Talk:Pakistan

History of Pakistan

It states that Pakistan is home to Indus valley civilization. It is true that most of Pakistan was covered by the Indus Valley Civilization. But it should be clearly noted that Indus Valley is part of the the history of the Indian Subcontinent and should not be made so that readers of the article thinking it is Pakistan's history alone. There are also sites in India also. We need to remember that Pakistan history is 60 years old and the Indian Subcontinent's history is over 5,000 years old.

Also I know there are some nationalist in this article that want to cancel Pakistan's history which is tied with India. I wrote that the region forming present day Pakistan was part of India under the political union known as the British Indian Empire is always erased. I want to know why? (Dewan S. Ahsan 14:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC))

No, you are the 'known nationalist' who keeps adding your 'POV', no Pakistan was never part of 'India' and it already includes the British Raj so why should it further include 'the political union called the 'Indian Empire', stop your constant disruptive edits, I am reverting to the earlier version, and considering your constant disruptive edits on most south Asia/ Pakistan related articles, I am going to ask an administrator to have you blocked if you continue, I am sure there is enough evidence to consider most of your edits Vandalism and you have been warned more than enough times by a large number of editors. Also can you not understand the basic idea of adding new sections/edits to the bottom of the Page? otherwise how will people know you have added a note? Khokhar (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Get the hell out...I have fixed soo many articles about South Asia. I dare you to block me! (Dewan S. Ahsan 16:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes your vulgar attitude is quite obtrusive, Keep it up and we'll see.Khokhar (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous! Pakistan is home of the Indus valley. Indus valley is what gives the identity to rest of subcontinent. Hence, that makes "India" a misnomer. Secondly, India was unified by the Mughal Empire and gave it an identity. Prior to that, it was made up of various states (Ever since Asoka). So I suggest, You take this whole "India discussion" out of here. Pakistan is the ancient India, but republic of India is a misnomer. By India , people today mean Republic of India (Bharat)

Besides, did I mention that Mehrgarh in Western Pakistan, is a predecessor to Indus Valley Civilization, and is tied with the neighbouring Iran, dating to 7500 years ago.

The people of Indus valley were Dravidian the people of what is now South India. So you are Ridiculous! Also Rakhigarhi in Haryana is as large of a site as Mahenjo daro! Also Lothal, Dholovira, Kalibangan are the oldest and largest sites of the Indus valley. Also the state of Gujarat has over 50 sites of the civilization same as Sindh. The information you have is old. do some research! (Dewan S. Ahsan 23:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC))

Besides did I mention the recent discovery of the Neolithic culture submerged in the Gulf of Khambat in India is older than Mehrgarh! (Dewan S. Ahsan 23:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC))

The article is about Pakistan, not Bharat. Secondly, there is no conclusive evidenced that IVC were dravidians.Anyway, Brahui (a subgroup of dravidians) who live in Baluchistan are usually associated as the decendents of IVC, but even that is inconclusive.

Well, then whine about Ruins of Khambat in India article, what are you doing here? I bet you have never even seen Indus with your eyes - So much for your indian nationalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.0.201 (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt whatsoever that the people of the Indus Valley Civilisation were Dravidians, so that argument is futile. Remember, pesent-day divisions like Baluchi, Pathan, etc did not exist around 3000BC. The people of our time are definitely NOT the people there at that time, because of tremendous migration patterns. In fact, as the article itself states, no area has had mor emigration than Punjab and nearby. I suggest the article be changed to reflect this. This is typical Pakistani nationalism and should not be tolerated by Wikipedia. AM93.97.66.210 (talk) 10:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Dewan357 has been reported Khokhar (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Anything that comes under the geographic domain of Pakistan, belongs to Pakistan, and people of Pakistan have every right to present it as theirs and ONLY THEIRS. --Hussain (talk) 23:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You're joking, right? "Anything that comes in the geographic domain of Pakistan"? Cos that IS funny. (DukeOfLancasterVI) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.66.210 (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

How is Pakistan in the middle east ?

