What's new

What do you think of Two Nation Theory? Has it failed or worked out well?

Everyone is allowed to study in Pakistan, but obviously miscreants will find themselves duly punished. That would be the same at any school. As we all remember, even cheering for the wrong cricket team can get you lynched in India.

Shias clearly are targeted apartheid sytle in Pakistan.As we all remember fellow Muslims are not only facing discrimination but also regularly targeted with bombings as well.

http://www.dawn.com/news/786738/time-for-shias-to-leave-pakistan
 
Shias clearly are targeted apartheid sytle in Pakistan.As we all remember fellow Muslims are not only facing discrimination but also regularly targeted with bombings as well.

http://www.dawn.com/news/786738/time-for-shias-to-leave-pakistan

True, minorities can suffer discrimination in both India and Pakistan, but at least there aren't restrictions preventing minorities from living in any area of the city. In some Indian cities even Muslim celebrities are shunned when they apply to live in a Hindu area. The Two Nation theory means that we in Pakistan are free to live in the poshest areas which your Indian Muslims are prevented from doing so. Hurrah for Two Nation Theory!
 
True, minorities can suffer discrimination in both India and Pakistan, but at least there aren't restrictions preventing minorities from living in any area of the city. In some Indian cities even Muslim celebrities are shunned when they apply to live in a Hindu area. The Two Nation theory means that we in Pakistan are free to live in the poshest areas which your Indian Muslims are prevented from doing so. Hurrah for Two Nation Theory!

But the plight of the Indian Muslims is mostly because of the partition. What could have been a strong community ruling the sub continent, was reduced to a weak minority in India, devoid of its elite and intellectuals. Whatever the Indian Muslims suffer, the blame mostly goes to the the Partition.
 
But the plight of the Indian Muslims is mostly because of the partition. What could have been a strong community ruling the sub continent, was reduced to a weak minority in India, devoid of its elite and intellectuals. Whatever the Indian Muslims suffer, the blame mostly goes to the the Partition.

This is undoubtedly true. Same goes for Bangladesh, if all were still one nation then the Muslims would be a power bloc and that may well have been a deterrent to subjugation of minorities.
 
This is undoubtedly true. Same goes for Bangladesh, if all were still one nation then the Muslims would be a power bloc and that may well have been a deterrent to subjugation of minorities.

Undivided India would have had 60 Crore Muslims, 90 Crore Hindus and 15 crore other religions.
 
Undivided India would have had 60 Crore Muslims, 90 Crore Hindus and 15 crore other religions.

It could be argued that it would have worked out better for all sides, as Hindutva movement would be challenged by a larger Muslim bloc, on the other side of the coin, if there were no Pakistan, then there would be less pressure to implement Islamic laws or traditions. So would there be a case for saying the whole region would have to be run on a loosely secular model to work?
 
That is not the failure of two nation theory. It was the failure of pakistan that instead of being a muslim country it became more of a sunni punjabi country. Hindus and Muslims live peacefully in europe and canada because of the danda, not because of any love for each other. Even here, just let this forum be unmoderated and you will see how much love will flow between hindus and muslims.

Really? I work int he IT field in the US. Most of my bosses are Indians. I have had several Jewish bosses
We might not be best friends but definitely can work together hang out in the cafetaria live in the same apartment complexes or neighborhoods without killing each other.Why is it possible here and not in Pakistan.THis is true of all pakistanis. you cannot go around asking people their zaat or associate only with Panjabis or pakthoons. Nobody is applying danda to anyone here yet people are happy. In the Middle east Pakistani and Hindu workers work together. There might be some fear od dnda there but still people do work and live together. If you are a laborer you will have to share quarters with people of different nationalities. Where is your two nation theory then. The truth is that the two nation theory is a myth propagated by politicians who wantedd power for themselves. If we had remained undivided we would have been an extremely powerful bloc.
 
Really? I work int he IT field in the US. Most of my bosses are Indians. I have had several Jewish bosses
We might not be best friends but definitely can work together hang out in the cafetaria live in the same apartment complexes or neighborhoods without killing each other.Why is it possible here and not in Pakistan.THis is true of all pakistanis. you cannot go around asking people their zaat or associate only with Panjabis or pakthoons. Nobody is applying danda to anyone here yet people are happy. In the Middle east Pakistani and Hindu workers work together. There might be some fear od dnda there but still people do work and live together. If you are a laborer you will have to share quarters with people of different nationalities. Where is your two nation theory then. The truth is that the two nation theory is a myth propagated by politicians who wantedd power for themselves. If we had remained undivided we would have been an extremely powerful bloc.

You prove my point. How people behave abroad is starkly different from how they behave at home. They vote liberals abroad and are conservative at home. They try to find common ground when they find an indian/pakistani when abroad, but at home they look at differences and hate the others cultural influence. Hindus Muslims may become friends if marooned on an island, but let them breed and build numbers, and soon they will be at each others throat. One hates idolatry, other loves idol worshipping. What one considers sacred animal, the other considers as tasty food. They are separate qaums, not just different from each other, but often opposite to what the other stands for.
 
You prove my point. How people behave abroad is starkly different from how they behave at home. They vote liberals abroad and are conservative at home. They try to find common ground when they find an indian/pakistani when abroad, but at home they look at differences and hate the others cultural influence. Hindus Muslims may become friends if marooned on an island, but let them breed and build numbers, and soon they will be at each others throat. One hates idolatry, other loves idol worshipping. What one considers sacred animal, the other considers as tasty food. They are separate qaums, not just different from each other, but often opposite to what the other stands for.

My take on this is the opposite. I feel that the ability to work and live with other faiths and races abroad shows that it is possible in the sub continent too. We will have to put in some effort but it will or would have been possible. Instead we are fed this theory that people of two different religions cannot tolerate each other. THe problem with this divisive ideology is that once we are done with hating one group we turn our attention to others like Shias feel they cannot live with Sunnis, Punjabis cannot live with anyone else,Sindhis cannot live with Mohajirs . This is the root of all the problems in our country. What our performance abroad has shown is that it is possible with a little effort to happily coexist . Instead today we are divided from Bangladesh we are divided from the Balochis ,the Sindis , the Pakthun. I attribute all of this to the fact that we based our country on a lir=e that iit is not possible to coexisr=t with people of another religion.
 
Most of the discussion here is based around the present. You guys are forgetting the most important variable in this mix. The partition occurred in the mid 20th century. The culture, people, political, social and economic climate of that era was different, vastly different from the present.

The hindus had "suffered" at the hands of Muslim invaders for centuries, then they had lived under the slavery of the British for nearly another 100 years. So by the time the British were ready to leave, Hindus and Muslims were at loggerheads. The Hindus believed it was their land and they had suffered centuries under foreign invaders and it was time for them to rule. Emotions were high and they wanted absolute autonomy and control. By the same token, the Muslims felt they should rule since they were the ones that were overthrown by the British.

I am looking at this from the human nature aspect and point of view. Not from the official statements, political maneuverings of the various parties at the time because of course it is historically documented that Muslims and Hindus primarily goal at the time was too get independence and form a coalition style government but we all know how politicians and various religion based sects feel about it truly. Hindus thinking they are in majority and should govern, while Muslims felt they might be sidelined due to being a minority.

This was an unprecedented political climate, a lot of uncertainty and fear of being marginalized on both sides. In this day and age, and current climate, if you are living in a western society under equal rights as a human being, with social and economic welfare systems around you, it is a lot easier for you to get along with others. It is childish to think that both Hindus and Muslims could have/would have thought that way back during those days.

The safest approach for ML to secure a better tomorrow for Muslims was to simply ask for their own country. That was the idea behind the "two nation theory". It was means to an end. It is childish to analyze it's feasibility, result and practicality now under a different light, the one being shed by a modern day flashlight.


That is why I have said that repeatedly in the past and again that you cannot argue the merits and demerits of the theory now because it HAS already been proven successful because Pakistan came into being and Pakistanis as Muslims had their own homeland where they were able to chart their own path by avoiding the uncertainty and insecurities of living in a United India.

Heck, I would say only a few incidents along would easily argue the merits of the theory, the Gujarat riots, the Kashmir issue, the overall poor and destitute situation of Muslims in India in this current day are all perfect and clear evidence of the bullet some of us dodged thanks to the two-nation theory.
 
Freedom?

