Talk:Pakistani nationalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Pakistan which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan and Pakistan-related topics. For guidelines see WikiProject Pakistan and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

New Article

Ive just started writing this article, its very, very far thanksS Seagal 03:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)S Segal

This article still contains racist

Can you please highlight the 'racist POV'? All claims are backed up by sources, there are one or two areas that still need some work and touch up, besides Im really suprised no one started work on the article before me.

I've locked the page until disputes can be resolved, I found one edit of yours namely the following: 'Azadi Section'

"The war arose from a racialist viewpoint on the part of the British who attacked the "Beastly customs of Indians" by forcing the South Asian soldiers to handle Enfield P-53 gun cartridges greased with lard taken from slaughtered pigs. This was a manifestation of the disregard that the British exhibited to Muslim and Hindu religious traditions, such as the rejection of Pork in Islam, and the mandate of vegetarianism in Hinduism"

I found this list, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_terms_per_nationality

please make edits in line with Wiki standards, As opposed to just waltzing in and making changes.

As for the Quotes by Rudyard Kipling you are welcome to list Rudyard Kipling bigoted and racist views on his article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kipling If you are able to provide more quotes related to this article and 'admiration' of pakistan please mention them and we can add them to the page.

"Concentrate on the constructive achievements of Muslims in South Asia (there are a few if one looks hard enough), instead of the destructive ones"

No denying that, and they are listed namely 'The main mughal contribution to the south asia was their unique architecture. Many monuments were built during the mughal era including the Taj Mahal.' Hence architecture is one of the more positive contributions of muslims in south asia, However this is an article about 'pakistani nationalism', the intro states that pakistani nationalism

'involves radical right doctrines, similar to Fascism. It is a unique and singular combination of philosophical, nationalistic, cultural and religious elements.'

Therefore the article has made it clear from the outset that the views held by pakistani nationalists are almost facist in nature.

  • I seriously doubt that all Pakistanis look up to Aurangzeb as an emblem of Pakistani nationalism with pride. He murdered his brothers and imprisoned his father. He was a religious zealot who did not tolerate any religion but his own. He was also probably guilty for the murder of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Indians. While I understand that the medieval world was violent and conquest was a part of life, are you telling me Pakistanis glorify murder in the name of religion?




S Seagal 13:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)S Seagal

Contents

[edit] Minorities

There is nothing on the national beliefs of Pakistan's minorities (Hindus, Christians).Surely they're not all dead. Even Hitler couldn't kill all the Jews.Hkelkar 13:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I take it your talking about religious minorities? Pakistan is 98% Muslim, very, very few religious minorities are in Pakistan most left in 1947, Pakistan is a monolithic, Muslim majority state. However there are some religious minorities that can be mentioned namely:

  • Danish Kaneria (Hindu) (The Pakistan Cricketer): 'Country first, then Religion'

http://in.rediff.com/cricket/2004/apr/06inter.htm

  • Harcharan Singh (Sikh) (First Sikh officer in Pakistan Army):'I'am privileged to have this honour'

http://www.dawn.com/2005/12/20/nat12.htm

  • cecil chaudhry (Christian) (Pakistan Airforce War Hero)

http://www.defencejournal.com/dec98/christian.htmS Seagal 13:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)S Seagal

Fair enough. Put them in.Hkelkar 19:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anglophobic POV

There is a lot of Hesperophobic and Anglophobic POV in the article. Particularly the sections regarding independence. Claims have been made about the character and attitudes of the British that are not verifiable and violate neutrality.Hkelkar 13:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic Nationalism in Pakistan

Nothing on the nationalism of the Balochi or the Pushtu. Article has an ethnic Punjabi/Sindhi bias.Hkelkar 13:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you please point out these "ethnic Punjabi/Sindhi bias"? First you claim the article has a bias against Hindus, then you claim it has a bias against Anglos, now you claim it has a "ethnic Punjabi/Sindhi bias"


Wikipedia is not a soapbox:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox

Please make your edits in line with wiki norms and abide by wiki rulesS Seagal 14:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)S Seagal

The same to you my friend.WP:OR,WP:NPOV are also wikipedia rules and norms. As it stands, the article is replete with OR and NPOV, and I am not the only one who says so by the looks of this talk page.Besides, I make no claims that can't be sourced. I have read many of Nawab Akbar Bugti's writings.Hkelkar 19:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Plus Punjabi/Sindhi ethnocentrism is hardly mutually exclusive with Anglophobia. They're BOTH present in rather copious doses in the article (the reasons behind 1857 were more complex than just the "Haraami Angrezon ki Ghulami").Hkelkar 21:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It is disgusting some of you had to add your sectionalist ideas to this article.24.90.163.84 20:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aurangzeb and Pakistani nationalism

