Why I oppose lifting visa requirements and restrictions by India and Pakistan on each other's citizens

I've read and heard quite a few times of complaints by people on how many families got separated during the so-called "partition" of "India."
Amongst Pakistani citizens I've heard it mostly coming from Muhajirs who migrated from different parts of modern-day India. Amongst Indians, it's just about everyone since many Indians see Pakistan as a missing organ of "greater India" or the mythical "Bharatavarsha," not to mention all the Sikhs and "Hindus" who migrated out of Pakistan at the time of independence.

Both the non-Muslims who left the country and those Muhajirs who came to Pakistan claimed to have escaped persecution. If they were really being persecuted, why go back to the country they were being persecuted in?
The call for the right to cross the border free of restrictions has mainly been due to wanting to see their relatives who did or did not migrate.

The call to lift the visa restrictions poses serious problems for both countries. Pakistan long suspects RAW agents of infiltrating into it's borders and their close links to terrorist groups such as the MQM and rebels in Balochistan. Though I do not firmly believe it, I cannot rule out the possibility. Knowing reports coming out of the Pakistani government and media on suspicious foreigners; especially Americans, I have little doubt that the RAW has it's own set of activities in the country.

India for it's part has a history of blaming the Pakistani government and ISI for domestic terrorism in the country by Kashmiri insurgents and local religious terrorists, including Sikhs, Muslims and "Hindus."
Weather true or not, Indian citizens cannot be waving their government's warmongering flag and then calling for the ease of visa restrictions. Both countries have put the visa restrictions for good reasons.

And as we know, the Muhajirs on the Pakistani side are asking for the restriction to be removed so they can visit their relatives and their relatives visit Pakistan with ease. Such people on both sides feel that the country functions around them. How can you claim persecution as an excuse for immigrating out of one country and then suddenly wishing to go back? Are you not afraid of being persecuted again?

As I wrote in my previous posts on the Muhajirs, I don't buy their persecution stories. There may be truth to some riots/attacks by both sides, but highly exaggerated. How else does one explain the majority of Muslims who stayed back in India?
I'm also tired of hearing and reading the claims "we left for Islam" and "we left for the sake of Pakistan."

Everyone claims they sacrificed for the sake of India or Pakistan by immigrating. If you chose to leave, you did so at your own discretion. You've made the 'sacrifice' you feel relentlessly heroic about. No point complaining about it now.

Why should the whole country put it's security at risk just because you want your family members to visit you without restriction?
Most importantly why did you "sacrifice" your life in the opposite country if you're suddenly so keen to visit back and forth without restriction? Clearly there is no sacrifice in any of this if you suddenly want to back and complain about the restrictions.

If the Pakistani government can put restrictions on Americans, including diplomats, why would they suddenly ease visa restrictions and movements on Indian visitors to Pakistan?
Those in India and Pakistan who want to cross the border without restriction may as well permanently go since they seem to be keen on the other country and seemed to have suddenly lost their fear of persecution, not to mention they won't have to face restrictions if they can apply for and be granted permanent citizenship.

Pakistan has a good reason for restricting Indian nationals for visiting especially at this current situation in combating terrorism and I'm sure the Indian side has it's own reasons for the same restrictions on Pakistani nationals.

As for marriages between citizens of the two countries, they must decide which country to settle in as couples or choose a third neutral country.
If Muslims in India immigrated to Pakistan, they did so by their own free will and the same is true for non-Muslims who left Pakistan so it is time they lived with their decision and stop complaining.

Militants kill 'US spy' in N Waziristan

Another of many countless cases of Afghans caught assisting US covert operations which I clearly discussed several times in my posts on Raymond Davis

Read full article in the link:
Militants kill 'US spy' in N Waziristan

Why I think the death sentence should unconditionally be enforced in Pakistan

I want to share a story with readers that took place in the summer of 2001.
My younger paternal cousin had a house maid for many years working for his parents. Her name was Mariam. She took care of my cousin since he was an infant.

Mariam was hired again to work at their house when they would visit Karachi from America.
During their stay in 2001, Mariam ran into difficulties with her husband George (both were from Christian backgrounds).

My cousin would tell me about the days Mariam would come running to their house with injuries sometimes bleeding with George chasing her from not far behind.

Even I myself would see the injuries he inflicted upon her. But the worst came one day when my housekeeper came to my room telling me how Mariam had been killed by George that morning.
Further details of the murder were given to me by Mariam's family. Mariam was stabbed to death by George at a bus stop.