A few years ago, I had a conversation with an Indian Muslim on a bus. The elderly gentleman asked me: “Why was Pakistan made?” Knowing that this might not go well, I told him succinctly that “it was created for the Muslims of India, so that they could live their lives peacefully and without fear of the Hindus”. To this the gentleman replied: “Have you been to Jama Masjid in Delhi or any other mosque?” After I answered in the affirmative he asked: “Did you go through extensive checking at the mosques or did you fear for your life as you entered the mosque?” The conversation ended there for a bit, the point was made. A few minutes later he asked me: “How many people are killed in sectarian killings in Pakistan?” I shook my head and answered: “Thousands every year.” Again, he gave me a look and I tried to look the other way.

photo_1334655424580-1-0.jpg

The point of the conversation narrated above was — and is — not that Partition was a bad thing and should be undone. Pakistan has now been created and it should and will remain a distinct entity. There needs to be no doubt about it. However, what the conversation above should remind us is that we have lost track of the original purpose of the creation of the country. More Muslims live in fear in Pakistan than in India and thousands more Muslims have been killed in Pakistan on religious and sectarian grounds than in India since independence.

A couple of years ago, the All-India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen’s head, Asaduddin Owaisi, lamented that the Muslims of India had been left behind in education when compared with other religious communities. While Owaisi’s comment led many to point out how Muslims were suffering in India, these pundits forgot to mention that Owaisi noted that the Muslim literacy rate was 67.6 per cent. This is about 20 per cent more than the literacy rate in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It is only in job attainment that Pakistani Muslims fare better than their Indian brethren, but that is simply due to the fact that in Pakistan there are no other options. With Muslims forming 95 per cent of the population there is little chance that any other community can get more jobs no matter what the condition of the Muslim community in the country. This factor also brings in money and other emoluments, giving us a sense of false security and superiority.

The recent spate of killings in Karachi, from Sabeen Mahmud to Professor Waheedur Rahman, has made me think about our understanding of ‘freedom’. Often we talk about the minorities in Pakistan, those five per cent or so who are under intense pressure, who routinely get abused and killed without much comment, and who are treated almost nonchalantly as second-class citizens of the country. But what about the 95 per cent majority? This country was made for them. But even they are being routinely killed by those who think they are better Muslims than the slain ones, who think that they need to ‘purify’ this land from people they think are not ‘Muslims’ or ‘good enough’ Muslims. These custodians of the ‘true Land of the Pure’ have created such a regime of fear that let alone the minorities, most Muslims are fearful of practising their religion publicly. Muslim denominations — including the one of which the founder of the country was a member of — which were at the forefront of the independence movement are now fearful of publicly declaring their sect and have to practise their religion behind barricades.

The right to life is the most fundamental right in a society. From it stems other rights such as freedom of association, expression, education, equal treatment before law, and so on. Pakistan is sadly failing in the provision of this fundamental right. Even the leaders of the freedom movement would have never thought that one day Pakistan would fail in ensuring this basic right.

Can we please focus on guaranteeing this right and make our freedom worthwhile?


http://tribune.com.pk/story/879270/freedom/


:59:
 
It shows the vision of Iqbal and Jinnah they saw what was coming for muslims in united India. A few crying babies like Mamoon on this side of border can keep praising their mother India but that doesn't change the fact

#ThankYouQuaid&Iqbal
 
I believe two-nation theory was sensible and it was good that there were two nations. I thank Jinnah for creating Pakistan; without Jinnah there would be no Pakistan and without Pakistan there would be no Bangladesh.
 
Last edited:
The recent events proves that Two Nation Theory exists (still does). Sir Syed Ahmed Khan in the 1800s knew it back then, followed by Allama Iqbal and Quaid-e-Azam. If it wasn't for Pakistan, we would be facing the same freedom struggle Kashmiris do. Hindutva terrorists would be killing in the Pakistan, left right and center, if there was no Pakistan.

Alhamdillah and Thank you Quaid-e-Azam.
 
4 years have passed since this thread.. and today seeing the condition of Indian Muslims in Modi's India, the rise of fascism in Indian state and the extreme brutality of Indian army in IOK along with open call for genocide of Kashmiris by their media cells , I have to admit that 2 nation theory does hold credible substance and we Pakistanis are somewhat lucky to have separated from them in 1947..
 
Al Ahumdu lilah.


Rise in radicalized extremists nationlists Hindu version is worrisome and extremely dangerous not just for India but for the whole region.
 
TNT was done and dusted in 1971. It was an idealistic theory whose tales were exposed by Bangladesh’s independence exposed the flaws in TNT.
 
TNT was done and dusted in 1971. It was an idealistic theory whose tales were exposed by Bangladesh’s independence exposed the flaws in TNT.

But Bangladesh didn't amalgamate with India which proves if anything that the TNT was correct, albeit it should stand for Three Nation Theory, not Two.

But feel free to offer an alternative as to what should have happened rather than partition, as you know I am not a big believer in TNT myself. Although having seen the rise of Hindutva in India my faith in the country as a multifaith nation has been dented, I can't lie.
 
TNT was done and dusted in 1971. It was an idealistic theory whose tales were exposed by Bangladesh’s independence exposed the flaws in TNT.

Correction:

TNT was done and dusted in 1971. It was an idealistic theory whose flaws were exposed by Bangladesh’s independence.
 
TNT was done and dusted in 1971. It was an idealistic theory whose tales were exposed by Bangladesh’s independence exposed the flaws in TNT.

1971 was a misunderstanding. It got amplified due to India's interference. We should move on from it.

I am not a Pakistani but I thank all the Muslim leaders in the 40's for giving birth to Pakistan. Both Bangladeshis and Pakistanis dodged a bullet by breaking away from India.
 
TNT was done and dusted in 1971. It was an idealistic theory whose tales were exposed by Bangladesh’s independence exposed the flaws in TNT.

Indeed two nation theory failed in 71 but your hindu Muslim bhai bhai theory show its color every day in kashimr & in the rest of hindustan when hindus killed muslims for fun, when they burn houses of Muslims even even if they suspect that Muslims have beef in their fridge & when they gang rap the muslim women.

I wish there would be mechanism that those who salivate for india can be send India.
 
1971 was a misunderstanding. It got amplified due to India's interference. We should move on from it.

I am not a Pakistani but I thank all the Muslim leaders in the 40's for giving birth to Pakistan. Both Bangladeshis and Pakistanis dodged a bullet by breaking away from India.
[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] Bangladeshis are thanking TNT and Jinnah because without it there wasn't going to be a Bangladesh but you still finding it hard to accept that it was a masterstroke by Jinnah & Iqbal?

You are a smart guy so let me throw you a fact Kashmir issue is still there basically because of TNT no matter how many long essays you write you can't deny this fact because majority of Kashmiri muslims want a state of their own or want to side with Pakistan instead of India so there goes your denial of TNT.
 
[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] Bangladeshis are thanking TNT and Jinnah because without it there wasn't going to be a Bangladesh but you still finding it hard to accept that it was a masterstroke by Jinnah & Iqbal?

You are a smart guy so let me throw you a fact Kashmir issue is still there basically because of TNT no matter how many long essays you write you can't deny this fact because majority of Kashmiri muslims want a state of their own or want to side with Pakistan instead of India so there goes your denial of TNT.

Bangladeshis are thanking the TNT because it sowed the seeds for the formation of Pakistan and Bangladesh. However, the TNT itself failed because West and East Pakistan failed to live with each other. The TNT was built on the faulty premise that religion is a strong unifying force.

Unfortunately, as long as there are cultural differences, there will be discrimination and religion will not be able to prove as a binding force. This is something the TNT overlooked because of its idealism.

Luckily, the early proponents of the TNT (Jinnah, Sir Syed, Iqbal) didn’t witness the way we discriminated against East Pakistan, although M. Jinnah sowed the seeds of discrimination himself when he went to Dhaka in 1948 and declared Urdu as state language.
 
1971 was a misunderstanding. It got amplified due to India's interference. We should move on from it.

I am not a Pakistani but I thank all the Muslim leaders in the 40's for giving birth to Pakistan. Both Bangladeshis and Pakistanis dodged a bullet by breaking away from India.

It wasn’t a misunderstanding. We discriminated against them and didn’t give them their due rights. When India gave us a taste of our medicine, we panicked and committed genocide.
 
But Bangladesh didn't amalgamate with India which proves if anything that the TNT was correct, albeit it should stand for Three Nation Theory, not Two.

But feel free to offer an alternative as to what should have happened rather than partition, as you know I am not a big believer in TNT myself. Although having seen the rise of Hindutva in India my faith in the country as a multifaith nation has been dented, I can't lie.

After the British rule, partition was the only solution. However, the TNT itself was built on a false premise as proved by Bangaldesh’s independence.
 
After the British rule, partition was the only solution. However, the TNT itself was built on a false premise as proved by Bangaldesh’s independence.