I am a Pakistani with deep nationalist influence of Pakistani environment. I never knew Aurangzeb was that important in Pakistan. That's right! This italisized line was sarcasm. Complete banning of non-Muslim religious ceremonies is not allowed in Islam (except for stopping human sacrifices). Such actions by Aurangzeb have never been revered in Pakistan. Tipu Sultan has more importance in Pakistan. Many Mughal Kings are criticised for their non-Islamic behaviour, yet this article draws a completely different picture and tries to show them as extremist old-timers. This article has tried to prove Pakistani nationalism some kind of fascism; e.g. This ideology involves radical right doctrines, similar to Fascism. This article displays a completely wrong, and very negative, image of Pakistan and has some serious issues of neutrality. Szhaider 16:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the assessment that this article actually tried to portray Pakistani's as "tough" or "aggressive" in a westernized sort of way but only wound up showcasing them as fascists and bigots. It's a bit similistic a portrayal and perhaps a cleanup may be in order.Specifically, the cultural nationalism of Pakistani Punjabis and Pakistani Sindhis need to be showcased.
However, several claims made by user above are unsourced and, I believe, false. Tipu Sultan was a provincial king in South India and has little or no connection to Pakistan (or the region that is Pakistan today; see maps).Plus, Aurangzeb is revered in Pakistan, especially for his genocides which are regarded by Pakistanis as "acts of cleansings of Hindus" whom Pakistani Muslims generally regard as infidels at best and "subhuman" ('na-insaan' per several fatwas passed against them during Auragnzeb's reign by clerics) at worst (at least, extremist elements who are dominant in many regions in Pakistan such as NWFP and Balochistan do).Given the recent pogroms against Pakistani Christians (and anti-Semitism and anti-Hindu views and atrocities) in those regions of Pakistan, one tends to conclude that Fascist Nationalism is endemic to those provinces.Hkelkar 16:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Plus, it should be mentioned that while Mohamed Jinnah had some views that can be interpreted as fascist, he was a secular leader with secular-leaning ethno-nationalistic views, not necessarily Islamist. Same for Musharraf (secular background, more of a secular nationalist than an Islamic nationalist).Hkelkar 16:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
As a Pakistani I can say without any hesitation that I find little to none alleged reverence ‎for Aurangzeb. It surprises me too that Tipu Sultan, although had no connections to ‎present day Pakistan, is highly revered and symbolized as a struggle against oppression.‎ Szhaider 05:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Whoppee!Does your opinion reflect the majority in Pakistan? Can you prove with sources?Hkelkar 06:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
My sources are my entire life in Pakistan, eduaction, and popular history as studied in Pakistan. Szhaider 06:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Well good for you. Unfortunately, wikipedia is all about WP:Verifiability and unless you can provide WP:Reliable Sources to back up your claim, then we have a problem, as:
  • No other Pakistani editor has contested these assertions, and
  • The assertions that are sourced have to remain. If any such assertions are unsourced here or in Aurangzeb then you have a legitimate case to remove them. You do not have a legitimate case to insert that Aurangzeb is disliked in Pakistan and Tipu liked (unless you CAN find some sources, in which case please feel free to put them in).Hkelkar 06:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I was born and raised in Pakistan. I can testify that Aurangzeb is not important in Pakistani nationalism. The most important and central hero-figure in Pakistani nationalism is Quaid-e-Azam M.A. Jinnah. After him, you can argue the relative importance of various personalities such as Allama Iqbal, Madar-i-Millat Fatima Jinnah, and Sir Syed. I've italicized the usual titles for these personalities, because the fact that their names usually appear in conjunction with honorific titles is an indication that they are revered. AmeriDesi 06:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objective quantitative evidence

Another line of evidence comes from the number of matches from Google searches on the .pk TLD. Note that in each case, you will find that institutions, roads, places, and organizations are named after these revered heroes.

  • Jinnah | Quaid-e-Azam 198,000 matches
  • Sir Syed: 172,000 matches
  • Allama Iqbal | Muhammad Iqbal 135,000 matches
  • Fatima Jinnah 25,300 matches
  • In contrast to all the foregoing, Aurangzeb neither gets many matches, nor has any institutions, roads, places, or organizations named after him, at least from this Google search: Aurangzeb Alamgir 99 matches. Only 99! If the number of Google matches is a linear measure of importance in Pakistan, then Fatima Jinnah is over 250 times as important as Aurangzeb. Sir Syed is over 1700 times as important. In conclusion, Aurangzeb is insignificant, as far as Pakistani nationalism is concerned. AmeriDesi 06:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
That is very intresting and you may even be right. However, this is all based on research that you conducted, making it WP:OR and so not suitable for inclusion on wikipedia.However, the claim that Aurangzeb is revered is also unsourced so it would not be so bad to get rid of it per WP:Reliable Sources. You might also want to raise this issue in Aurangzeb article. Also, the claim of Tipu Sultan being revered in Pakistan claimed above (not by Ameridesi) is unsourced and highly unlikely (given that Tipu had nothing to do with the area presently known as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan).Hkelkar 06:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Just want to point out that I did not claim anything about Tipu Sultan. It was just a observational comparison of Tipu Sultan to Aurangzeb. I grew up reading about heroism of Tipu Sultan in elementry school while studying virtually nothing about Aurangzeb. All of those text books were compiled and printed by Federal Government of Pakistan. Pakistan Television even produced a long drama seriel about the life of Tipu Sultan but never produced any such notable production about Aurangzeb. In addition, I strongly agree with Ameridesi. Szhaider 19:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Plus, the assumption that "the number of Google matches is a linear measure of importance in Pakistan" is highly dubious as Pakistan is a developing country and not all imformation concerning it is readily available on the internet (though a lot of it is coming up over time).The internet only represents a small segment of Pakistan's population that is urban and cosmopolitan (same with India also, though India does have the world's largest urban class so that has to be considered) and opinions of Pakistan's non-internet using population in tribal areas, NWFP, Balochistan (outside of perhaps Quetta), undeveloped Sindh etc. can be obtained only from anthropological and other scholarly sources (books, journals etc.) and more research needs to be done regarding Auragnzeb's precise position in the Pakistani mind set. Until then, however, removing the Aurangzeb stuff is not unwarranted.Hkelkar 06:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
In addition, the assumption of linearity, not being in conformity with Occam's Razor of minimal assumptions, has to be substantiated with data.The assumption is illogical, though not necessarily unreasonable.

