What is Pakistan?

source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PAK_orthographic.svg

The Indian Constitution begins with a fascinating sentence.

Article 1: India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.

Now, doesn’t it imply that there is also an “India” that is not Bharat?

As the word “India” refers to the land or lands around the River Indus, it then follows that a territory whose official name is the “Republic of India” should also contain the said river.

However, that is not the case. The mighty River Indus runs through the “Islamic Republic of Pakistan” rendering it more Indian than the one currently called the “Republic of India “.

Hence, I think the very first article of the Indian Constitution subtextually addresses this inconsistency. I am not sure the framers consciously took that step. Their intention was to introduce a term originating locally as the word “India” was how foreigners began referring the vast territory straddling between the Iranian plateau and the Gangetic plains.

So, firstly, Pakistan is an India that is not Bharat and that which contains the River Indus. It is the child of this ancient river which binds its constituent parts together.

Secondly, it is an acronym. P stands for Punjab, A for Afghania [the Pashtun lands in the North West], K for Kashmir, S for Sindh, and –tan for Baluchistan. Although it was added to make the pronunciation easy for the reader, the letter I can be taken as a representative of the word Indus.

Thirdly, the word “Pakistan” also signals towards the Persian/Farsi and Sanskrit heritage. “Pak” is a Persian word which means “pure”. It is cognate with the Sanskrit term “pavaka” (पावक). The other component, that is “-stan”, is a Persian suffix which means “place”, “abode”, “station”, etc. It is also cognate with the Sanskrit word “sthan” (स्थान).

Lastly, Pakistan can be seen as a protest against the notion that Delhi is the political and cultural centre of gravity of the region between the Khyber Pass and the Bay of Bengal. It is perhaps the most powerful centrifugal force that resists the gravitational pull that emanates from the centralisation tendencies of the Gangetic plains. And I might add that it doesn’t matter who sits in Delhi.

Of “East Bengal”, “East Pakistan”, and “Bangladesh”:

Here, one may raise an extremely pertinent question. What to make of Bangladesh which, until 1971, used to be known as “East Pakistan” and was governed as a sovereign territory of Pakistan?

Well, until the promulgation of the constitution of 1956, this territory was known as “East Bengal”. It was carved out of Bengal as a Muslim majority region. The founding father of Pakistan, Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, had endorsed the scheme of a United Sovereign Bengal but the Nehru-led Indian National Congress rejected the proposal. According to S.K. Majumdar, the measure would have depleted the fortunes of the financiers of the Congress Party.*

My own assessment is that a United Bengal in the East coupled with a Pakistan in the West would have not only encouraged several other centrifugal tendencies, Bengali nationalism would also have shaken the foundations of Congress-backed “Indian Nationalism”. Therefore, the Congress Party that was seeing things from Delhi stood for the division of Bengal, and when after the conflict in 1971 Eastern half of Bengal declared its independence from Islamabad, New Delhi did not try to incorporate it into its own province of West Bengal. Paving the way for a sovereign Muslim-majority “Bangladesh”, the Republic of India undermined its own secular nationalistic credentials and upheld a sort of nationalism the basis of which was religion [in this case Islam].

So getting back to the theme at present, a sovereign territory separated by a thousand-mile of foreign land was a bizarre arrangement to begin with. Bengal should have been allowed to decide its own destiny. Nevertheless, this does not mean that I endorse or sympathize with the foundational fantasies of “Bangladesh”. It is not “Bangladesh” as long as West Bengal remains a part of India. Presently, it is a land of Muslim Bengalis whose political elite brandished linguistic chauvinism but insisted on frontiers drawn on the basis of religion.

* S.K. Majumdar Jinnah and Gandhi: Their Role in India’s Quest for Freedom [pg. 273]

The Biggest Enemy of the White Race

What has been the biggest enemy of White ethnicities?

The answer: ‘Western Civilization‘.

The White man needs to ask himself whether this civilization helped him answer the following questions:

What is Man?

What is Being?

Now when the White race arrives at, perhaps, the most critical moment in its collective history, it is about time that it dispassionately reassessed the road it took thousands of years ago.

The subtext is not that there is already a civilization or culture out there that correctly understood the aforementioned queries; and that Whites are therefore advised to follow it.

The point is that these queries are too profound to be unlocked by philosophical treatises or doctrines. They are beyond human cognitive capacity.

When we try to define ourselves, we transcend ourselves. And once we are in a transcendental mode, we require a transcendental point of reference.

It has to be necessarily above us.

This point of reference is called Waḥy, which is translated in English as ‘revelation’.

A human race should not exist because other human races also exist.

It should not exist because there is ‘scientific evidence of its existence’.

It should not exist because it achieved this or that technical landmark or erected this or that literary edifice, and, consequently, it has earned the right to survive.

It should exist because it is also one of the manifestations of the Divine order.