I was wondering how pakistan is in the middle east? I thought it was only centrel Asia or South Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.84.93 (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Some users are using the new term Greater Middle East which Pakistan is in. However, Pakistan is also in South Asia. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 03:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The association is much older. When the term was first coined, the approaches to India were included in the Middle East, referring to most of what is today Pakistan. The western regions are Iranian-speaking and indistinguishable from Afghanisttan and southeastern Iran (Sistan and Baluchestan Province) and this was a consideration. Thus, as Pakistan is a country that is comprised of the eastern areas generally associated with Indian culture, the western areas have been geared more towards Central Asia & the Mideast. This does not preclude Pakistan being in South Asia as it can be included as part of other regions as well. The geographic designations are imperfect as countries like Turkey are generally included in both Europe and Asia (again using sometimes arbitrary criteria, but because one part is in Europe and the other in the Mideast). Afghanistan also gets variously defined in Central and/or South Asia as well as the Middle East. The overall association has more to do with Iran as opposed to the more distant Arabic-speaking world.Tombseye (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

So Iran is "middle east" and the countries right next to it (Afghanistan and Pakistan is "South Asia"......and here's another one......If Paksitan is part of the greater middle east, then why isn't India? Im not saying I want India to be title as a middle eastern country, im just saying some these things don't make sense. ARYAN818 (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

pakistan middle eastrn? no way!!!! westerners are ignorant. we are south asian. indians aren't only south asians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.203.224 (talk) 07:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

pakistanis are south asian, as much as some people LOVE to associate them with the Middle east. this greater middle east thing is nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.186.181 (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

biased paragraph in the military section

"Pakistan has been strongly criticized for its support of Islamic terrorism in neighboring India and Afghanistan."

firstly why is this allegation included in the pakistan secion at all, and for some reason put in the miltary section, and why is there no "alleged" preceding "support of islamic terrorism"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.45.67 (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

you see, it does support islamic terrorism, as much as you like to think it doesn't. Pakistan may claim that it isn't involved, but the day the islamic militants invaded, a few pakis got some medals. kind of funny huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.186.181 (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Official Language

As per the constitution of Pakistan, English is the official language of Pakistan. The information box incorrectly states Urdu to be the official language, whereas it is actually the national language (the constitution maintains a difference between these two terms). Please correct this error and give English it's due recognition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.246.34 (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It still hasnt been changed. English is the official language, not Urdu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.23.236 (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If one looks at the following URL http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/

the Constitution of Pakistan states ;

251. National language.

(1) The National language of Pakistan is Urdu, and arrangements shall be made for its :being used for official and other purposes within fifteen years from the commencing day.

(2) Subject to clause (1), the English language may be used for official purposes until :arrangements are made for its replacement by Urdu.

(3) Without prejudice to the status of the National language, a Provincial Assembly may :by law prescribe measures for the leaching, promotion and use of a Provincial language :in addition to the National language.

Eog1916 (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Location

I know that Pakistan wants to be an Arabic nation, but they are no located in SW Asia or even the middle-east, they are in South Asia along with the rest of their people - Indians. I know sometime people may throw them into a "greater mid-east" because they are Muslims and for political purposes, but they are in South Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.93.188 (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Pakistanis dont want to be Arab. We are Pakistanis and that is a fact. We are a non-Arab nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.236.91.3 (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

thats your opinion, maybe the rest of your people want to be included into the group —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.84.118 (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

NO thats YOUR opinion!!! Pakistanis are pakistanis, not remotely arabs or want to be arabs! Please get your facts straight! and do give a link to prove it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.228.85 (talk) 06:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong statistics for shias

I think some bastard mother fucker shia has wrote that Pakistan muslim population has 30 percent shia, this is the biggest bull shit of the world. The correct no of shias in pakistan is hardly 5 percent, I want to change this wrong number but someone has locked the page, please some patriotic Pakistani can change this shit wrong number of shias on this page, I will be very grateful to you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GSG Flash (talk • contribs)

First of all, watch your language, it only accentuates you as the uneducated barbarian that you are. Second, that figure you are talking about came from one of your rubbish anti-Shia ultra-Sunni nationalist websites (which I think should be revised as that website seems untrustworthy and is not objective). Third, learn how to use Wikipedia before clicking that edit button, or better yet don't click that edit button at all and save us our time and IQ points from reading your garbage of a message. --GSG Flash (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither the first edit, nor the second reply to it abusing the first editor is acceptable on wikipedia - I know because I have been subjected to similar on the British National Party talk page. However what is particularly strange is that both edits are from the same user. Chill out, brother.--Streona (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

First of my edits was me correcting the format of this page, second of my edits was my reply. I meant to do both in one edit but I hit the "save page" button a bit prematurely. Don't think anything of the two edits, you can compare them if you don't believe me for some reason. And yes I know my reply was not of proper etiquette but whatever, I don't that user deserves any proper etiquette. --GSG Flash (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Shia population is approximately 25-30% in Pakistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.6.199 (talk) 08:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Main map with article

Why is that map used? More precisely, why bother including disputed territories, particularly those that are under the direct control of another state? The map of the Taiwan article doesn't include claims on mainland China! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.142.5 (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

exactly! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.186.181 (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear State

There are only a handful of nations in the history of the world to possess nuclear armaments. Pakistan being a nuclear state is one of the key facts about this country. There are hundreds of other things listed in this article far less important than this.