Indeed, but as events have unfolded, it proves the TNT was correct, only difference is that it should have stood for Three Nation Theory. The British were right to exploit India and history has proven them so. India is happy to have it's states divided by religion so on what basis are you saying TNT was built on a false premise?
 
Indeed, but as events have unfolded, it proves the TNT was correct, only difference is that it should have stood for Three Nation Theory. The British were right to exploit India and history has proven them so. India is happy to have it's states divided by religion so on what basis are you saying TNT was built on a false premise?

In a nutshell, the TNT argued that Muslims and Hindus are two distinct nations with too many differences for the people to live with each peacefully.

What the TNT failed in understanding is that when there are cultural and social differences within a religion, people will still not be able to live with each other peacefully.

In hindsight, the proponents of the TNT would have modified their narrative if they had any inkling of what was to happen in East Pakistan.

TNT would have been a success only if India and Pakistan (including East) were two distinct countries, but now we have India and two Muslim countries because the Muslims couldn’t live together either.
 
Indeed, but as events have unfolded, it proves the TNT was correct, only difference is that it should have stood for Three Nation Theory. The British were right to exploit India and history has proven them so. India is happy to have it's states divided by religion so on what basis are you saying TNT was built on a false premise?

India does not have states divided by religion, they are divided by regions , any country does the same.
 
In a nutshell, the TNT argued that Muslims and Hindus are two distinct nations with too many differences for the people to live with each peacefully.

What the TNT failed in understanding is that when there are cultural and social differences within a religion, people will still not be able to live with each other peacefully.

In hindsight, the proponents of the TNT would have modified their narrative if they had any inkling of what was to happen in East Pakistan.

TNT would have been a success only if India and Pakistan (including East) were two distinct countries, but now we have India and two Muslim countries because the Muslims couldn’t live together either.

You are partly right in that both East and West Pakistan failed to realise that religion wasn't enough to overcome cultural differences, not to mention the sheer impracticality of having two countries on either side of India. In that sense the TNT was always a naive idea.

But what you are failing to address is that even after the experiment failed, Bangladesh was unable to rejoin India. For this you cannot blame Pakistan which is your defacto modus operandi, you must acknowledge that there is also a divide between Bangladesh and India. Not just cultural but literal with a fence separating the two lines in Bengal.

Now without Pakistan to throw in there as the villain, you would probably default to blaming the Muslim side here, that being Bangladesh. Only problem is, India is now ruled by a Hindutva party which was the very reason that the TNT was propounded in the first place. So we have come full circle.
 
It wasn’t a misunderstanding. We discriminated against them and didn’t give them their due rights. When India gave us a taste of our medicine, we panicked and committed genocide.

Had Pakistan not separated from India, Muslims would've been minorities in India. Minorities always have disadvantages and hence two nations solution was the right one.

1971 issue was a separate one. It was about resources and power. It didn't have anything to do with two nations solution.
 
Bengal. Kashmir. Punjab. 1947.

You said India's happy to divide it's states by religion. Bengal and Punjab were divided by the British, not India . And they went on to join another country and did not form another state inside the Indian dominion.

And Kashmir was never divided based on religion.
 
Bengal. Kashmir. Punjab. 1947.

Punjab has about about 60% Sikhs and 40% hindus. Most of the Muslim's have migrated to Pak. Bengal has 70% hindu population and 27% Muslim Population. J & K has about 68% Muslim Population and 28% Hindu Population.
So no India is not really divided on the basis of religion more on the basis of ethnicity and language.
 
You are partly right in that both East and West Pakistan failed to realise that religion wasn't enough to overcome cultural differences, not to mention the sheer impracticality of having two countries on either side of India. In that sense the TNT was always a naive idea.

But what you are failing to address is that even after the experiment failed, Bangladesh was unable to rejoin India. For this you cannot blame Pakistan which is your defacto modus operandi, you must acknowledge that there is also a divide between Bangladesh and India. Not just cultural but literal with a fence separating the two lines in Bengal.

Now without Pakistan to throw in there as the villain, you would probably default to blaming the Muslim side here, that being Bangladesh. Only problem is, India is now ruled by a Hindutva party which was the very reason that the TNT was propounded in the first place. So we have come full circle.

Hindutva didnt exist when Muslim League did, 1905 the Hindutva base was formed and recognition/growth much later.

I can openly say RSS and all its sister daughter parties are terrible and fascists in nature from the start they were terrible and biased but haven’t seen any Pakistani as such talk negative about Muslim league that existed before independence, hell Kerala still has active Muslim League fighting elections.
 
But Bangladesh didn't amalgamate with India which proves if anything that the TNT was correct, albeit it should stand for Three Nation Theory, not Two.

But feel free to offer an alternative as to what should have happened rather than partition, as you know I am not a big believer in TNT myself. Although having seen the rise of Hindutva in India my faith in the country as a multifaith nation has been dented, I can't lie.

I have read that the original plan of Lord Mountbatten was actually to create more than 2 countries which means he realized that there are more than 2 nations; but he let Nehru read that plan first and Nehru vehemently rejected it insisting no more than 2 countries so Lord Mountbatten stick to 2 countries plan. Bangladesh's creation proved Lord Mountbatten correct.
 
You are partly right in that both East and West Pakistan failed to realise that religion wasn't enough to overcome cultural differences, not to mention the sheer impracticality of having two countries on either side of India. In that sense the TNT was always a naive idea.

But what you are failing to address is that even after the experiment failed, Bangladesh was unable to rejoin India. For this you cannot blame Pakistan which is your defacto modus operandi, you must acknowledge that there is also a divide between Bangladesh and India. Not just cultural but literal with a fence separating the two lines in Bengal.

Now without Pakistan to throw in there as the villain, you would probably default to blaming the Muslim side here, that being Bangladesh. Only problem is, India is now ruled by a Hindutva party which was the very reason that the TNT was propounded in the first place. So we have come full circle.

Attempting to integrate East Pakistan into India would have been a critical mistake on India’s part. It is the type of foreign policy blunder that you would expect a country like Pakistan to make, since we have unparalleled expertise in goofing-up.

There are multiple reasons for it and I explained to a couple of days ago.
 
The Brits are about to walk into their own two nation textbook.

By this time next year Scotland will declare Independence! Karma is a B***H !
 
Attempting to integrate East Pakistan into India would have been a critical mistake on India’s part. It is the type of foreign policy blunder that you would expect a country like Pakistan to make, since we have unparalleled expertise in goofing-up.

There are multiple reasons for it and I explained to a couple of days ago.

Yea they didn’t integrate East Pakistan into India because seems they understood Muslims of subcontinent and Hindu Indians are separate nations as per Two Nation theory. Indian leadership did show foresight
 
Yea they didn’t integrate East Pakistan into India because seems they understood Muslims of subcontinent and Hindu Indians are separate nations as per Two Nation theory. Indian leadership did show foresight

Millions and millions of Muslims didn’t buy the TNT and decided to stay back in India anyway, so that wasn’t the issue. Thanks to our discrimination, Bangladeshi nationalism was at its peak in the 60s, and there was no way India were going to successfully integrate them.

Anyway, if East Pakistan were economically booming at that time they might have tried their luck but that wasn’t the case. It was a poor land of unhappy Muslims who wanted their own identity. India did well to stay clear.
 
A few years ago, I had a conversation with an Indian Muslim on a bus. The elderly gentleman asked me: “Why was Pakistan made?” Knowing that this might not go well, I told him succinctly that “it was created for the Muslims of India, so that they could live their lives peacefully and without fear of the Hindus”. To this the gentleman replied: “Have you been to Jama Masjid in Delhi or any other mosque?” After I answered in the affirmative he asked: “Did you go through extensive checking at the mosques or did you fear for your life as you entered the mosque?” The conversation ended there for a bit, the point was made. A few minutes later he asked me: “How many people are killed in sectarian killings in Pakistan?” I shook my head and answered: “Thousands every year.” Again, he gave me a look and I tried to look the other way.

photo_1334655424580-1-0.jpg

The point of the conversation narrated above was — and is — not that Partition was a bad thing and should be undone. Pakistan has now been created and it should and will remain a distinct entity. There needs to be no doubt about it. However, what the conversation above should remind us is that we have lost track of the original purpose of the creation of the country. More Muslims live in fear in Pakistan than in India and thousands more Muslims have been killed in Pakistan on religious and sectarian grounds than in India since independence.