O Mankind, We have created you from a male and a female and made you into races and tribes, so that you may identify one another. Surely, the noblest of you, in Allah’s sight, is the one who is most pious of you. Surely Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware. [Qur’an: 49:13]

When The Cyanide Pill Was Finally Bitten Down

The United Kingdom carelessly refused any serious understanding with Wilhelmine Germany. The Teutophobia of the political class was deplorable. It had been building up since the German unification. The Monarchy should have intervened and restrained the out of control anti-German clique.

Europe was humiliated at Versailles by Europeans, and a generation later it was all over.

Germany did surrender but it took with it the British and French empires.

The Pestilence of Liberal Democracy

This an expansion of a comment I posted on Z blog.

I think the last greatest metapolitical shift in the history of Western Europe was the execution (1649) of Charles I at the hands of the Cromwellian parliamentary gang.

Here is how the late British philosopher Anthony Ludovici describes the struggle in his A Defence of Aristocracy:

“The triumph of Parliament did not mean the triumph of the liberties of the people. It meant the triumph of a new morality, a new outlook on life, and a new understanding of what life was worth. It meant the triumph of the morality of unrestricted competition, of uncontrolled and unguided trade, and of a policy of neglect in regard to all things that really mattered.” [pgs. 161-162]

The forces that are beyond political bureaucratization like religion, family, and ethnocultural ties/blood ties determine metapolitics. This particular triad prevents political accretion turning into a malignancy.

After 1649, the malignant forces were in the ascendance. They were to systematically destroy this defensive triad so as to clear the way for the ‘new morality’, which meant social organic body would serve the commercial/monetary interests and not vice versa.

The following are the weapons deployed to sabotage the three metapolitical pillars:

  • Freedom of Expression/Speech: against Religion and that which was held as sacred; the bifurcation of freedom and responsibility; in other words, a ‘freedom’ bereft of self-restraint.
  • Sexual Liberation/Deviancy/Libertinism: against the Family; the target was to undermine responsible motherhood without which there is no guarantee that a people would survive as a distinct race/ethnicity.
  • Commercial competition: against the organic camaraderie of a society; pit one against the other in the name of ‘individual enterprise’; reduce men into consumers with unquenchable material thirsts.

Now, if you try to read the last 500 years of Occidental history against the aforementioned background, you will understand how a full-fledged ‘liberal democracy’ is a stage of total, vicious, and wicked political bureaucratization of every aspect of life.

Islam and the White Race – II

One of the most preposterous lines of thought that I often come across on various fora is the laughable assumption that ‘Islamization’ [another dubious term nevertheless] of a particular area implies complete decimation of indigenous races, languages, and cultures. In other words, you would ultimately be transformed into Arab Bedouins.

Being an Arab and being a Muslim are two entirely different things.

I am an Indo-Aryan by race. My distant ancestors stood against the invading waves of Arab armies when in the 7th century they moved eastwards towards what today constitutes Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.

The defenders were defeated and became subjects of the new ruling elite. It was a purely political struggle between two Imperial houses. The Arabs replaced the Persian Sassanids as regional hegemons. This Arab expansion, at the expense of administratively collapsing neighbors, had a lot to do with deadly intra-Arab power struggles [which I will touch upon in some other post].

Just as in today’s world mediocre politicians polish their legacies by embarking on ‘humanitarian interventions’ and aggressive wars abroad, there were factions within the Arab power elite who had to build their own ‘legacies’ to denigrate those whose exemplary conduct during and after Prophet (Peace and Blessings be Upon Him and the Ahl al Bayt) had become indigestible due to tribal and personal jealousies.

That the Arab forces were religiously Muslim did not make this engagement an ‘Islam vs Zoroastrianism/Hinduism’ affair.

If battlefield and military engagements could fundamentally transform a people’s spirit, the Greek and Mongol incursions in the Khorasan and Western Indus regions would have resulted in the spiritual Hellenization and Tengerisation of this part of the world respectively. None of that ever happened. It takes more than that to revolutionize the spirit of a people.

Besides, anyone who thinks that his ancestors were forcefully converted to a ‘foreign faith’ unconsciously sketches a damning picture of his own forefathers. I am not prepared to condemn my direct predecessors.

As I wrote in the last part, Islam addresses the human nature; not Arab, Persian, Indian, Turkic, White, Han, Korean, Japanese, Black natures etc.

Race is a biological fact as obvious as life and death.

It has a certain sanctity.

As the Holy Quran says:

“O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. Lo! Allah is Knower, Aware.” [49:13]

In light of the above verse, if now someone denies races and ethnicities, he not only denies the divine order but also displays sheer ignorance of reality.

Similarly, he who advocates forced mixing of various nations and tribes to eradicate their natural differences tinkers with the divine equilibrium and invites disorder and mayhem.

Even people who live under one roof are expected to respect each other’s private space.

Naturally, then, it is expected that macro-differences [racial, ethnic, tribal, and linguistic] too should be acknowledged and not trampled upon.

Each race, ethnicity, tribe, etc. has the divine right to maintain its distinct outlook.

And, thus, the noblest is the one who recognizes the natural differences and ventures to align himself with divine wisdom.

