Very interesting videos and subsequent discussions. I would also like to make some comments on some of the issues that were discussed:
1) ANP: There is no doubt that ANP was not really in favor of Pakistan they actually wanted a separate country or they wanted to be with Afghanistan. They also had close relations with congress and they also asked for a referendum in NWFP. But the question we need to ask is that why ANP has won all these seats. Have we alienated pashtoons? The second important thing that I want to point out is that all religious parties were also against the creation of Pakistan, they also had relations with congress and were against Muslim League as in their opinion Quaid-e-Azam was not a good muslim. So should we also declare these parties as un-Pakistani and ban them or chastise them?
2) Second quesion is the question of Urdu as our national language and the comments by an ANP leader about Urdu. Here are some facts, at the creation of Pakistan almost 52% people spoke Bengali, 24% Punjabi, 19% Sindhi & Balauchi, and only 5% Urdu. My question for all of you is that what was the rationale behind making Urdu as our national language when it only represented 5% of Pakistanis, sure does not seem democratic to me. On the other hand it is neither an intenational language, so why was it kept. Are there no examples of countries with more than one language? I know of at least one example Belgium. This country is smaller in size than Punjab and has three national languages i.e. French, German & Dutch. All official documents are translated in all three languages.
Secondly, are there no examples close to us because Belgium though one united country with three official languages is in Europe. We might find it difficult to digest but India has had a better solution then us. They have English as an official language and the their regional languages are compulsory and if you want to learn Hindi you can do that too. The point is that why should Sindhis, Baluschis, Pashtoons, and Punjabis speak a different language when they already have their own ancient, rich languages. How and when did Urdu got synonymous with being a muslim in the Sub-continent? If you believe that Urdu is synonymous with being a muslim then essentially you are saying that Punjabis, Sindhis, Pashtoons, and Baluchis who do not speak Urdu are not muslims or not patriotic Pakistanis.
3) Last point is about Musharraf being a better leader than the present lot of leaders. First of all he was not a leader, he was an army general who usurped power and kept our country under subjugation for 10 years. Second, he was just as mush a puppet of US as the present lot of leaders is. Third, the army itself is the main cause of pretty much all the ills that we have right now, lets not forget that we have had almost 35 years of dictatorships. These 35years constitute direct military rule the rest of the 30 years or so come under the indirect military rule which was made possible by mutilating the Pakistani constitution and puttng puppet presidents on our heads to dissolve the assembly at the military's commands. For God,s sake lets not think like subjugated and broken people because when we admit that a dictator was better than any one else then we are actually admitting that we as the people of Pakistan deserve to be exploited, subjugated, and supressed. To me this sounds very defeatist. I am not saying that the current leaders great or better than anyone. What I am saying is that all of these leaders are just the same. They ave taken and will keep on taking turns to loot our country. Our only solution i to stand up for our rights, to let them know that if they want to stay in power then they will have serve us. Nobody is going to come and give us a shoulder to cry on, we need to assert ourselves.
I hope I have not injure anybody's sensibilities but I do believe that as a nation we really need to reassess our stance and the way we look at issues that hinder our progress.
