the stage!

P.S. Writing 'we' and 'us' does not mean the person really belongs to, or has, (or even had) anything remotely to do with being a Pakistani. Just saying. ;)

[Shamraz_Khan]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

@chaibiskut

. Seems we share common ground with the Israelis. Paranoid about our religious existence and constantly on the religious defensive.

Yes, that pretty much sums it up. Btw, I never understood why a country that is 97% Muslims needs to make Islam as an "official" religion & write discrimination into constitution against small minority groups?

[diwana]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

@Shamraz_Khan

...... I never understood why a country that is 97% Muslims needs to make Islam as an "official" religion & write discrimination into constitution against small minority groups?

There are a lot of countries who acknowledge a religion as state religion. Read about them.

Second part of your sentence is debatable. What one may call discrimination other may call justified under the laws of land.

Change the law and struggle for it just like anyone is expected to do so.

Just as FYI: Many countries acknowledge and punish people for blasphemy and their laws do not tolerate ridiculing religious figures and they make sure religious scriptures are to be respected.

*Any attempt to vilify religion or hurt religious sentiments, causing any public unrest, is punishable by law in many countries around the world.
*

[chacha_Ghalib]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

My God! Our diwana here chose his name well.

Could we please have him restricted to 3 replies per thread? Pretty please?

[Ghost14]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

@diwana

There are a lot of countries who acknowledge a religion as state religion. Read about them.

Second part of your sentence is debatable. What one may call discrimination other may call justified under the laws of land.

Change the law and struggle for it just like anyone is expected to do so.

Just as FYI: Many countries acknowledge and punish people for blasphemy and their laws do not tolerate ridiculing religious figures and they make sure religious scriptures are to be respected.

*Any attempt to vilify religion or hurt religious sentiments, causing any public unrest, is punishable by law in many countries around the world. *

A party doesn't have to have a religious moniker to be considered "religious". Bhutto's constitution included provisions because religious elements insisted on it. Their mark was felt. And then Zia ran with it. For you to claim that the religious have had no influence is grasping at straws. There is no need for a religious figure because their demands are already met.

"What one may call discrimination, another may call justified under the laws of the land?" Are you kidding me? "Law of the land" and "discrimination" are not mutually exclusive. Laws can be discriminatory. Religious laws, by their nature, are discriminatory. Hence, the need for a state that is impartial. Meaning, let the Islamic majority be Islamic, but don't legitimize the fringe extremists with blasphemy laws.

[diwana]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

@chacha_Ghalib

…
Could we please have him restricted to 3 replies per thread? Pretty please?

Please read again my post and you will find what I said is not untrue.

[pakistanimard]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

@chaibiskut

Those who continue to insist the separation of religion and state is a non-issue are myopic or naive. It’s the equivalent of dismissing the purpose of one’s existence. The goals of a nation-state are informed by the identity of the nation-state. That identity is what is being explored here. Seems my generation has no sense of, or respect for history. We’re only concerned with what happened after we** hit puberty, which some of us are still experiencing**. “The past is past”, “let’s move on.” Illiterates talk like this.

:k:

Such an objective and non-attacking response to those who dare disagree… i love our left wing molvies

[Ghost14]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

^ How is insisting that everyone be treated the same way considered an attack? She is insisting on the state not having an opinion whereas you are insisting on the state backing Muslims. Bias toward fairness anyone? (The Newsroom shout out).

[pakistanimard]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

i have bolded the bits i was talking about. statements can be made, and arguments put forward without resorting to name calling ,, like calling others myopic, illerate, naive or pre-pubescent........that was the only thing i was talking about...see the personal attack sort of thing is the speciality of right wing, bigotted, religous, retarded pakistanis.......... doesn't look good when anyone else does it.

[Southie]

Re: Secular Pakistan: ‘Pakistanis should know Quaid’s Aug 11 speech by heart’

@Ghost14

^ How is insisting that everyone be treated the same way considered an attack? She is insisting on the state not having an opinion whereas you are insisting on the state backing Muslims. Bias toward fairness anyone? (The Newsroom shout out).

Love that show. Why cant real news be like that?