A couple of years ago, the All-India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen’s head, Asaduddin Owaisi, lamented that the Muslims of India had been left behind in education when compared with other religious communities. While Owaisi’s comment led many to point out how Muslims were suffering in India, these pundits forgot to mention that Owaisi noted that the Muslim literacy rate was 67.6 per cent. This is about 20 per cent more than the literacy rate in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It is only in job attainment that Pakistani Muslims fare better than their Indian brethren, but that is simply due to the fact that in Pakistan there are no other options. With Muslims forming 95 per cent of the population there is little chance that any other community can get more jobs no matter what the condition of the Muslim community in the country. This factor also brings in money and other emoluments, giving us a sense of false security and superiority.

The recent spate of killings in Karachi, from Sabeen Mahmud to Professor Waheedur Rahman, has made me think about our understanding of ‘freedom’. Often we talk about the minorities in Pakistan, those five per cent or so who are under intense pressure, who routinely get abused and killed without much comment, and who are treated almost nonchalantly as second-class citizens of the country. But what about the 95 per cent majority? This country was made for them. But even they are being routinely killed by those who think they are better Muslims than the slain ones, who think that they need to ‘purify’ this land from people they think are not ‘Muslims’ or ‘good enough’ Muslims. These custodians of the ‘true Land of the Pure’ have created such a regime of fear that let alone the minorities, most Muslims are fearful of practising their religion publicly. Muslim denominations — including the one of which the founder of the country was a member of — which were at the forefront of the independence movement are now fearful of publicly declaring their sect and have to practise their religion behind barricades.

The right to life is the most fundamental right in a society. From it stems other rights such as freedom of association, expression, education, equal treatment before law, and so on. Pakistan is sadly failing in the provision of this fundamental right. Even the leaders of the freedom movement would have never thought that one day Pakistan would fail in ensuring this basic right.

Can we please focus on guaranteeing this right and make our freedom worthwhile?


http://tribune.com.pk/story/879270/freedom/


:59:


This is a fantastic post! Sadly your countrymen will ignore this and continue with usual narratives of how everyone else is out to get muslims and Pakistanis. So convenient to keep blaming others while ignoring abysmal stats within your own nation (Indians seem to be culpable of this too).

1. Women's rights, education, and employment in Pakistan and how does that compare with India's?
2. Literacy levels - as you rightly pointed, Pakistani muslims is lower than Indian muslims which speaks volumes on lack of governance.
3. Development of sophisticated industries (lack of) in Pakistan?
4. Growth in knowledge capital (big variable in macro-economic growth)?
5. Foreign investments?

Pakistan is lacking on many of these critical metrics yet you have an entire generation brainwashed into usual delusional narratives like - evil Hindus, evil India, evil Israel, evil America. Pretty sad when you look at the lack of opportunities for the average John Doe and Jane Doe in your country thanks to generations of mullah-influenced policies.
 
You said India's happy to divide it's states by religion. Bengal and Punjab were divided by the British, not India . And they went on to join another country and did not form another state inside the Indian dominion.

And Kashmir was never divided based on religion.

The British left and those states have remained divided to this day despite India's overwhelming military superiority to take back those parts of it's body which were cut asunder by the British Raj.

What does that tell you? Only this: Indians themselves believe in Jinnah's vision of TNT with the small correction that it becomes three nations not two.

Punjab. Kashmir. Bengal. 1947.
 
This is a fantastic post! Sadly your countrymen will ignore this and continue with usual narratives of how everyone else is out to get muslims and Pakistanis. So convenient to keep blaming others while ignoring abysmal stats within your own nation (Indians seem to be culpable of this too).

1. Women's rights, education, and employment in Pakistan and how does that compare with India's?
2. Literacy levels - as you rightly pointed, Pakistani muslims is lower than Indian muslims which speaks volumes on lack of governance.
3. Development of sophisticated industries (lack of) in Pakistan?
4. Growth in knowledge capital (big variable in macro-economic growth)?
5. Foreign investments?

Pakistan is lacking on many of these critical metrics yet you have an entire generation brainwashed into usual delusional narratives like - evil Hindus, evil India, evil Israel, evil America. Pretty sad when you look at the lack of opportunities for the average John Doe and Jane Doe in your country thanks to generations of mullah-influenced policies.

Indians who visit Pakistan, regardless of their religion have always been treated well by the Pakistani people. I would argue that an Indian visiting Pakistan would be treated better than in any country on planet Earth. So this "entire generation brainwashed into usual delusional narratives like - evil Hindus, evil India" is false.

You can google this and see for yourself. But here is one article https://www.dawn.com/news/1497093
 
Indians who visit Pakistan, regardless of their religion have always been treated well by the Pakistani people. I would argue that an Indian visiting Pakistan would be treated better than in any country on planet Earth. So this "entire generation brainwashed into usual delusional narratives like - evil Hindus, evil India" is false.

You can google this and see for yourself. But here is one article https://www.dawn.com/news/1497093

This I do agree from what little I have seen in youtube. Very hospitable reactions from Pakistanis apparently. The "evil Hindus" part probably applies to religious zealots which may not be the majority.

But do understand though, when I mentioned "evil India, evil Israel, evil America", I mentioned the nations not individual tourists from those nations. Pakistanis will most definitely be friendly towards individuals from India, US, even Israel. How positively are they seeing those governments was my point. Now zoom out with that mindset being fed to generation after generation and see the context of the post by [MENTION=138541]yeh cheez[/MENTION] above and you can see his/her point.

I didn't realize it so far but it is a pretty damning statistic quoted in his post. Muslims of India (arguably the left behind and oppressed ones) have 20% higher literacy rate than in Pakistan. Surely you should see the misplaced priorities from data like that?

Think about it - as individuals Pakistanis are the friendliest and among the most hospitable. So they have great potential for good social metrics given the right environment with such open hearts (open hearts usually = willingness to work on self/collective improvement). So do you have good social metrics even with such a population base? Obviously no and it squarely falls on an establishment with decades of misplaced priorities.
 
This is a fantastic post! Sadly your countrymen will ignore this and continue with usual narratives of how everyone else is out to get muslims and Pakistanis. So convenient to keep blaming others while ignoring abysmal stats within your own nation (Indians seem to be culpable of this too).

1. Women's rights, education, and employment in Pakistan and how does that compare with India's?
2. Literacy levels - as you rightly pointed, Pakistani muslims is lower than Indian muslims which speaks volumes on lack of governance.
3. Development of sophisticated industries (lack of) in Pakistan?
4. Growth in knowledge capital (big variable in macro-economic growth)?
5. Foreign investments?

Pakistan is lacking on many of these critical metrics yet you have an entire generation brainwashed into usual delusional narratives like - evil Hindus, evil India, evil Israel, evil America. Pretty sad when you look at the lack of opportunities for the average John Doe and Jane Doe in your country thanks to generations of mullah-influenced policies.

And this guy is calling Pakistani brainwashed.

Lets clear it for you. I would majority of Pakistani aren't against Hinduism.

Majority of Pakistani are against Hindutva.

And before you go on lecturing about Hindutva, save your time and bandwidth.
 
And this guy is calling Pakistani brainwashed.

Lets clear it for you. I would majority of Pakistani aren't against Hinduism.

Majority of Pakistani are against Hindutva.

And before you go on lecturing about Hindutva, save your time and bandwidth.

Pssst ... take a chill pill. You seem to have misunderstood my post. See my post #206 in this thread for additional clarity.
 
Pssst ... take a chill pill. You seem to have misunderstood my post. See my post #206 in this thread for additional clarity.

The "evil Hindus" part probably applies to religious zealots which may not be the majority.

yet elected someone who openly support a group and from the following of the group that promote Hindutva.

Oh yea, what is the excuse, economy, lol
 
This I do agree from what little I have seen in youtube. Very hospitable reactions from Pakistanis apparently. The "evil Hindus" part probably applies to religious zealots which may not be the majority.

But do understand though, when I mentioned "evil India, evil Israel, evil America", I mentioned the nations not individual tourists from those nations. Pakistanis will most definitely be friendly towards individuals from India, US, even Israel. How positively are they seeing those governments was my point. Now zoom out with that mindset being fed to generation after generation and see the context of the post by [MENTION=138541]yeh cheez[/MENTION] above and you can see his/her point.

I didn't realize it so far but it is a pretty damning statistic quoted in his post. Muslims of India (arguably the left behind and oppressed ones) have 20% higher literacy rate than in Pakistan. Surely you should see the misplaced priorities from data like that?

Think about it - as individuals Pakistanis are the friendliest and among the most hospitable. So they have great potential for good social metrics given the right environment with such open hearts (open hearts usually = willingness to work on self/collective improvement). So do you have good social metrics even with such a population base? Obviously no and it squarely falls on an establishment with decades of misplaced priorities.

Muslims of India were not left behind. No one was supposed to come to Pakistan during partition. Indian Muslims say that to downplay any role that they had in partition, when they were the lead instigators. Why were Indian Muslims the lead instigators? because they were minorities in their provinces, so they had most to fear. Pakistan consisted of Muslim majority provinces so they had less to fear about Hindu domination.