The # of matches does suggest SOME importance to Aurangzeb, although his importance to Pakistani Nationalism is dubious unless explicitly sourced. On that note, I agree with you.Hkelkar 06:31, 4 October 2006 (UTA)


Although the article mentions the atrocities perpetrated by Aurangzeb against Hindus and Sikhs in great detail, it is in dire need of a falsifiable proof (source, etc) to show that his conduct is (or had been) a guiding light or source of inspiration for Pakistani nationalists. As a Pakistani born and bred in Pakistan, schooled in institutions where syllabus was approved by the Federal Government, and as a person who considers himself and his circle of acquaintances fairly 'nationlistic', I would second SZHAIDER in his/her observation that Tipu Sultan plays a greater role in inspiring Pakistani Nationalism than Aurangzeb. Yes Aurangzeb IS respected and might even be revered in some cases, but not because of his brutal persecution of Sikhs and Hindus, but because he is convinietly portrayed as an emperor who lived a simple life and made his living by selling prayper caps. Until a body of work is cited that quantifies the degree of reverance of Aurangzeb among Pakistani Nationalist, I am of the opinion that mentioning him as a guiding light for Pakistani Nationlists is more of a dishonest attempt to state that for a Pakistani to be nationalist, it is a necessary requirement to not just condone, but to hold in high esteem the tactics used by Aurangzeb to supress non-muslim communities of the Sub-Continent. Regars, Salman Naseer--203.81.224.108 21:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking

Pakistan beating India in war is laughable. The section is also POV and unsourced, leaving it ripe for change.Bakaman Bakatalk 04:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Do not vandalise the article, read wikipedia rules and regulations and discuss changes here before making them to the article.

thanks.

S Seagal 04:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal

Which I didnt I commented it out

Bakaman Bakatalk 04:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The entire section was laughably unsourced, falsely sourced, and OR in the extreme. Per wikipedia policy all unsourced statements may be summarily removed. Read WP:Reliable sources & WP:NORHkelkar 04:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all Im the author of this article, it was me who started writing it, that aside the claims in the new sections are not unsourced but are confirmed by the relevant main articles, namely the pakistan army, pakistan airforce, and pakistan navy articles.

I see Hkelkar has vandalized the article and deleted the sections, You just undid alot of work, Besides im starting to sense alot of double standards here compared to the Indian nationalism article, the military achievements are also unsourced there, should we remove them also?

Im adding the relevant sections back which were vandalized by Hkelkar, Please also refrain from sending me personal insulting messages.

Thanks S Seagal 04:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal

Nope. they are all sourced there. We read books.Hkelkar 04:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If the Military section is unsourced (which most of it is not), why is the "Nationalism and politics" section also removed?

  • The Nationalism and politics section should be re-added
  • The military achievements unsourced claims section should be taken and discussed point by point
  • The images of both Jinnah and the troops on Siachen should also be re-added as there is no copyright violations
  • Also the sourced claims in the military sections should be re-added.

Blank the section but do not delete it as you have done.

thanks

S Seagal 05:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal

Yes there is a copyvio in the image. the image is sourced from pakistandefense.com and they have a strict copyright policy. The stated copyright is false (I have provided evidence on the image page)
I'll look at the nationalism and politica section. If what you say is true then I will re-add it personally. Don;t worry.Hkelkar 05:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Plus, not a single claim in the military part is sourced. the rediff article is a bogus source and the information is not in citation given.Hkelkar 05:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I kept the nationalism and politics part as that seems ok (though I have to investigate it point by point in detail). The military part is largely unsourced, though the war on terror bit may be ok. Plus, to claim that the 1971 war saw a Pakistani victory is absurd, particularly when 93000 Pakistani soldiers surrendered to India and Pakistan lost a large part of it's territory to an independent nation.Hkelkar 05:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


S Seagal you don;t own any of the articles on wikipedia regardless of whether you started it or not. See WP:OWN.Hkelkar 05:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The MM ALAM Is sourced, lets add that back immediately.