Why no information?

Once again: Wikipedia... EPIC FAIL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.220.124 (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Its already in the third paragraph. Did you actually read? --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

A nucluer arsenal is a HUGE deal, with that, you have the power to kill millions, tell me about this instead of the flora and fauna —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.84.118 (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Population & Religion ?

Well, if i am only one who thinks that Population in Pakistan - 2008 estimate 165,900,000 &

Religion in Pakistan:
   * Islam 173,000,000 .
   * Hinduism 3,200,000 (1.85%)
   * Christianity 2,800,000 (1.6%)
   * Sikhs Around 20,000 (0.04%)

= 179+ million total

Does not add up similar number? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waffa (talk • contribs) 19:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Smaller Muslim population than India

Isn't it common knowledge that India has a larger Muslim population than Pakistan?? Furthermore, Bangladesh has a greater Muslim populations than Pakistan, so I am removing the comment about Pakistan coming in second place to Indonesia in Muslim population.Dogru144 (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Bangladesh has 89-90% muslims, whereas Pakistan has 98%+ muslims. So the number of muslims in Pakistan is higher (as the total populations are comparable). --Ragib (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No, wrong. This is why you need to be careful with that notion of common knowledge is.--Loodog (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Loodog, I assume you are replying to Dogru144 here, right? --Ragib (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

History

Just a note:

All of this Mohenjo-Daro Harrappa nonsense is India's history, not Pakistan's

Pakistan's history starts as soon as a separate state for muslims is proposed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.84.118 (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• In more than 7000 years of past history, India had note been a united country except only in three small periods. First was that of Ashoka (less than 50), second by Aurengzeb (Mughals) for not more than 90 years and the British (90 years). For other thousands of years of period India has been composed of sevral countries and states. So when we speak of Indian history, it is the history of a region and not a country. So the history of the area now called Pakistan is any thing related to the region called Pakistan now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.122.19.193 (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

you see this is about the indian culture. the pakis might claim the land, but it all has a long period of indian history, it was only 1400 years ago that islam was created. the country is only 60 years old, and you are contradicting yourself by saying that it is about a region, not a country. after all, the article is named "Pakistan" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.186.181 (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

A: What Indian culture are you talking about? An India without Indus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.2.69 (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Why "extremist Islamic militants" why not just " militants"

I dont see the objectivity here. How come we have Islamic Terrorism and Islamic Militancy while when a non Muslim commits the same acts his/her religion is not attached to his label.

Militants are just militants and terrorists are just terrorists. Can any one please correct this mistake in the military section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umair101 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Islamic militants because: (1) it's the accepted form in Europe, India, USA, etc. (2) The militants themselves say they are fighting for Allah (3) This is a global movement carried out by (nominal) Muslims, regardless of whether they are real Muslims for killing people or not. If Shiv Sena is Hindu militants... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.66.210 (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

link to persian article

the link to persian article is wrong. please correct it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.122.19.193 (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Education Section, 2nd Paragraph

This paragraph I'm assuming is supposed to talk about the British Education system (O and A Levels), so the first line that mentions them having a curriculum set by Muhammad is ridiculous. --Schajee (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Society and Culture, 2nd Paragraph

The sentence "However, majority of Pakistanis listen to Indian music produced by Bollywood and other Indian film industries" needs citation.

Besides the section lacks the mention of Pakistani pop and independant music industry which is a strong contender for being favored by the majority of Pakistanis in addition to being a significant export to Bollywood in the recent years, especially the work of Atif Aslam and Rahat Fateh Ali Khan.

thanks

--Ainakwalajin (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, reference 97 has been cited insufficiently, the cited is about the ban on Bollywood movies being lifted in 2008, while the citation uses it only to mention imposition of the ban in 1965.