Anyway about the literacy rate Pakistan has more than doubled the funding of schools. However their is still an abysmal performance. No amount of money will change that. Same poor kids go to schools run by NGO's or private schools where they receive a scholarship, they perform well. The "Establishment" is not responsible for ghost schools, or teachers who are not qualified to clean toilets teaching children. Its political parties who have to reward their supporters with jobs which is the problem.

However public schools in Punjab and KPK are showing signs of improvement, Sindh and Balochistan are as bad as ever.

Its like in America, the urban schools receive the most funding and they have the worst performance. No amount of funding will improve those schools. Its a bad culture there
 
Millions and millions of Muslims didn’t buy the TNT and decided to stay back in India anyway, so that wasn’t the issue. Thanks to our discrimination, Bangladeshi nationalism was at its peak in the 60s, and there was no way India were going to successfully integrate them.

Anyway, if East Pakistan were economically booming at that time they might have tried their luck but that wasn’t the case. It was a poor land of unhappy Muslims who wanted their own identity. India did well to stay clear.

In British Indian provinces where Muslims were the minority, were the ones who wanted Pakistan. Pakistan was launched in UP, starting with Sir Syed. Muslim majority provinces had nothing to fear from Hindus, so they came to support the movement much later.

No one was supposed to migrate to Pakistan. Jinnah was vague whether Pakistan would be an autonomous zone within in India or be independent.

The reason that Indian Muslims where they were a minority was said best by Sir Syed and I will quote:

"Now, suppose that the English community and the army were to leave India, taking with them all their cannons and their splendid weapons and all else, who then would be the rulers of India?.... Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations—the Mohammedans and the Hindus—could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other. To hope that both could remain equal is to desire the impossible and the inconceivable... But until one nation has conquered the other and made it obedient, peace cannot reign in the land."

Sir Syed was from UP, and he reflected on how Muslims in UP felt, that there culture would be finished in a democratic India. Before the British came UP was rules by Muslims for 600 years, it was the heartland of their empire so even they though they were a minority they still culturally dominated. And he was right

Muslims wanted Urdu and Hindus wanted Hindi
Muslims wanted Nastaliq and Hindus wanted Devanagari
Muslims wanted Allahabad and Hindus wanted Prayagraj
Muslims wanted Babri Masjid and Hindus wanted Ram Mandir
Muslims consider Muslim rule the golden era Hindus consider it the dark age

My entire family came from UP during partition, and from what i have heard from childhood is that the historical narratives are not reconcilable between UP Muslims and Hindus. And eventually the majority will win out in a democratic country.
 
Muslims of India were not left behind. No one was supposed to come to Pakistan during partition. Indian Muslims say that to downplay any role that they had in partition, when they were the lead instigators. Why were Indian Muslims the lead instigators? because they were minorities in their provinces, so they had most to fear. Pakistan consisted of Muslim majority provinces so they had less to fear about Hindu domination.

Anyway about the literacy rate Pakistan has more than doubled the funding of schools. However their is still an abysmal performance. No amount of money will change that. Same poor kids go to schools run by NGO's or private schools where they receive a scholarship, they perform well. The "Establishment" is not responsible for ghost schools, or teachers who are not qualified to clean toilets teaching children. Its political parties who have to reward their supporters with jobs which is the problem.

However public schools in Punjab and KPK are showing signs of improvement, Sindh and Balochistan are as bad as ever.

Its like in America, the urban schools receive the most funding and they have the worst performance. No amount of funding will improve those schools. Its a bad culture there

Interesting points.

Muslims of India being the "left behind" ones - I was just referencing the supposed opinions of some of the posters here on how the muslims of India have no voice since all the accomplished ones moved to Pakistan. It is not my opinion and if Indian muslims have always been as accomplished as Pakistani muslims then so be it.

Your points on government providing funding for schools - Clearly you also can see that improving education is more than just government spending some % of GDP on education?

1. As a first step, what % of GDP is spent on education relative to your literacy rate (lower literacy rates need higher % of GDP). I think Pakistan's spending on the literacy rate/GDP % of education ratio would be mismatched.
2. Improving literacy is more than just throwing money at the problem. It is a cultural change from grassroots level that needs concerted genuine effort from the establishment to change people's mindset on priorities. It needs proper budget allocation, proper policies to execute on that budget, capable administrative leadership to lead the execution, another set of rules & policies to monitor the right metrics and improve upon them.

As you can see from my blue sentence above, it is an entire value chain of actions. Allocating budget is only the tip of the iceberg. Building new school buildings and hoping for kids to start pouring in is like a hail mary pass in NFL. There is a popular saying in silicon valley startup community for what failed tech startups do - "Build it and they will come" -- for tech startups taking an engineering heavy, inside out approach without market/customer development. Guess what - by just building it, nobody will come.
 
In British Indian provinces where Muslims were the minority, were the ones who wanted Pakistan. Pakistan was launched in UP, starting with Sir Syed. Muslim majority provinces had nothing to fear from Hindus, so they came to support the movement much later.

No one was supposed to migrate to Pakistan. Jinnah was vague whether Pakistan would be an autonomous zone within in India or be independent.

The reason that Indian Muslims where they were a minority was said best by Sir Syed and I will quote:

"Now, suppose that the English community and the army were to leave India, taking with them all their cannons and their splendid weapons and all else, who then would be the rulers of India?.... Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations—the Mohammedans and the Hindus—could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other. To hope that both could remain equal is to desire the impossible and the inconceivable... But until one nation has conquered the other and made it obedient, peace cannot reign in the land."

Sir Syed was from UP, and he reflected on how Muslims in UP felt, that there culture would be finished in a democratic India. Before the British came UP was rules by Muslims for 600 years, it was the heartland of their empire so even they though they were a minority they still culturally dominated. And he was right

Muslims wanted Urdu and Hindus wanted Hindi
Muslims wanted Nastaliq and Hindus wanted Devanagari
Muslims wanted Allahabad and Hindus wanted Prayagraj
Muslims wanted Babri Masjid and Hindus wanted Ram Mandir
Muslims consider Muslim rule the golden era Hindus consider it the dark age

My entire family came from UP during partition, and from what i have heard from childhood is that the historical narratives are not reconcilable between UP Muslims and Hindus. And eventually the majority will win out in a democratic country.

Great points here man. Thanks for sharing!
 
Interesting points.

Muslims of India being the "left behind" ones - I was just referencing the supposed opinions of some of the posters here on how the muslims of India have no voice since all the accomplished ones moved to Pakistan. It is not my opinion and if Indian muslims have always been as accomplished as Pakistani muslims then so be it.

Your points on government providing funding for schools - Clearly you also can see that improving education is more than just government spending some % of GDP on education?

1. As a first step, what % of GDP is spent on education relative to your literacy rate (lower literacy rates need higher % of GDP). I think Pakistan's spending on the literacy rate/GDP % of education ratio would be mismatched.
2. Improving literacy is more than just throwing money at the problem. It is a cultural change from grassroots level that needs concerted genuine effort from the establishment to change people's mindset on priorities. It needs proper budget allocation, proper policies to execute on that budget, capable administrative leadership to lead the execution, another set of rules & policies to monitor the right metrics and improve upon them.

As you can see from my blue sentence above, it is an entire value chain of actions. Allocating budget is only the tip of the iceberg. Building new school buildings and hoping for kids to start pouring in is like a hail mary pass in NFL. There is a popular saying in silicon valley startup community for what failed tech startups do - "Build it and they will come" -- for tech startups taking an engineering heavy, inside out approach without market/customer development. Guess what - by just building it, nobody will come.



1 - There was a study from the Woodrow Wilson Center from Nadia Naviwala which showed that this is not true regarding the spending on Education being low compared to the GDP. From the study i quote

"Pakistan spends a lot on education, relative to the resources it has. But when Pakistan’s education
budget is expressed as a percentage of its GDP, it does poorly. Pakistan has budgeted the equivalent of
2.7 percent of its GDP on education for fiscal year 2016.38 The international minimum is 4 percent. Many
countries are increasing spending to 6 percent. Pakistan is behind other South Asian and sub-Saharan
countries when spending is expressed in these terms.

But this figure relates only to government expenditure and the 60 percent of students who go to
government schools. Parents in Pakistan spend another $8 billion on private education, which is more
than state spending.39 If one includes private spending, national expenditure on education doubles to at
least $15 billion, crossing the 4 percent of GDP mark. "

2 - I agree with all your points in Point 2, with the exception of the "change people's mindset on priorities." most people in Pakistan care about educating their children, in fact they make huge sacrifices to do so.