  • The INS Kukri was sunk by PNS Hangoor making it the first surface ship to be sunk by submarine post world war 2 You can find the source from Bharat-Rakshak or anywhere else on the net.

infact its also mention on wikipedia itself namely here: INS_Khukri

Lets get these two back into the article immediately and we can take the rest one at time.

thanks

S Seagal 05:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal

Well the article got protected. Looks like there is a "temporary ceasefire", just like Kashmir, eh ^_^ ?Hkelkar 05:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll check the source after dinner, then let's create a section here where we'll decide which stuff to put back in. Right now, the article is protected bcoz of our edit-warring and there is little that either of us can do about that (just like Kashmir ^_^).Hkelkar 05:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok. So you're telling me that the only sourced claim to Pakistan's glorious Military Nationalism is an obscure incident involving a relic submarine sinking an old battleaxe of a frigate of the Indian Navy that would have been scrapped anyway? Come on! India should THANK Pakistan for sinking that old bolt-bucket of a ship and saving us the money that we'd have to spend decommissioning it. Were you able to sink any REAL ships? Want to know how many Pakistani ships India sank in 1971? The INS Nipat, INS Nirghat and INS Veer sank the the PNS Venus Challenger off the coast of Karachi. Plus, the PNS Khaibar, the PNS Shah-Jahan were also owned by the Indian Navy on that day. They are presently cooling their heels at the bottom of the ol'Arabian Sea.Hkelkar 12:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

There is also huge POV and anti Sikh comments that need to go. Haphar 09:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed.Hkelkar 09:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pro India Bias Sneaking In

I dare say there is a pro india bias sneaking into the article, such bias must be not be allowed to influence the article in any shape or form. Its interesting that the ones most opposed to certain sections are Indians, and not any other nationality.

I should remind people that wikipedia is not a 'soapbox' or a platform for anyone to stand upon and lecture everyone else about how 'great' they are and how 'bad' everyone else maybe.

S Seagal 12:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal

Well

!pro-india != anti-India

The article had a factually itschy anti-India bias so one needs to keep that in mind. Plus,I dare say that making nationalist characterizations of users is a violation of WP:Civility so don't do it.Hkelkar 12:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

And where is the pro India bias ? The article has only anti Indian comments, the greatness of Pakistan is being shown in terms of how Hindu's and Sikh's were subjugated. So naturally the response is going to be from India. And absolutely right on the soapbox bit. So the lectures on how "great" Pakistan and Muslims are at the cost of India Hindu's and Sikh's should go by your own logic. Haphar 12:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

So let me give some examples of the anti India comments, can you please show where the pro India bias is ? -

“ Pakistani nationalists take great pride in Aurangzeb's other actions of Aurangzeb for which he his forever venerated by Pakistani nationalists include the edicts he enacted which forbade Hindus to display illuminations at Diwali festivals.[citation needed].Hindu religious fairs were outlawed in 1668. The following year, he prohibited construction of new Hindu temples as well as the repair of existing ones. In 1671 Aurangzeb issued an order that only Muslims could be landlords of crown lands. He ordered provincial Viceroys to dismiss all Hindu clerks. ”
“ Of particular pride to Pakistani nationalists[citation needed] is the damage Aurangzeb inflicted upon the restless Sikh community in particular his execution of Guru Teg Bahadur who was the ninth of the Ten Gurus of Sikhism. Guru Teg Bahadur's execution for his belligerence and total disregard for the edicts and laws passed by Aurangzeb proved to be forever a scar upon the faces of the Sikh community, All claims of Guru Teg Bahadur being sent from God for the troubled people of the land as an enlightened soul whose main purpose in life was the spiritual and moral well-being of the masses, were subsequently quashed as he was meekly executed. Pakistani nationalists take great pride in the disorientation caused to the Sikh religion due to Aurangzeb's execution of Guru Tegh Bahadar, the event is very significant in Sikhism the ripples caused by this event can still be felt in the Sikh community even today who feel they were robbed of a promised Guru. ”