(to be continued)

Islam and the White Race – I

Note: What follows lacks the progression of a properly structured essay. I apologize to the reader in advance if he finds its disorderliness irritating.

I have been following dissident cyberspace for some time now. An ocean of audio-visual material, blog posts, e-books, etc., occupies my hard drive. The reason being that the critique of modernity that arises in the dissident sector aligns greatly with what we have been saying for years against the Ravanas of ‘enlightenment’ and ‘liberal reform’ in our part of the world. And then there is the English language which I happen to know as well as my mother tongue. Naturally, it makes the endeavor all the more interesting since I do not have to rely on secondary and biased sources to get familiarized with the subject at hand.

Our contact with the Western White races during the colonial era incubated an army of native ‘social reformers’, ‘rationalists’, ‘modernists’, etc. who pushed something which was purely historical [Renaissance, Enlightenment, etc.] as natural.

Thus, we were introduced with absurdities like:

-‘a modernist interpretation of Islam’,

-‘a scientific approach towards Quran’,

-‘too much religion took us no where; just look at the West how it abandoned superstition and moderated its religious opiate and attained such prosperity.’

That ‘prosperity’ [whatever that means] proved a poisoned chalice for the White race. Today, when it is facing ethno-cultural dispossession on its own soil, its spiritual arsenal lacks effective weapons to repulse highly organized and absolutely satanic assaults.

Now, many a writers, bloggers, vloggers, activists, etc. just consume sub-standard, intellectually lazy ‘critiques’ of Islam when displaying their anger towards continuous non-White migration into their territories.

They may counter this objection by saying, ‘why should we care?, what do we gain by caring about semantics?, we just don’t want Muslims on our lands; plain and simple.’

But precisely here lies the rub. ‘Muslim’ is a theological category. It is not racial.

(((Whoever))) first deployed phrases like ‘Islam vs the West’ or ‘Muslims are on the verge of taking over Europe’ in mass communications killed many birds with one stone.

It denied Whites a mobilization on the basis of race. A racial mobilization implies that the threat is first and foremost biological. And since ‘Islam’ & ‘Muslim’ are not biological terms, room could be made for those who oppose Islam but are not themselves necessarily White.

An equation like ‘Islam vs the West’ hollows out the White racial element from the term ‘the West’. Just as anyone can embrace Islam, likewise, anyone can also adopt the West and become Western.

Welcome to ‘civic nationalism’.

The battle has never been between Islam and the West. Islam is innate. It deals with the metaphysical dimension of the human nature. One can adhere to Islam and be a White Nationalist at the same time. There is no contradiction.

It was a mistaken view of history plain and simple perpetuated by Whiggish historiography; an approach that blurred many visions.

The battles, however, were ethnic/racial and tribal:

– Arabs VS the Germanic tribes of Hispania,

– Berbers VS Hispanic Celtics,

– Ottoman Turks [most of them were erstwhile Byzantine Romans and Greeks who gradually got Turkified when they adopted Islam] VS Greeks, Slavs, and Romanians.

– Berbers VS Franks

– Arabs VS Franks

(to be continued)

The Occident Has Blown its Brains Out

Today, the Western civilization (whatever that means now) manifests itself as ‘Desmond is Amazing’.

How did that happen?

Well, the West had been playing Russian roulette with itself with a fully loaded pistol for centuries. Every time the trigger was pulled, the firearm got jammed. Then, one fine morning it did not jam and the West blew its brains out.

No geographical region in recorded history, not even the mighty Mongols with all their territorial aggrandizement, held the fate of the world in its hands as firmly as the one occupied by the European races at the beginning of the 20th century.

Now, after almost 125 years which would be approximately five generations later, those same Western races are being self-annihilated at the hands of their Satan worshipping political elites.

The descent has been as unparalleled as was the ascent.

Things that are common sensical in spiritually healthy dwellings, today, invite Orwellian howls when uttered in the Occident.

Presently, sense can only be uttered in the Occident on ‘alternative platforms’.

اسلام و وحشی گری عرب

:از نظر من

عنوان نادرست است. آنها وحشی بودند. حق با شماست. اما نه به این دلیل که آنها مسلمان بودند. وحشی گری آنها از اسلام قدیمی تر بود. چرا اگر زمین بایر است ، باران رحمت را متهم کنیم؟ ماسه های فارس و خراسان از بیابانهای عربستان حاصلخیزتر بودند. بنابراین، این خاک همیشه مردان وفادار به پیام عالی پیامبر اکرم (ص ) و آئمہ معصومین (ع ) را تولید می کرد

وقتی آن قطرات باران را دریافت کرد ، فیلسوفان، مورخان، شاعران و دیگر استادان را به دنیا آورد مسلمان بودن و عرب بودن چیزهای کاملاً متفاوتی است

منم بندهٔ اهل بیت نبی (ص)

ستایندهٔ خاک و پای وصی (ع)

جناب ابوالقاسم فردوسی