Here is the link to the Woodrow Wilson Study - https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/pakistanseducationcrisistherealstory2.pdf

Its real long, but the author Nadia Naviwala had a TedX presentation where she gave a cliff note version - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CcP-T4C7Xo -
 
In British Indian provinces where Muslims were the minority, were the ones who wanted Pakistan. Pakistan was launched in UP, starting with Sir Syed. Muslim majority provinces had nothing to fear from Hindus, so they came to support the movement much later.

No one was supposed to migrate to Pakistan. Jinnah was vague whether Pakistan would be an autonomous zone within in India or be independent.

The reason that Indian Muslims where they were a minority was said best by Sir Syed and I will quote:

"Now, suppose that the English community and the army were to leave India, taking with them all their cannons and their splendid weapons and all else, who then would be the rulers of India?.... Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations—the Mohammedans and the Hindus—could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other. To hope that both could remain equal is to desire the impossible and the inconceivable... But until one nation has conquered the other and made it obedient, peace cannot reign in the land."

Sir Syed was from UP, and he reflected on how Muslims in UP felt, that there culture would be finished in a democratic India. Before the British came UP was rules by Muslims for 600 years, it was the heartland of their empire so even they though they were a minority they still culturally dominated. And he was right

Muslims wanted Urdu and Hindus wanted Hindi
Muslims wanted Nastaliq and Hindus wanted Devanagari
Muslims wanted Allahabad and Hindus wanted Prayagraj
Muslims wanted Babri Masjid and Hindus wanted Ram Mandir
Muslims consider Muslim rule the golden era Hindus consider it the dark age

My entire family came from UP during partition, and from what i have heard from childhood is that the historical narratives are not reconcilable between UP Muslims and Hindus. And eventually the majority will win out in a democratic country.

I think it's the same in every region in South Asia. Sikhs consider Ranjit Singh their hero but to Kashmiri and Punjabi Muslims he was a tyrant. Sindhi Muslims especially those that claim Arab descent hail Mohammad Bin Qasim as a hero whereas the Hindus and Atheists see him as an invader, similarly Sindhi Muslims consider Baloch rule as part of their heritage and Baloch settlers are considered their ethnic brothers whereas Hindu Sindhis view Baloch rule as a dark age in Sindh's history and their descendants as invaders. Another example would be Kashmiri Muslims resented the Mughals, Sikhs, and Dogras whereas the Hindus benefited greatly from their rule and I think you'll find similar juxtapositions in every part of the subcontinent.
 
Last edited:
I think it's the same in every region in South Asia. Sikhs consider Ranjit Singh their hero but to Kashmiri and Punjabi Muslims he was a tyrant. Sindhi Muslims especially those that claim Arab descent hail Mohammad Bin Qasim as a hero whereas the Hindus and Atheists see him as an invader, similarly Sindhi Muslims consider Baloch rule as part of their heritage and Baloch settlers are considered their ethnic brothers whereas Hindu Sindhis view Baloch rule as a dark age in Sindh's history and their descendants as invaders. Another example would be Kashmiri Muslims resented the Mughals, Sikhs, and Dogras whereas the Hindus benefited greatly from their rule and I think you'll find similar juxtapositions in every part of the subcontinent.

Thats why Jinnah stated "It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state"
 
1 - There was a study from the Woodrow Wilson Center from Nadia Naviwala which showed that this is not true regarding the spending on Education being low compared to the GDP. From the study i quote

"Pakistan spends a lot on education, relative to the resources it has. But when Pakistan’s education
budget is expressed as a percentage of its GDP, it does poorly. Pakistan has budgeted the equivalent of
2.7 percent of its GDP on education for fiscal year 2016.38 The international minimum is 4 percent. Many
countries are increasing spending to 6 percent. Pakistan is behind other South Asian and sub-Saharan
countries when spending is expressed in these terms.

But this figure relates only to government expenditure and the 60 percent of students who go to
government schools. Parents in Pakistan spend another $8 billion on private education, which is more
than state spending.39 If one includes private spending, national expenditure on education doubles to at
least $15 billion, crossing the 4 percent of GDP mark. "

2 - I agree with all your points in Point 2, with the exception of the "change people's mindset on priorities." most people in Pakistan care about educating their children, in fact they make huge sacrifices to do so.


Here is the link to the Woodrow Wilson Study - https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/pakistanseducationcrisistherealstory2.pdf

Its real long, but the author Nadia Naviwala had a TedX presentation where she gave a cliff note version - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CcP-T4C7Xo -

Thanks! I have read snippets of Woodrow Wilson Center's study but not in it's entirety. Will look into it later, glad you sent the link here.

On #1 - International minimum is 4% as you stated and Pakistan when totaling public+private funding is just above that threshold. Does the international benchmark say 4% of GDP is only public or that is can be public+private? That could be a key difference here. Funding does not have to be only direct funding, it can also be a booster (tax benefits for private capital flowing into education for instance). Studies have shown that public investment along with incentivized private capital is the best starting booster for a failing segment.

On top of that, Pakistan is also lagging South Asian and sub-Saharan countries for education investment as you say. Is that not a failure of the establishment with misplaced priorities then?

The 60% spending $8B in private spending for education - this is definitely the upper economic strata. Plus this also begs the obvious question in developing economies - the data not even coming in for measurement. Meaning - education is accessed only by those upper few who can afford or who happen to live in sections where access is made easy. If government education spending were increased with proper follow thru as I stated then maybe it is way more than 40% using public education spending.

On #2 - I'm sure parents make good sacrifices for education (seems like an Asian thing to do across the board). I see this huge discrepancy between the Hispanic side of my family and the Indian side. I do wonder about this - parents' priority and sacrifice for education in Pakistan - how prevalent is that across remote areas, all sections of society, until at least high school, and for both genders? If that is prevalent across all of that, then education/literacy improves, so obviously it is not yet and this is where governments have a heavy hand to play.
 
Thanks! I have read snippets of Woodrow Wilson Center's study but not in it's entirety. Will look into it later, glad you sent the link here.

On #1 - International minimum is 4% as you stated and Pakistan when totaling public+private funding is just above that threshold. Does the international benchmark say 4% of GDP is only public or that is can be public+private? That could be a key difference here. Funding does not have to be only direct funding, it can also be a booster (tax benefits for private capital flowing into education for instance). Studies have shown that public investment along with incentivized private capital is the best starting booster for a failing segment.

On top of that, Pakistan is also lagging South Asian and sub-Saharan countries for education investment as you say. Is that not a failure of the establishment with misplaced priorities then?

The 60% spending $8B in private spending for education - this is definitely the upper economic strata. Plus this also begs the obvious question in developing economies - the data not even coming in for measurement. Meaning - education is accessed only by those upper few who can afford or who happen to live in sections where access is made easy. If government education spending were increased with proper follow thru as I stated then maybe it is way more than 40% using public education spending.

On #2 - I'm sure parents make good sacrifices for education (seems like an Asian thing to do across the board). I see this huge discrepancy between the Hispanic side of my family and the Indian side. I do wonder about this - parents' priority and sacrifice for education in Pakistan - how prevalent is that across remote areas, all sections of society, until at least high school, and for both genders? If that is prevalent across all of that, then education/literacy improves, so obviously it is not yet and this is where governments have a heavy hand to play.

The article didn't say whether the international figure included included public and private so not sure about that.

Yes Pakistan is still lagging other countries in spending but the study was making the case that in the last 10 or so years Pakistan has been increasing spending however the results are not improving. The section where i quoted earlier from was "MYTH: MORE BUDGET IS THE SOLUTION TO PAKISTAN’S EDUCATION CRISIS"

Some other quotes from that section are

"Pakistan’s education challenge is not underspending. It is misspending. Without reforms, new money is likely to end up feeding cronyism and corruption, rather than making a difference that children can feel. Reducing the public discussion to budget numbers – and worse, expressed in a way that most people don’t understand, as relative to GDP – distracts from a more relevant, qualitative discussion about where the budget for education goes."

Sindh’s budget today is eight times higher than it was in 2010. The salary budget is more than twelve times higher.65 But the surge in salaries does not mean that new teachers are showing up or performing. There was zero improvement in the learning outcomes of 5th and 6th graders, measured by Sindh’s Standardized Assessment Test (SAT), between 2012 and 2014 despite a 27 percent increase in the salary budget.

#2 - I would say from Lower Middle Class to Rich they make sure there children are educated. Poor parents alot of times give up on their childs education, not because they dont value it, but they dont see the quality there, and dont think their child is learning anything, for good reason. They think it can be better to teach some trade to their child. Often the child goes in the same trade as their father, so if the father is a rickshaw driver the child becomes a rickshaw driver, if the father is a tailor the child becomes a tailor, etc.

