Don't take it personal. We are all students of history. I don't assert to be the perfect in history. But i studied it rationally. Jinnah and Iqbal are my leaders. I accepted their greatness not because i am a Muslim, But because they were right at the time. Any how lets come toward discussion.

I have admitted this before that their were no political unity. But according to their culture, religion and historical experiences they were knitted in the fabric of nationalism. You didn't understand my point. I am here discussing the Pakistan ideology as put forward by Iqbal. The premises he used are my focus. Nation as defined by the western scholars is another type of racialism.
Iqbal's concept of NATION, CULTURE and RELIGION were totally different as we consider them today. I denied the both versions ORTHODOX ISLAMIC and SO CALLED "LIBERAL" WESTERN of this concept. According to Iqbal culture is religious thoughts of Muslims.Reference: (A social analysis of Muslim nation) : Iqbal Address 1912....(The Spirit of Muslim Culture): Reconstruction of religious thoughts in Islam.
Although politically scattered but culturally united that was my point.

2ndly you will also accept this that the Muslim masses of Indo Pak had same historical experiences.All Muslims of the subcontinent have faced same historical facts from the advent of Babur to Britishers.These were the historical experiences that made the political unification of them possible.

You are right their heroes were different. But dear it was because of Monarchs and Sultans. If they could be politically united their heroes will also be same. Languages were also many but 2 major languages were urdu and hindi. Local culture is every where different it was not only in Muslims of Indo Pak. In china more than 600 cultural groups are present but they have one national identity Red China. Same was in Hindustan despite the presence of local culture Punjabi, Sindhi, Balochi, Bengali and pathans they were Muslims.

Why Bengal separated its something different. I have told before that the dream of Iqbal didn't become reality.
Separation of Bengal is very simple to understand.A true Ideology cannot glue the oppressors and oppressed together. Exploitation under the curtain of PAKISTAN IDEOLOGY could never prevent fall of Dhaka. Same game is being played in Baluchistan these days. Its not Pakistan Ideology and it was not the dream of Iqbal.

Regards

could you please elaborate further with certain examples as to what u mean by

"abolished structural feudalism only,theoratical n normative feudalism,no one could ever get rid f it anywhere! "

because only structural feudalism has been most powerful since the death of anarchy.if u mean Theoretic feudalism there in your quote, well u cannot eliminate anything based on a certain theory? Can You? and by normative if u mean primitive/orthodox(normative again is a very broad word) in many countries it has been abolished and it does not exist anymore.

__________________
“Never oppress the one who has no-one but Allah to listen to his/her cries.”Imam syed ZainulAbideen(A.S)

feudalism when taken as a relative term is much more than mere a system ascribed to rural areas or the like.it is a behaviour,an assumed idealogy.extending its meanings it is a particular state f mind,a tndency f looking down upon others,depriving others f any right that stands in way f ones vested interests,a mentality f the imperialist.we dnt see any part f any society free from it.

__________________
Stop counting your problems rather raise for their solution and BEGIN JIHAD.

you have the right to reserve your opinion but feudalism is not what u described there...feudalism and haughtiness are two different things and should not be confused.Haughtiness was there even before the advent of feudalism and has been there since the birth of mankind. The system of law and order is not based on that,it comes under moral values not the jurisdiction. For example, if a white person looks down upon a black person or a black person looks down upon a white person,or a rich person looks down upon a poor person, you cannot say that they are 'feudals' .Feudalism on the other hand was a structural pyramid which was based on volunteerism(we are taught it was based on coercion...coercion came afterward).Feudalism came into existence after the end of anarchy at the end of dark ages. The attitude of looking down upon others is something which anyone can do, you do not have to be a lord or vassal to do so. Whereby in each and every definition of feudalism that I have came across , some sort of political tyranny is described.Tyranny is different from what one person thinks of another.In majority of European literary circles,this word(feudalism) is not even used but the debate on its definition is still going on. That debate again hovers around just the structure of the royalty in middle ages or after the Norman conquest. Feudalism was technically there long before it was started.