--Ainakwalajin (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism

The New York Times reported that there are more terrorists per square mile in Pakistan than anywhere else in the world, but Pakistan isn't doing enough to rein in the terrorists (the Jamat-ud-Dawa chief being let off is an example), so I hope you guys can include that in the article. I'm not sure how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Jhingaadey (talk • contribs)

For information: The above edit was made by an IP sock of a banned editor. Verbal chat 12:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously dude, take your propaganda some where else —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.6.199 (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

its "Unity, Faith and Discipline" NOT "Unity, Discipline and Faith"

Hi.

I have in various places that the Motto Given by Quaid-e-Azam was actually "Unity, Faith and Discipline" NOT the "Unity, Discipline and Faith". Although its the sequence of word, but its very important that it MUST be written in the proper sequence as given by Father of the Nation Quaid-e-Azam.

direct quote in Etymology section

The etymology section implies that the quoted material is from the Now or Never pamphlet, but the words are not exactly from there. Either the quote should be introduced differently or the words of the pamphlet should be used/? Ed8r (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Highly Misleading

1) "In recent times, Pakistan has been called part of the New Middle East.": Thats a term created by Bush administration in reference to their own political handlings (In 2004).It also includes central Asian states and Turkey as "greater Middle East". This is purely a case of POV, and should not be mentioned in the starting paragraph. Its highly misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.6.199 (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Adbus Salaam

There is no mention of Salaam in the article, which is unfortunate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.6.129 (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sikhs as invaders/settlers in main section

The main section says the Sikhs were invaders/settlers, but in fact they were neither, as they mostly originated locally from parts of Punjab which are now in Pakistan and even had their first capital in Gujranwala before moving to Lahore, so in reality it's in in present day India that they could, largely, be considered invaders or settlers, I think it should be removed from the current section as it's not only misleading but false, however Sikhs should be mentioned as part of the empires that existed in the region. Any thoughts?

I agree, Sikhs are native to Pakistan, cannot be considered invasion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.6.202 (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with youre statement. you are free to change it. I have no objections Taeyebaar (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Improvement Suggestions

1. I want the article to mention more of our links to the Middle East and less with India. This is the perfect opening sentence from the on 09 May, 2009 below: Pakistan (Urdu: پاکستان Pākistān ), officially the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, is a South Asian country located in the mountainous region adjoining Central Asia and the Middle East.

2. Please remove the following statement of "In addition to the Indian independence movement (led by Mahatma Gandhi of the Indian National Congress)" --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Advil123 (talk • contribs)

Both of these suggestions are, unfortunately, very dubious. Pakistan was, and is a part of south asia, and hardly geographically located in the Middle east. It is a stretch of imagination to claim PK to be part of Middle east, or the imaginative term "Greater middle east". And there is no justification for #2. --Ragib (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually there is some merit in point 2, the article currently says "in addition to the Indian independence movement (led by Mahatma Gandhi of the Indian National Congress), the Pakistan Movement (led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah of the Muslim League) demanded an independent state for the majority Muslim populations of the eastern and western regions of British India. This could be taken, by the casual reader, to mean that League and Congress shared the viewpoint. Pahari Sahib 08:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree; Pakistanis physically have nothing in common with Indians than we have with Bengalis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Advil123 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone please fix these errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.141.53 (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL, what will you do next ... claim Arab or middle-eastern genetic lineage of Pakistanis? :) Or claim that the language spoken there is Arabic? :) Or that the whole of current day India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh were 3 components of British Raj ? :) Geographically, and Physically Pakistan has little to do with Middle East. --Ragib (talk) 07:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The two major languages of Pakistan - Punjabi and Sindhi - are both Aryan. The people are genetically the same as the Indians. The national language of Pakistan - Urdu - developed in the Gangetic plain and there as more Urdu speakers in India than in Pakistan itself. Pakistan's identity thus has a predominant "Indian" component, and ever since their secession from India, Pakistanis have been searching for an alternate identity, an identity completely different from their Indian origins. I think this is what results in their philia for the Arabs. Atin Bhattacharya (talk) 08:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan as nation developed with a blend of South Asian and Middle Eastern culture influences. There is no denying it. By the way, Arabic language is also spoken by a large group of Pakistanis as well (Majority of it, by Muslim purists and returning Gulf workers). I am amazed by the inferiority complex of some Indians and Bengalis, lol. GOD FORBID, that Pakistan has its own identity !!!