Its kind of like is the glass half full or half empty. 100 years ago in this region education was pretty much non existent with the exception of a fringe of a population. So from that stand point Pakistan has made progress, but still a long way to go. It might the end of the century to get it to 100% literacy.
 
The article didn't say whether the international figure included included public and private so not sure about that.

Yes Pakistan is still lagging other countries in spending but the study was making the case that in the last 10 or so years Pakistan has been increasing spending however the results are not improving. The section where i quoted earlier from was "MYTH: MORE BUDGET IS THE SOLUTION TO PAKISTAN’S EDUCATION CRISIS"

Some other quotes from that section are

"Pakistan’s education challenge is not underspending. It is misspending. Without reforms, new money is likely to end up feeding cronyism and corruption, rather than making a difference that children can feel. Reducing the public discussion to budget numbers – and worse, expressed in a way that most people don’t understand, as relative to GDP – distracts from a more relevant, qualitative discussion about where the budget for education goes."

Sindh’s budget today is eight times higher than it was in 2010. The salary budget is more than twelve times higher.65 But the surge in salaries does not mean that new teachers are showing up or performing. There was zero improvement in the learning outcomes of 5th and 6th graders, measured by Sindh’s Standardized Assessment Test (SAT), between 2012 and 2014 despite a 27 percent increase in the salary budget.

#2 - I would say from Lower Middle Class to Rich they make sure there children are educated. Poor parents alot of times give up on their childs education, not because they dont value it, but they dont see the quality there, and dont think their child is learning anything, for good reason. They think it can be better to teach some trade to their child. Often the child goes in the same trade as their father, so if the father is a rickshaw driver the child becomes a rickshaw driver, if the father is a tailor the child becomes a tailor, etc.

Its kind of like is the glass half full or half empty. 100 years ago in this region education was pretty much non existent with the exception of a fringe of a population. So from that stand point Pakistan has made progress, but still a long way to go. It might the end of the century to get it to 100% literacy.

Good data points on the budget. Looks like they have been throwing money at the problem which by itself does not solve and as is the case in developing economies does not all trickle down.

Targeting 100% literacy (even if set by end of century) will be unfair on them since it is such a high goal. Better goal will be to compare current growth of contemporaries. What are literacy rates of other South Asian (and maybe South Asian muslim if you want to be specific) communities in 1947 and what are the literacy rates now? How does Pakistan compare with these literacy rate trends?

This will be a relevant and timely comparison. Timely because it helps in near future course corrections as against a goal set by end of this century (not that I'm implying that is what you meant - you did not). Ideally if Pakistan's government had the right priority, they will track it this way, see where they are lagging and do a continuous improvement (dare I say an agile process). IDEALLY.
 
If there was no partition then without any doubts Hindu PMs would be ruling India's 450 million Muslims.
Given the corruption in SC there is no doubt majority people would be as poor as they are now.
Muslims would have blamed Hindu raj for their bad conditions and riots and civil war like situation would be looming all the time.
So it was better that Pakistan sperated at the right time.
 
In One of his speech in Aligarh M A Jinnah said those Muslims who are opposing the idea of Pakistan will live their entire life showing hindus their patriotism for hindustan but hindus will never accept them.
& this is exactly what is going in hindustan. If a Muslim say something for the rights of his Muslim brother then he & his family murdered by hindus.

Hindus never accept Muslim as hindustani even if we Muslims didn't have made Pakistan.

These mamoon shamu type do number Pakistani would have burn alive like ehsan jaffery & many others, if Pakistan hadn't came into being.
 
Muslims of India were not left behind. No one was supposed to come to Pakistan during partition. Indian Muslims say that to downplay any role that they had in partition, when they were the lead instigators. Why were Indian Muslims the lead instigators? because they were minorities in their provinces, so they had most to fear. Pakistan consisted of Muslim majority provinces so they had less to fear about Hindu domination.

Anyway about the literacy rate Pakistan has more than doubled the funding of schools. However their is still an abysmal performance. No amount of money will change that. Same poor kids go to schools run by NGO's or private schools where they receive a scholarship, they perform well. The "Establishment" is not responsible for ghost schools, or teachers who are not qualified to clean toilets teaching children. Its political parties who have to reward their supporters with jobs which is the problem.

However public schools in Punjab and KPK are showing signs of improvement, Sindh and Balochistan are as bad as ever.

Its like in America, the urban schools receive the most funding and they have the worst performance. No amount of funding will improve those schools. Its a bad culture there

Actually we were left behind. Especially after the mutiny of 1857, the British felt like they couldn’t trust the Muslims any longer and started favoring Hindus in education, administration and other spheres. Most scholars agree that the birth of TNT started there.

The TNT was originally a Muslim idea but even non-Muslims like Ambedkar thought it was a good idea if Muslims got their seperate nation. For one, most of the wealth and industrial bases would be in India leaving the future Pakistan economically weaker. Secondly, because Muslims from Punjab dominated the British Indian army, Ambedkar feared that India would be vulnerable and over-dependant on the largely Punjabi Muslim army. Lastly, Ambedkar correctly predicted that Pakistan would not be able to sustain a modern army because it lacked the industrial base to do so.
 
i used to question the merits of tnt sometimes, but its obvious the people who wanted pak were spot on, subconsciously hindu's see the presence of muslims in india at best tolerable, and dislike the narrative of history they represent. if anything a united india with 1.6 billion people, and 600 million Muslims would have been a total tinderbox. tnt was spot on, just a shame the rulers who dominated the politics of Pakistan squandered so many advantages.

In British Indian provinces where Muslims were the minority, were the ones who wanted Pakistan. Pakistan was launched in UP, starting with Sir Syed. Muslim majority provinces had nothing to fear from Hindus, so they came to support the movement much later.

No one was supposed to migrate to Pakistan. Jinnah was vague whether Pakistan would be an autonomous zone within in India or be independent.

The reason that Indian Muslims where they were a minority was said best by Sir Syed and I will quote:

"Now, suppose that the English community and the army were to leave India, taking with them all their cannons and their splendid weapons and all else, who then would be the rulers of India?.... Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations—the Mohammedans and the Hindus—could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other. To hope that both could remain equal is to desire the impossible and the inconceivable... But until one nation has conquered the other and made it obedient, peace cannot reign in the land."

Sir Syed was from UP, and he reflected on how Muslims in UP felt, that there culture would be finished in a democratic India. Before the British came UP was rules by Muslims for 600 years, it was the heartland of their empire so even they though they were a minority they still culturally dominated. And he was right

Muslims wanted Urdu and Hindus wanted Hindi
Muslims wanted Nastaliq and Hindus wanted Devanagari
Muslims wanted Allahabad and Hindus wanted Prayagraj
Muslims wanted Babri Masjid and Hindus wanted Ram Mandir
Muslims consider Muslim rule the golden era Hindus consider it the dark age

My entire family came from UP during partition, and from what i have heard from childhood is that the historical narratives are not reconcilable between UP Muslims and Hindus. And eventually the majority will win out in a democratic country.

very well made points, from what i've studied about history of that period, and its hard to find objective commentaries) its only when local power brokers in punjab realised they could dominate politics in a smaller country they started backing the Pakistan movement, the people of the former provinces of what formed pakistan generally had decent living standards and were way less politically active than bengali and central indian muslims.
 
In British Indian provinces where Muslims were the minority, were the ones who wanted Pakistan. Pakistan was launched in UP, starting with Sir Syed. Muslim majority provinces had nothing to fear from Hindus, so they came to support the movement much later.

No one was supposed to migrate to Pakistan. Jinnah was vague whether Pakistan would be an autonomous zone within in India or be independent.

The reason that Indian Muslims where they were a minority was said best by Sir Syed and I will quote:

"Now, suppose that the English community and the army were to leave India, taking with them all their cannons and their splendid weapons and all else, who then would be the rulers of India?.... Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations—the Mohammedans and the Hindus—could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other. To hope that both could remain equal is to desire the impossible and the inconceivable... But until one nation has conquered the other and made it obedient, peace cannot reign in the land."

Sir Syed was from UP, and he reflected on how Muslims in UP felt, that there culture would be finished in a democratic India. Before the British came UP was rules by Muslims for 600 years, it was the heartland of their empire so even they though they were a minority they still culturally dominated. And he was right

Muslims wanted Urdu and Hindus wanted Hindi
Muslims wanted Nastaliq and Hindus wanted Devanagari
Muslims wanted Allahabad and Hindus wanted Prayagraj
Muslims wanted Babri Masjid and Hindus wanted Ram Mandir
Muslims consider Muslim rule the golden era Hindus consider it the dark age

My entire family came from UP during partition, and from what i have heard from childhood is that the historical narratives are not reconcilable between UP Muslims and Hindus. And eventually the majority will win out in a democratic country.