In Indian subcontinent feudalism is the not the legacy of British settlers which They just propagated it.The Zamindari System is often referred to as a feudal-like system. Originally the Zamindari System was introduced in the pre-colonial period to collect taxes from peasants, and it continued during colonial British rule. After independence Zamindari was abolished in India and East Pakistan (present day Bangladesh), but it is still present today in Pakistan. In modern times historians have become very reluctant to classify other societies into European models and today it is rare for Zamindari to be described as feudal by academics; it still done in popular usage, however, but only for pejorative reasons to express disfavor, typically by critics of the Zamindari system.

ndian Feudalism is a book by Indian professor Ram Sharan Sharma. The book analyses the practice of land grants, which became considerable in the Gupta period and widespread in the post-Gupta period. It shows how this led to the emergence of a class of landlords, endowed with fiscal and administrative rights superimposed upon a class of peasantry which was deprived of communal agrarian rights.

Owing to the range of meanings they have, feudalism and related terms should be approached and used with considerable care. A circumspect historian like Fernand Braudel puts feudalism in quotes when applying it in wider social and economic contexts, such as "the seventeenth century, when much of America was being 'feudalized' as the great haciendas appeared" (The Perspective of the World, 1984, p. 403).

Medieval societies never described themselves as feudal.Popular parlance generally uses the term either for all voluntary or customary bonds in medieval society or for a social order in which civil and military power is exercised under private contractual arrangements. However, feudal is best used only to denote the voluntary, personal undertakings binding lords and free men to protection in return for support which characterized the administrative and military order.


for further reading

http://books.google.com/books?id=LOs...age&q=&f=false

What were the conditions regarding human rights in Tibet before democratic reform?(by Robert Barnett)

__________________
“Never oppress the one who has no-one but Allah to listen to his/her cries.”Imam syed ZainulAbideen(A.S)

Well, in my personal opinion the demand for Pakistan had major reasons of political, economic, social & cultural. Not the religion alone.

It is very much true that the Muslims & Hindus were 2 different civilizations. Civilization include a lot of factors, out of which religion is just one of them, not the only one. But the numeral majority, attitude & atrocities of Hindus was the real problems.

I would like to quote Sir Razi Abidi's words:
"Most the candidates in their papers use the word Islamic states. In reality there is no state in the world that is Islamic, all are Muslim states. Religion is a very personal thing. Our knowledge about the religion is superficial & all we know are the loud sermons of medieval scholars (Mullahs)."

I want to ask the question which also appeared in 2007 Pak Affairs paper:
Q. Elucidate Ideology of Pakistan. What are the reasons which contributed for the development of two-nation-theory? Is two-nation-theory relevant after the fall of Dacca? Discuss.

I'm unable to answer the part of the question "Is two-nation-theory relevant after the fall of Dacca".
If u think that religion was the binding force then y it seriously fell during tragic separation of 1971. Here, the major concerns were again the same as pre-1947. For example:
1. Denying to grant Bengali language the status of national language (remember Hindi-Urdu controversy)
2. Abstaining the one-person one-vote (as the East Pak had population majority)
3. Concentration of political power with the West Pak.
4. Non-industrailisation of East Pak & using it as raw material provider.
5. Non-representation of Bangalis in country's main stream.
5. Military operation & indulgence of some army officials' activities like..... (u must be knowing them)

Apart from Indian provocative through Mukti Bahini y a new country was carved out despite of having the same religion?? Y religion could not make them consolidated.

if Bangladesh had been given autonomy it could have still survived as part of greater Pakistan. But we never learnt and are doing the same thing to people in NWFP and Balochistan,those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it.Thats it.

__________________
“Never oppress the one who has no-one but Allah to listen to his/her cries.”Imam syed ZainulAbideen(A.S)