<Added by User:Haphar>

While these need to be sourced, there is no problem in keeping them there if that is what Pakistani nationalists are proud of. This is an Encyclopaedia article and thus we should not try to enforce our own viewpoint on anything. In fact, I daresay that if nationalists are indeed proud of this, no-one would object to more details of how thousands of Hindus were slaughtered each year because of the Islamic invasions. Some communities in the Punjab region believed that such events in history equated to their personal holocaust, if this is an achievement in the eyes of nationalists then so be it. Of course the page is protected and I won't add anything until I get all you guys' opinions. I don't believe there is an anti-Pakistani bias here, there is no bias, this page just lists things that the Pakistani community are proud of. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 07:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
There is a lot of POV and not fact in these statements- Let me show a few examples- Guru Teg Bahadur's execution for his belligerence and total disregard for the edicts and laws passed by Aurangzeb "proved to be forever a scar upon the faces of the Sikh community]], All claims of Guru Teg Bahadur being sent from God for the troubled people of the land as an enlightened soul whose main purpose in life was the spiritual and moral well-being of the masses, were subsequently quashed as he was meekly executed]]. Pakistani nationalists take great pride in the disorientation caused to the Sikh religion due to Aurangzeb's execution of Guru Tegh Bahadar, the event is very significant in Sikhism [[the ripples caused by this event can still be felt in the Sikh community even today who feel they were robbed of a promised Guru."
Without going in for the references and fatuality of these statements- they are POV and need to be removed whether someone feels proud of it or not. Haphar 08:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree they need to be reworded, but if people feel proud of executing religious figures then so be it. However, at present the article makes it look like Sikhism died as a religion because of Aurangzeb's actions. Especially the line All claims of Guru Teg Bahadur being sent from God for the troubled people of the land as an enlightened soul whose main purpose in life was the spiritual and moral well-being of the masses, were subsequently quashed as he was meekly executed. That needs to be changed. Btw, please refrain from creating redlinks for emphasis, many of us have popups and while we are reading the redlinks can get annoying. Try this Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 08:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes but can the Pakistani editors SOURCE the claim that Pakistanis feel "pride" at the genocides of the Muslims against Hindus and Sikhs?If sources can be provided to that effect then well and good.Hkelkar 09:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I mean, if it were true that Pakistanis are that bloody minded then it should be sourced accordingly. It would scare the living drek out of me (or anyone), but it would be within the norms of wikipedia policy.Hkelkar 09:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
What Pakistani editor claimed that Pakistanis feel "pride" at genocide? Much of the material here is from S Seagal. In my opinion, it's a Pakistan-phobic individual's idea of an imagined Pakistani nationalism.AmeriDesi 16:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
In fact, I believe that S.Seagal has hinted on several occasions that he is Pakistani himself (he railed against ME for having an implicit anti-Pakistan bias, even though it was I who suggested that the raqdical opinions expressed in the article may not reflect the bulk of Pakistani people).Hkelkar 17:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, bear in mind that his assertions seemed to have some legitimacy, particularly in light of this:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA330082001?open&of=ENG-PAK

Though it is true that the inference is OR . However, there are several points that led me to basically believe in Seagal's assertions:
  1. A study by Pakistani Scholars of education Nayyar & Salim in 2003 found that Pakistani School textbooks contain statements that seek to create hate against Hindus. There was also an emphasis on Jihad, Shahadat, wars and military heroes. The study reported that the textbooks also had a lot of gender-biased stereotypes.They showcase the irreverence for the religious diversity in Pakistan, incitement to violence against minorities, encouragement of Jihad etc.
  1. As I have read (from Pakistani academic sources), Pakistani textbooks were relatively unbiased upto 1972, but were rewritten and completely altered under Bhutto's and especially under the charming whack job Zia-ul-Haq's rule.This is from a paper by Rosser, citing decidedly anti-Hindu statements in Pakistani school textbooks put there by ul-Haq and his little Sturmabteilung.
  1. Professors who have been critical of Pakistani politics or corruption have are sometimes discriminated against. Parvez Hoodbhoy, who was also a critic of Pakistani politics, had troubles leaving the country for a lecture in the Physics department at MIT, because he was denied a NOC (No Objection Certificate) necessary for travels abroad
  1. The Pakistani Curriculum document for classes K-V stated in 1995 that "at the completion of Class-V, the child should be able to", "Acknowledge and identify forces that may be working against Pakistan.","Demonstrate by actions a belief in the fear of Allah., "Make speeches on Jehad and Shahadat","Understand Hindu-Muslim differences and the resultant need for Pakistan.","India's evil designs against Pakistan.","Be safe from rumour mongers who spread false news" , and other such scary Orwellian stuff.

I'm not ashamed to admit it, I alomst pissed myself with mortal fear and my blood ran cold.Hkelkar 17:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  1. The Amnesty International reference you cited talks about Pakistani religious discrimination, not Pakistani nationalism, the relationship of which to religiosity is orthogonal and even antagonistic — The slogan of Pakistani nationalism is "Pakistan first", the slogan of the exploiters of religion is "Islam first". See "Pakistan first" vs. "Islam first".
  2. Regarding the textbooks: Zia-ul-Haq's rule was the height of the radical-Islamist period in Pakistan. Since then, there has been a resurgence of Pakistani nationalism.
  3. I've met Pervez Hoodbhoy, having attended a private dinner-party where he was the guest of honor. I don't understand the relevance to Pakistani nationalism.
  4. Here are some more examples of the context "Pakistan first" Pakistani nationalist slogan and its often-antagonistic relationship with religious internationalism: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] AmeriDesi 19:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the refs.Er, at first glance, your links to forums and newspapers seem to mention more about the beatific splendour of the "Grand Islamic Khilafat" and less about the concept of nativist Pakistani Views and attitudes (I will look in more detail over time). Some of the Dawn reports, while having a relatively decent journalistic quality, seem to chronicle the Fundamentalist beliefs without repudiating them at all. One forum post about preferring Pakistan over the mythical (basically Arab-run) Grand Khilafat is met with several posts supporting the Deobandi/Salafi/Wahhabi rhetoric over nativism, citing Islamic law (which does, point of fact, denounce nationalism as a form of idolatry and mandate the Khilafat, though not the liberal ie slightly less loopy Rashidun-esque one but the totalitarian heavy-on-the-beheadings Osmania-esque one). I agree that the refs allude to a concept of Pakistani Nationalism in contrast to the Pax al-Sharia but one needs a reliable work explicitly stating this conflict of ideologies else charges of WP:OR will run amok like the resurrected ghost of Mahmud al-Ghazni himself.Based on your refs, I think that there is a good chance that such an explicit mention has been made and I think if you look hard enough you will find it. Good luckHkelkar 19:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested revisions