A very good post. It quite correctly states that the Muslim separatist platform dug its deepest roots in northern India, with UP as its heartland. Quite rightly it points to two reasons for this: firstly in an era where the census and elective government were introduced, thereby elevating the importance of numbers, Muslim anxiety at its minority position was at its most acute. Secondly, this was also the region where historically Muslim political and military power was at its most potent. The memory of Muslim power, the sense that Muslims were ‘politically important’, the feeling that “power, and its management, was in their blood” to quote historian Francis Robinson, was at its strongest here.

Nevertheless, in the end Pakistan would not have been possible without the support for the Muslim League in the Muslim majority provinces, which came quite late in the colonial day, perhaps as late as 1945 in the Punjab for instance.
 
All the posts above makes me realize religion and power is what mattered , and it still does.

Mao was wise clearly , killing the religion and setting up Chinese identity.
 
Mixed results - Hindus and Muslims can co-exist together like they generally do in most situations and on most days in India, but they can also kill each other in the name of religion like they do once in a while.

Depends on what their national and local political/religious/social leaders want them to think/feel about each other. Keep telling them that they can't co-exist together, and you get Pakistan all day every day and India on some days. Keep telling them that they can co-exist together, and you get India on most days.
 
very well made points, from what i've studied about history of that period, and its hard to find objective commentaries) its only when local power brokers in punjab realised they could dominate politics in a smaller country they started backing the Pakistan movement, the people of the former provinces of what formed pakistan generally had decent living standards and were way less politically active than bengali and central indian muslims.

There is certainly much work that has pointed to an opportunistic shift amongst the landed elite to the Muslim League in the the regions that would become West Pakistan in the 1940s. Jinnah’s success at the all-India level and the realisation of impending change with Britain on its way out is said to have prompted reconsideration of how their interests were best served.

The point is well taken and there is certainly ample evidence for this, but I think there was more to it. Ideology and popular enthusiasm were critical. Importantly in the 1940s politics in the Muslim majority provinces moved out from the drawing room and onto the streets.

Although there was certainly some confusion around what Pakistan and Jinnah stood for, with Jinnah at times being likened to a Moulvi, a new consciousness was being aroused, as one campaign worker noted in early 1946 (the following is taken from the Jinnah Paper series):

“One thing which we have particularly noticed is that the message of the League has reached even the remotest villages. We saw people who knew Pakistan, League and Quaid-i-Azam.…. The most touching scene we noticed was in a village where we went with a green flag; the villagers followed us and then an old man of eighty years came forward and kissed the flag and burst into tears….He told is that he is offering prayers daily for the success of the League and Quaid-i-Azam. He told us that he was threatened by the zaildar to vote for the Unionists, but he bluntly refused him on the plea that if he voted against League his eiman would be in danger… At certain places young villagers questioned us when jihad would be declared. They were anxious to make sacrifices.”

In such a fevered atmosphere it is unlikely that the elites were unaffected. The Pakistan demand in the 1940s began to transcend bread and butter issues. As Ian Talbot reveals, in the attempt by Unionists in the Punjab to counter the influence of the Muslim League, one organiser,

“visited Pir Taunsa on 18 September 1945. Here he played his trump card. ‘It was in a way explained to His Holiness’, he reported, ‘that when the Muslim League will come in power the first act which will be passed will be Auqaf Bill which will take away all their properties and leave them almost destitute like the mahants after the Gurdwara Bill.’ This was not in fact the first time that he had raised this spectre, but it left most pirs unmoved. Nor would they support the Unionists in return for the payment of nazrana. The belief that such a stick and carrot approach would succeed illustrates how much Unionist activists underestimated the religious stake which pirs and ordinary Muslims invested in the Pakistan campaign.”
 
All the posts above makes me realize religion and power is what mattered , and it still does.

Mao was wise clearly , killing the religion and setting up Chinese identity.

Will India do the same? Will be difficult given the leadership is full of religious fanatics.
 
Will India do the same? Will be difficult given the leadership is full of religious fanatics.

I meant before Independence forming one country and then doing the cultural revolution , also to your point there are lot of atheists,agnostics in India that's why a communist party was very much alive till 2009.(still is in Kerala and other places) but they didn't deliver economically much , hopefully after 10 years another wave of rationalists might come who knows, probably be crushed by right wing again.
 
Those who disagree with the TNT are most welcome to pack their bags and move to Shining India. Make sure no Hindutva find out if you consume beef otherwise you will lynched or forced to say jai shri ram
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is certainly much work that has pointed to an opportunistic shift amongst the landed elite to the Muslim League in the the regions that would become West Pakistan in the 1940s. Jinnah’s success at the all-India level and the realisation of impending change with Britain on its way out is said to have prompted reconsideration of how their interests were best served.

The point is well taken and there is certainly ample evidence for this, but I think there was more to it. Ideology and popular enthusiasm were critical. Importantly in the 1940s politics in the Muslim majority provinces moved out from the drawing room and onto the streets.

yeah agree with you on this, i have spoken to many relatives who were alive through partition and there is no doubt the fervour for tnt and jinnah in particular among regular people in muslim majority provinces (my family are from pothwar region) had reached the point of no return at some point a year to 18 months before independence.

my father tells me about how tales of Jinnah being educated in London and then matching the "g saab" toe to toe politically and intellectually started spreading through the villages, engendering, in him at least, a great desire to get out the village and get educated.
 
Those who disagree with the TNT are most welcome to pack their bags and move to Shining India. Make sure no Hindutva find out if you consume beef otherwise you will lynched or forced to say jai shri ram

You believe in the two nation theory today when you have thousands of Hindus and Christians living in your country? Believing in that theory today would mean discriminating against them.

Maybe the theory meant something before partition when your Quaid E Azam said that the muslims of British India needed a seperate country for themselves, and that they did not want to live with the Hindus. They got their own land, and the two nation theory was over after that. Don’t you think so?
 
I meant before Independence forming one country and then doing the cultural revolution , also to your point there are lot of atheists,agnostics in India that's why a communist party was very much alive till 2009.(still is in Kerala and other places) but they didn't deliver economically much , hopefully after 10 years another wave of rationalists might come who knows, probably be crushed by right wing again.

Please. Indian communism has nothing to do with atheism. Bengal was ruled by communists for close to 40 years and Durga Puja was a big festival there, celebrated by the communists. It is mainly for the rights of peasants and labourers, and not because of so called rationalists or atheists who are politically irrelevant.
 
Please. Indian communism has nothing to do with atheism. Bengal was ruled by communists for close to 40 years and Durga Puja was a big festival there, celebrated by the communists. It is mainly for the rights of peasants and labourers, and not because of so called rationalists or atheists who are politically irrelevant.

True, I stand corrected, so hopefully with jobless growth Unions can unite and throw BJP out.
 
True, I stand corrected, so hopefully with jobless growth Unions can unite and throw BJP out.

BJP's policies were anti middle class and anti traders, yet they voted for BJP again. Doctors protested against the new medical bill which was proposed last year, yet they voted for BJP. Why do you think their popularity is at a high, despite jobless growth, high taxation and curbing of transparency in government?
 
BJP's policies were anti middle class and anti traders, yet they voted for BJP again. Doctors protested against the new medical bill which was proposed last year, yet they voted for BJP. Why do you think their popularity is at a high, despite jobless growth, high taxation and curbing of transparency in government?

Coz we are Biased towards religion?
 
My grandfather used to live in east Pakistan in the 60s. According to him, people living in East Pakistan were quite patriotic, a high percentage of the PAF were made up of very experienced East Pakistani pilots. He believes that the reason East Pakistanis wanted freedom was not because they thought Pakistan illegally occupied the land or something it was because of the genocide which Pakistan committed and the way West Pakistanis used to look at East Pakistanis. Racism was very prominent.

So [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] saying that the two nation theory failed just coz East Pakistan became Bangladesh doesn't hold. Even though they were two completely different cultures they were still willing to live under name of one country, just on the basis of their religion. The reason for their partition was the genocide in 71 and racism not because they had completely different routines, rituals etc. compared to west Pakistan.
If SMR had been appointed our PM instead of being rejected by West Pakistan, Bangladesh would have still been a part of Pakistan.

But I'm happy for bangaldesh, they're developing rapidly. MashaAllah.
 
Last edited:
TNT is again a hot topic in indian media/social media after CAB
 
Back
Top