Talk:Pakistani nationalism

message: The Pakistan Movement head is completely one-sided point of view based and is a copy and paste from direct action day page.  Most of the sources are dubious and fail verification. It should be deleted. 76.206.4.198 (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Pakistan Movement

message: :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)
replies: text: Fair enough. Put them in.Hkelkar 19:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minorities

message: :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)
thread_title: Anglophobic POV

message: :Nothing on the nationalism of the Balochi or the Pushtu. Article has an ethnic Punjabi/Sindhi bias.Hkelkar 13:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Ethnic Nationalism in Pakistan

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Objective quantitative evidence

message: There is also huge POV and anti Sikh comments that need to go. Haphar 09:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.Hkelkar 09:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  OIT 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Suggest a new article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Confused 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The focus of this article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wars of liberation, salvation and civilization 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Foriegn Admiration 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Panjabi Nationalism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  [[User:Siddiqui|Siddiqui's]] version 

message: 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)
thread_title: Aurangzeb

message: 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)
thread_title:  Islamic Invasion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A suggestion: My take on application of [[WP:NPOV]] on this article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pakistan movement section text 

message: The image :Image:Pakistan Nuclear Test.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Pakistan Nuclear Test.jpg

message: I removed the  from the top of the article.  There are tags in the sections with questionable content.  If any other specific items need to be addressed please use  and  to identify the specific content that needs to be corrected, referenced or removed. Jeepday (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple tags

message: I added this because Pakistan was created after partition of India following 2 nation theory, if any one wants to revert, please discuss here.Ovsek (talk) 09:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold in editing. Don't worry for the reverts. You made a good contribution. Faizan 10:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, I have made a fix to the article. Faizan 10:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Partition Of British India