I would suggest the following structure for the article:

  • The prevalence and intensity of Pakistani nationalism, or the lack of the same.
    • Objective data from surveys and polls.
    • Contrast with the ideology of internationalist Islamism — that is, the ideology that says that believers cannot be discriminated/divided by national borders, which are artificial and transient.
  • Heroes
    • National Heroes (Jinnah, Iqbal, Sir Syed, etc.)
    • Sufi Heroes
  • Origins, beliefs, and nature of the nation.
    • The heroism of the struggle for nationhood.
    • Diversity of ancestral origin — most Pakistanis claim ancestry from somewhere else — whether their ancestors were immigrants, traders, adventurers, sufi saints, or warriors. Examples: the Pashtun origin-myth is that they are descended from a Jewish chieftain who converted to Islam (see Qais Abdur Rashid). The Baluchis likewise say that they came from Iran/Central Asia. The Punjabis mostly believe themselves to be the descendents of ancient Hindu-Aryan invaders (see Rajput, Jat, Gujjar, etc.) Some tribes in the NWFP believe that they are the descendents of Alexander's soldiers. In urban Sindh, we have the Muhajirs ("muhajir" means immigrant). In summary, it can be said that many Pakistanis take pride in being ultimately from elsewhere. This is similar in some respects to the American pride in being "a nation of immigrants". We are a mixture of many people. Related to this identification with outsiders is the ideal of hospitality to travelers from afar — the "musafirkhana" tradition.
    • Pakistan as a natural geographical entity — a result of geographical barriers. Pakistan has the ocean to the south. It is separated from China by the mountains to the north. It's separated from India by the Great Indian Desert to the east/southeast, and the Rann of Kutch to the south/southeast. It's separated from Iran by the western Baluchistan high desert, an expanse so arid and harsh that both Alexander, and Darius before him, each lost nearly a whole army trying to cross it. As a result of this geographical separation, Pakistan sees itself as somewhat separate from Iran, Central Asia, and India.AmeriDesi 16:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
A very good suggestion. A few factual corrections:
  1. The Arabian Sea is not an Ocean (Maybe an extension of an ocean).India has an Ocean to the South (just about). Pakistan has a sea to the South.
  2. Neutrality is needed wrt Sufis. Many non-Sufi Muslims (especially in Pakistan) regard Sufis as Heretics and that needs mentioning.
  3. The anti-Mujahir riots need brief mentioning too (the fact that they were pejoratively called "Bhaiyya" etc.), motivated by Pakistni Nationalism
  4. Also need to mention Deobandi interpretation of Islam and it's role in ethnic Pukhtun nationalism.Deobandism advocates for the resurrection of the Khilafat al-Osmania so it is in contrast to your concept of nationalism above.
  5. Similarly, Nawab Akbar Bugti and ethnic Balochi nationalism needs to be expanded, together with the separatist movement there.
  6. You forgot about the Ahmaddiyas. Don't like 'em or what?
  7. You forgot about the Khyber Pass in your "Geography bit" and the fact that a majority of your "Musaafirs" [ahem: Aakramani :ahem] came through there.
  8. Also need to mention the Peshawar Jews and why nationalism forced them out of Pakistan.
  9. Aryan invasion theory must be listed as largely thrown out in favor of the Aryan migration theory
  10. Need to mention connections between the Pukhtun and the YuezhiHkelkar 17:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


