Baadil
Registered Member
Exactly, or a model like India which is what would satisfy your ideology. I will share you some quotes from @Nilgiri 's excellent contributions, even though I disagree. I think you guys are basically on the same page.Are you suggesting all provinces become de-facto independent territories? I see little reason for a "Pakistan" to exist in such a scenario it would serve little practical purpose or reason. I doubt any province would be able to agree on much.
Continued:What do all mainstream ideologies intersect and even agree on. Start there (basic law i.e the constitution and republic) and then work outwards (legislative process and judicial feedback check and balance loop) as free of identity-exclusivity based groups as possible (favouritism, suppression of these i.e systemic bias in the state that veers it to maximalism early) ....be they religion, ethnicity, creed, class, any descriptor that comes after it.
i.e what is physics vs metaphysics. Why is the meta added, what does it mean.
I disagreed with the position above as explained a little bit at the bottom, and hopefully clear from my responses in this thread.Why is the meta best left in the body public (nation) as far as possible rather than favouring one over the other (in the state, given the power the state has and the role of the state).....there is heavy subjectivism....can one religion or theology objectively prove things to another? No.
Continued:
They are still important things to discuss and engage in to one's preference, but they should not come to the state power.
To understand where I am coming from, maybe its best you read what I have to say w.r.t Turkish republic and Ataturk in this earlier reply in this thread:
What book are you reading?
I await any commentary you have, if any, on the social contract etc and any worthy sidetracks....before I proceed a bit more....the route to artificial intelligence (nobody is engaging a book on) lies first in exploring human intelligence. Perhaps a little later. I am wrestling with a number...defencepk.com
Especially this part of reply no. 4 I posted in another forum (I have bolded some basic things I think all groups accept are objective and rational and do not engage exclusive in-group out group identity basis and politics that politicians will inevitably prey upon for their benefit at detriment to population holding them accountable on the basic things):
That is why statist operating principles need to be geared to being minimalist and focused as possible to that which is objective (within the nation)...i.e physical.
Law and order, security of the nation, administration, national infrastructure, long term merit institutions and so on and addressing any severe instances of market failure collectively by way of the state (in a market infancy period etc).
Things like religion, theology et al. are vast domains within the even larger domain of metaphysics.
The core self evident truths (preceding the nationstate formation) stemming from these can be harnessed and applied (regd the social contract and law etc which I mentioned earlier) without all the assorted baggage in the metaphysical alleyways (which are interesting to get into within bounds, but should not be wielded in the state) that will only impose costs.
A metaphysical+maximalist oriented state will do damage to the nation and start grievous erosions, conflicts (to add to any ongoing ones) and collapses....as it posits perfectionist utopia and make enemies among its own body quickly by power for power sake elitist capture and so on.
@SecularNationalist this is the thread that may interest you (regd secularism and the state), both you and Baadil can read from about page 26 when I post the social contract and develop my core premise for a minimalist state vs a maximalist (burdensome one). Maximalism by its raw larger gravity will attract corruption in deep ways harnessing identities in society.....and keep it backwards if its early or be a huge unnecessary and even destructive weight if its late.
You can tag any others you think are interested in slowly fleshing out things on this or think have worthy things to contribute.....also any other things that pop up in this thread that interest you.
My reply to @Sharma Ji in another discussion which I believe addresses the above from Nilgiri:
No problem I am here to learn your perspectives and hopefully highlight something others consider worth learning.
Mate some Muslims may also be driven by emotion but the primary material is there for you to have a look at. It would not hurt whenever you are able to
Islam makes claim to objectivity based upon belief in One God. Hence why in a separate thread, I have highlighted the contradiction of the idea of the proponents of two nation theory advocating a secular nation which @Asfandyar Bhittani provided evidence to indicate was not true.
I have also not had time to show my gratitude to @Nilgiri for sign-posting and including in a discussion regarding Kemalism and Secularism in general. However, as alluded to above, the principle is that what is defined as “objective” is incompatible between Secular and Islamic paradigm. In this regard, my primary grievance is with Pakistani proponents of Secularism.
Last edited:





