Pakistan and Hindustan

Many countries, if divided, want to be reunited again...IE, North and SOuth korea, China and Taiwan, and ect... What is the sentiment about Pakistan and Hindustan?

By Hindustan, do you mean India? If that's the case then I'll say the sentiments is Nuke each other.

 

In reality though, Pakistan and India were only united because they were a colonial possession of the british, historically India should be fragmenting rather than uniting with neighboring nations.

x

Edited by warlord - 05-Jun-2008 at 08:01

And Janusrook, India has always been stronger united. When we were united in the past we were a superpower, but as the empire broke up into different states slowly we became weaker.

Your right I was forgeting super empires like the Guptas.

Highly doubt the USA will fall any time soon. Maybe by the end of the century it will no longer be the most powerful nation but its fall is distant. And American nationalism is cohesive. Even if the USA falls, it will fall into a weak nation, but not split.

The sentiments is quite different actually.

North/South Korea, China/Taiwan are culturally, very very similar. The only thing that holds India together is Hinduism. otherwise, North and South India, or even going from one state to another would look like going to different countries (literally).

We would like to see reunification, but we undertand that Pak, B'desh need to be purified by fire before they will accept us. We support Nepal and Sri Lanka thugh.

Pakistan and India , especially Punjab (which borders both) share the same culture and language (Punjabi).  Ordo, which is called Hindi in India, is pretty much the same language. 

Pakistan and India wear almost the exact same clothes at parties that I have gone to, and no matter how much Pakistan does not want to admit, they are in LOVE with Bollywood and Indian popculture.  Furthermore, Banghra (Punjabi Dance Music) is equally loved in India and Pakistan, as well as the colonial British game of Cricket.

Pakistan as a whole is rather divided.  Musharraf and the generals want Pakistans identity to be closer to Arabs, Afghans, and Persians.  (ie. the national dress is the traditional Afghan dress - Shalwar Kamees, the anthem is in Persian, and written in Perso-Arabic script) and even their most famed singer Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, his grandparents were from Afghanistan.

I spoke with a Pakistani lady who got really angry at me when I told her that Ordo is not in the Eastern Iranian family, but Indo-Aryan family.  She claimed Ordo was just a mix of Arabic and Persian ONLY, which I told her she was wrong.  Afterwards she said abruptly, "Are you saying that what I was taught in my own country was wrong?" and I said, "YES!" 

Pakistanis try very hard to cling to the Persian world, while their roots and language bring them more to the East towards Hindustan.

I came accross this website and I found this topic. I wish there were more people who really understood history and not just personal opinions and prejudices about history of India-Pakistan and other nations. Let me clarify a few things I read in this forum which I understand and others are welcome to correct me.

1: About Pakistan
       Historically, River Indus, which is the source of name for India, runs through the middle of Pakistan, dividing country in almost two equal halves. The punjab and Sind on its eastern side have been associated with India and it's culture for most part of their history whereas the western half of the country, namely NWFP and Balochistan have been, for most part of their history, asociated with western and north western nations of the central Asia, namely Iran, Afghanistan and others who passed through them. This also includes Alexander the Great's army which took this divided path along the river indus and technically did not cross into what is India Today. It is obviously, in this historical context that the two halves have almost two different ethinic and historical backgrounds and cultures and have totally different languages. Pashto is spoken widely in NWFP and in Balochistan which is an Iranian family of languages and so is Balochi in Balochistan. There are also large populations of Farsi speaking communities in Balochistan and NWFP.  Because of this historical, cultural and linguistic difference from historical India, the western half of the country sees nothing in common with historical Indians and share more in common with the west and north western nations. In other words, one has to understand that they are not trying to be something they are not but they truely are what they are, namely half of the country has historicaly been part of Indian culture where as the other half has been part of what one may call greater middle eastern(Balochistan) and central Asian culture (NWFP).

2: Unity with India
       Historicaly, India should never have been divided beyond river Indus nor it was the Intent of Indian Muslim League which is considered responsible for the division of India. Till 1946, one year before partition, Indian Muslim league compaigned for a state for muslims of india under single confederation of greater India with single armed forces, currency and foregin policy but separate state governments like what is here in USA. Call it lack of vision, forsight or narrow mindedness of Nehru and Gandhi that such a division of India was not acceptable to them and they asked Jinah, the founder of Pakistan to take his state and create a country of his own. These are the facts and any one can investigate those.  All these wars, problem of Kashmire and death and ditruction could have been avoided if federation had been accepted by Nehru as a solution for India.

Through they are trying to narrow their differences through organizations such as SAARC by opening up trade and perhaps a common currency, militancy in both countries has to subside before mistrust can be totally eliminated. If mullahs in Pakistan are militant, militant Hindu's and their parties such BJP in collabaration with state officials have also spilled a lot of Indian muslim blood under their control and it obviously creates a feeling of staying separate nations forever.

As I said, earlier, any one is welcome to discuss these points if they wish to do so.

Political alignment with Middle east stems from their religiuos affiliation with them and their hostile relationship with India. You must also note that for most part of the history of their existance, their ruling class has remained the so called Mohajir community which has deep roots in India. These people include, to name a few, General Zia, Pervaiz Musharaf, Bhuto family and numerous others before them. This mohajir community sees more in common with the rest of the muslim world than they see it even with India or with people living within Pakistan. It is also interesting to note that the national language of the country, Urdu, is not even one of the languages of the natives of that land but is the language of the Indian mohajir  emmigrants. These people strongly feel outcasted by the Indians and for that reason they align themselves to the muslim world.  One more note regarding Urdu language mentioned in your earlier posts. The word ordu is from turkish langauge meaning residense or court. This language has strong grammatic affilation with Hindi but has more Arabic, Farsi and Turkish vocabulary because of the fact that it was the language developed overtime by the invading muslim armies of that time from those lands. It is very young language and it's proper classification is not so straight forward.

I find it interesting to see the reference from ~ Khushal Khan Khattak at the bottom of your post. He was born in NWFP Pakistan but he is the national poet of Afghanistan. It is because, during that time both Balochistan and NWFP were part of Afghanistan and it was only during the mid 1800's (150 years or so) that these territories were annexed by Bristish to their British India. That tells you that the modern boundaries are pretty fragile and that nation is still evolving.

Originally posted by Iftikhargul Political alignment with Middle east stems from their religiuos affiliation with them and their hostile relationship with India. You must also note that for most part of the history of their existance, their ruling class has remained the so called Mohajir community which has deep roots in India. These people include, to name a few, General Zia, Pervaiz Musharaf, Bhuto family and numerous others before them. This mohajir community sees more in common with the rest of the muslim world than they see it even with India or with people living within Pakistan. It is also interesting to note that the national language of the country, Urdu, is not even one of the languages of the natives of that land but is the language of the Indian mohajir  emmigrants. These people strongly feel outcasted by the Indians and for that reason they align themselves to the muslim world.  One more note regarding Urdu language mentioned in your earlier posts. The word ordu is from turkish langauge meaning residense or court. This language has strong grammatic affilation with Hindi but has more Arabic, Farsi and Turkish vocabulary because of the fact that it was the language developed overtime by the invading muslim armies of that time from those lands. It is very young language and it's proper classification is not so straight forward. I find it interesting to see the reference from ~ Khushal Khan Khattak at the bottom of your post. He was born in NWFP Pakistan but he is the national poet of Afghanistan. It is because, during that time both Balochistan and NWFP were part of Afghanistan and it was only during the mid 1800's (150 years or so) that these territories were annexed by British to their British India. That tells you that the modern boundaries are pretty fragile and that nation is still evolving.

Khushal Khan was NOT born in NWFP of "Paakistan."  There was NO Paakistan at the time, infact, there was no Afghaanistan when Khushal Khan Khattak was around.  It was two nations - Mughal and Safavi, both contentious rivals for Kandahar.

"Afghanistan" was actually a dream of freedom for Khushal Khan who wanted to remove the land of Afghans from foreign meddling.  That is why he is one of Afghanistan's most revered Poets and freedom fighters.

Originally posted by Iftikhargul I did not say there was Pakistan at that time. I did make that clear by saying " It is because, during that time" etc. etc. I know very well that he was not only a poet but also a great leader and warrior of the Khattak tribe and he fought many battles against emperor Aurangzhieb and spent time in his prison in Delhi. Technically, he was a rebel who challenged Aurangzhiebs dominion over what is Khattak land,  all well within the boundaries of modern Pakistan ( Kohat, Peshawar, and Mardan).  NWFP was a creation of British after they formally annexed it, I believe, in 1893, after capturing it during Afghan wars. It does not belittle him nor his status will be elevated if he was born somewhere else but it does not take away the fact that he was born, lived and died in what is NWFP Pakistan today. That is all I was saying. I was trying to explain the true multiethnic nature of Pakistani nation which includes people from lands other than what was just historic India beyound river Indus. This was in response to your assertion that Pakistanies should alighn politicaly to India only whereas I was trying to explain why this can not be so because of multi ethnic nature of that still very young nation. My explanations and that of Osmanli explanations above should make that very clear to any one who cares to know.

Pakistan's multi-ethnic makeup has nothing to do with the Military Dictatorship there is today.  I'm not saying Pakistan should stay competely aligned with India, but its stance today is what psychologists call "Denial."

Musharraf is a Mohajir, as you said, his birthplace is in India, his culture is related to Indian.  Pakistan tries VERY hard to seperate itself culturally and spiritually from India.  In fact, its leanings are more towards the Indian subcontinent rather the Middle East.

This is a drastic change of the regions culture and policy and he is trying to rewrite history.  Even this Pakistani lady I know still claims Urdo is a mix of Persian and Arabic (which is equivalent to what modern Farsi is today), which you and I, BOTH know is not true.