  1. According to the dictionary, the primary meaning of "the ocean" (as opposed to an "Ocean") refers to "The entire body of salt water that covers more than 70 percent of the earth's surface". The seven "Oceans" are part of the ocean, as are Seas such as the Arabian Sea. If you go south from the Pakistani coast, the body of water in which you will find yourself is the ocean, the vast interconnected body of salt water that covers most of the Earth. The ocean is a natural entity, whereas the "Oceans" are labelled bodies of water with somewhat arbitrary boundaries.
  2. As regards Sufi saints, they are celebrated not only in Pakistani textbooks, but also in popular Pakistani songs and music. Sufi music, including Qawwali, is very much a part of Pakistani culture, and is the genre of some of its most popular musicians such as Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan and Junoon. If there are Pakistanis who are so anti-sufi that they are against the great Sufi saints, they are probably religious anti-nationalists, not "Pakistan first" nationalists.
  3. I'm a Muhajir. I can tell you that among the major ethnic groups, I feel that Pakistani nationalism is strongest in the Muhajirs. The Muhajirs chose to come to Pakistan, leaving their homes, neighborhoods, and jobs, essentially sacrificing all they had in India, voluntarily risking it all to make a new life in a fledgling country. Muhajirs have a higher literacy rate, and a higher average income than any other major ethnic group in Pakistan. The districts where Muhajirs live are some of the most developed in Pakistan. What is the relevance of a few scattered riots? Most large countries have riots now and then. I also disagree that Pakistani nationalism motivated the riots.
  4. Oversimplification/overgeneralization regarding the "Deobandis". Most Islamist internationalists, not just "Deobandis", probably favor, at least rhetorically, the resurrection of some kind of Caliphate. Castles in the air at this point. The Pakhtun-nationalist groups, such as the ANP, are opposed to "Deobandi" parties such as the JUI. This is consistent with the general pattern: religious internationalism is orthogonal or antagonistic to the "Pakistan first" nationalists, a point worth mentioning in the article.
  5. This is an article about Pakistani nationalism. Have a separate article on Baluch nationalism if you like and link to it.
  6. The Ahmadiyyas I've met have mostly been strong Pakistani nationalists — they're naturally opposed to the narrow anti-nationalist religious bigots who have exploited religion to marginalize them. An example of a Pakistani-nationalist Ahmadiyya hero is Abdus Salam, who I've also met.
  7. Aakramani? What's that? The Khyber pass is a pass through a high mountain range, which also forms a natural barrier along part of the Afghan-Pakistan border.
  8. Nationalism didn't force any Jews out of Pakistan, to my knowledge. The threat of religious bigotry might have.
  9. If you'll look at what I actually wrote, I said that "Punjabis mostly believe themselves to be the descendents of ancient Hindu-Aryan invaders." The truth of the AIT is a different issue not much discussed in Pakistan. When we say they believe in the AIT, we're talking about ideology and self-image here. But suppose the AIT is disproved in favor of the AMT, I imagine most Punjabis would still consider their ancestors to be of external origin.
  10. Connections between the Pakhtun and the Yuezhi: the Pakhtuns may or may not have a significant Yuezhi ancestry. This is not about the actual ancestry of the Pakhtuns, but their own story about their ancestry, and how that relates to the ideology of Pakistani nationalism. The salient idea is that, like most Pakistanis, they say they came from elsewhere.
Have I addressed your concerns? AmeriDesi 23:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Somewhat. Though bear in mind that there is a clear difference between your anecdotal statements and sourced facts. The latter is permissible on wikipedia articles, the former is not. I understand the concept of Pakistani Nationalism and the concept of it's orthogonality to Islamofascism.What I do contest are the relevance of the sources cited to bolster the idea which must be explicitly mentioned by a third party source to be included in the article.I do not feel that this has been achieved yet, though such a source probably does exist and one needs but to find it.
Further, the undeniable fact is that there is a correlation between religiosity and nationalism in Pakistan (though you are correct in identifying the dynamic of the relationship as a very complex one).Per precedent in Indian Muslim Nationalism, one needs to discuss the relationship between the the two in the article, or in a separate article and summarized/linked here. Whatever's your pleasure.Hkelkar 07:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey Abdus Salaam was an Ahmadiyya? didn;t know that.If that is so then he is a good example.Hkelkar 11:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OIT

It says that Pakistani nationalists believe that Pakistan is the cradle of civilization. So do they support the Out of India theory? Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 04:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually you might call it 'out of Pakistan theory', Since those regions of India are now Pakistan.

Maybe we should move that article?

S Seagal 04:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal

Err...no, in case you didn't notice, India is a region as well as a nation. The Indian subcontinent...and another thing you may not have noticed, Pakistan didn't exist from 5000 - 1000 BC, neither did Islamic teachings exist in the region (which is what one could use to define the region, a majority Muslim population). It talks of a Vedic region, Vedic = roots of Hinduism and is thus attributed to the land of the Hindus: Hindustan. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 01:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
It is not our role to do original research, scholars call it the Out of India theory, not the Out of Pakistan theory, therefore we must call it what the scholars call it. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 02:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggest a new article

Is it safe to create a new article entitled List of mausoleums and shrines in Pakistan and linking to that article along with a brief paragraph on the article. The current list, with all its subsections, just doesn't fit in the article. It's sort of like when Indian cricket team records were all listed in subsections of Indian cricket team, it just doesn't seem right. I can easily carry out the move, but don't want to start a revert war, so am inviting discussion first. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 06:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt this is going to cause too much controversy, the list just doesn't fit here. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 22:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confused

Is this about Indian Muslim nationalism or Pakistani nationalism. Mention of Sikhs and Hindus living in the Pakistan region before Partition is scarce while mention of Muslims living well inside India is often made. Or is Pakistan characterised by a Muslim presence in India, in which case the Indus Valley is a dodgy source for Pakistani nationalism. One can't stop nationalists from being proud of things, but I'm just wondering what's going on with this article. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 07:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The focus of this article

I feel like I'm talking to myself but the focus of this article is nationalism in Pakistan, not the history of Pakistan. Thus we should talk about important nationalistic events and how they affected nationalism. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 23:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wars of liberation, salvation and civilization

This is a pretty dreadful article - and the section heading above is a good example of the sort of biased and triumphalist language used throughout. It is poorly written and not properly referenced. Obviously an article on "Pakistani Nationalism" has to describe such nationalism's founding myths and beliefs, but a properly objective and critical approach needs to be taken to these. To describe the various Islamic conquests of Northern India as "Wars of liberation, salvation and civilization" without any qualifiers or context is deliberately provocative and unacceptable on wikipedia. Sikandarji 10:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foriegn Admiration

"This admiration outside of Pakistan's borders acts as a source of nationalist sentiment for Pakistani nationals."

I am a little curious, how foriegn admiration can act as a nationalist sentiment. --NRS | T/M\B 05:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It was more like an opinion than a sourced fact. I've removed it since it has stood for quite sometime without any source. Idleguy 05:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panjabi Nationalism

This article is a load of bullsh*t and could only have been written by a sneaky Panjabi. There is no such thing as a Pakistani civilization, lol, Pakistan has existed only since 1947 before that you Panjabis and Sindhis were Indians and were worshipping cows and stone idols. May Allah bless the Baloch and free Balochistan.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.15.227.120 (talk • contribs) .

See racism.Bakaman Bakatalk 16:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

--Sindhis and Punjabis were hindus before 1947? Buddy, I think you are out of your mind. I am a Sindhi and countless generations of my family have been Sunni Muslim Alhamdolillah. Go make wudu so you can wash yourself of the anger sitting in you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mik357 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Siddiqui's version

Siddiqui's version is the most balanced version. Please stop reverting it. Aurangzeb's secion is totally made up and he is hardly known in Pakistan. The only thing Pakistani's know about him is that he was one of Mughal emperors. He is no hero in Pakistan neither he is anythink even close to ideal. Before Siddiqui's version, entire article was like a rant by some obsessivly anti-Pakistan fanatic. Szhaider 19:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Get over your accusations of Anti-Pakistani Hindu bias. Who added most of this stuff? S Seagal, who later went on to claim that Pakistan won all wars it fought with India apart from 71. He's Anti-Indian if anything. If Siddiqui has a different opinion of Pakistani nationalism than so be it, but his accusations of Hindu fanaticist bias is unnerving. Anyway, that version is not NPOV, I am reverting. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 22:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
And in relation to your other blankings of paragraphs? Do you deny that Jinnah was Pakistani nationalist, do you deny that his followers were Pakistani nationalist. There acts in their quest for an independent Pakistan were based on nationalism for a nation which was on the verge of being created. Also, do you deny there is ethnic nationalist in Pakistan? If all other nationalism pages have such sections than why blank Pakistan's paragraph. Also note that Jinnah was not key architect of independence, that was Gandhi, he was the key architect of Partition, which was after Britain declared their intentions of quitting India. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 22:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, please see above to see how Indian users were trying to remove the Aurangzeb stuff as it was racist, but other users wished the stuff to remain there until I and some other users simply accepted that this must be nationalism. I suggest you go to S Seagal and talk to him instead of talking about Hindu bias in the article. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 22:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aurangzeb

There is not facts/external supports to the claims that Aurangzeb "damaged" Sikhism by his execution of Guru Teg Bahadur. There is a counter point of view that it galvanised what was until then a peaceful sect to become a miltary sect that caused more damage to the Mughals. Nor is there any corrobaration of the claim that it scarred the Sikh's. There can be pride over this, but the hperbole must be supported by facts. Haphar 08:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic Invasion

This heading must be converted to Muslim Invasion as Isalam as relegion is not an invader islam has just given righ of defence. Abulfazl 09:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A suggestion: My take on application of WP:NPOV on this article

This article is a huge mess. Even Pakistani editors have added some material which I consider simply unbelievable. I have a suggestion. Why don't we delete entire article and rewrite it with only those points which are strictly verifiable and uncotrovercial facts. You might not like it but think about it.

PS: In my opinion, "Pakistani nationalism" is a phenomenon which cannot be strictly defined, as virtually every Pakistani has different factors on which he/she bases his/her personal "Pakistani nationalism". That is why I think only that material should be on this page which is verifiable for majority of Pakistanis.

Szhaider 02:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistan movement section text

I must say, that this section of the article tends to give a partisan and one-sided view on stressing solely on the excesses carried out by many pro-Pakistan armed Muslims on the Hindus of what is now Pakistan. However it also almost blatantly ignores the violence Muslim centres in northern India and Punjab faced from Hindu/Sikh mobs faced which were as gruesome, if not even more widespread, than the so-called "ethnic cleansing" of Hindus in what is now Pakistan. Bear in mind, more Muslims (including my own family) had to migrate to Pakistan fearing for their lives than the Hindus and Sikhs of Pakistani Punjab that ended up migrating to India.Suprah™ 23:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)