A nearby truck of (possibly construction or delivering construction items) workers stopped to help but it was too late. George was grabbed and handed over to a nearby police patrol. Later he was put on trial under Islamic Sharia law.

The court found him guilty of deliberate murder and put his fate in the decision of Mariam's family.
According to sharia law in Pakistan, a person guilty of murder is to face the death sentence unless the victim's family forgives him/her.

Then came along Jamaat-i-Islami. They offered to free George provided he joined them.
Sheila, Mariam's mother was promised a sum of eighty thousand Pakistani rupees by Jamaat-i-Islami for pardoning George and was offered fifty thousand rupees in advance.

Sheila pardoned George and accepted the money. Next, George was released, converted to Islam and recruited by Jamaat-I-Islami.

Imagine the killing machine Jamaat could create out of a madman like George. Now imagine if the court didn't need Mariam's family's permission to put him to death. This could have prevented him from being used by Jamaat for their militant activities.

This could prevent many thousands, perhaps millions of murderers from escaping and being a threat to society. Worse, more and more people like George could be recruited by illegal gangs and militant organizations.

This not only applies to murderers, but others who have similar inhumane, barbaric practices.
I recently saw a movie on human trafficking. More specifically, it was about young women from poorer countries abducted by gangs and leased for prostitution. Though the movie was fictional, it's plot is based on true daily events.

The movie itself was very realistic and showed the misery and terror these innocent young women faced; even worse than death.
But even when rescued, these women lived in fear of their captors; one was even assassinated to prevent her from giving the police information about their whereabouts.

In regards to Pakistan, I've read on cases of young girls being held captive and leased for prostitution. This is a common problem especially in undeveloped third world countries. Imagine if such criminals were simply put to death for their inhumane practices.
Their victims would not then have to live under the threat and fear of their oppressors returning.

In Pakistan as in many other Muslim countries, there are countless cases of individuals having their hands chopped off by the law for stealing. Yet I read cases of people who bury women alive, who trade in drugs, commit rape and child abuse all getting jail sentences instead.

Another case was in 2004 of mullahs throwing acid in a boy's face, permanently blinding him. All these mentioned peoples were sentenced to life in prison instead of being put to death.

My point is that if people who commit minor crimes like theft can be given such harsh punishments, why are such dangerous people like murderers, violent gangsters, rapists etc. given only prison sentences?

In my opinion jail sentences should only apply to those who commit minor crimes such as theft, fraud, false alarms, corruption etc.
It is also in my opinion that the death sentence should not be used as a punishment, but rather a means to protect society. It should not apply to only those that have committed murder, but also to those who inflict severe cruelty onto others or those have attempted murder.

From what I was told, the penalty in Malaysia for trafficking or possessing illegal drugs is death.
Pakistan being a country full of dangerous people should impose the death sentence unconditionally to reduce the number of crime rates and to cut down on it's massive population.

Also, the death sentence can prevent the jails in Pakistan from overflowing and save plenty of money and resources from being wasted to keep criminals alive.
A few months back, about two men were convicted for amputating a woman's ears and nose. They were found guilty and sentenced to suffer the same fate.

Imagine the extra amount spent on giving the amputated men special care in prison due to their disability. Now imagine if they were simply put to death, the state would save a lot of tax money instead of keeping them alive.

All people guilty of doing things harmful to their society including human and drug trafficking, committing murder, plotting murder, committing or promoting violence, inciting hatred should be put to death if found guilty.

Not only will the death sentence prevent criminals from continuing their actions, but will also discourage other people with similar intentions from carrying out their own crimes.

In 2008 the Pakistani government headed by Zardari legalized the death sentence for cyber terrorism. This again is all the more reason to make it applicable and unconditional for the other crimes that I have mentioned.

Even child abusers who rape children, sell/trade child pornography or arrange marriages for underage minors should face the death sentence. Children and women are amongst the most vulnerable victims of crime in Pakistan.

I believe killers should have at least half of their belongings given to the families of their victims as compensation automatically after being proven guilty of their crime and before being put to death. The other half of their belongings can be passed on to their own family members as normal inheritance.

With the death sentence enforced, it will also significantly reduce the workload for law enforcement organizations which struggle to fight crime in a highly populated country like Pakistan.

Why I think Islam cannot be the unifying factor for Pakistan

Author's note: This is a re-post of an older post that was already in this blog. Reason for re-posting was post title and url not matching. I apologize to readers and followers who have already read this.

Many people (particularly Pan-Islamist Pakistanis) press the argument that since Pakistan is a multi-lingual country and to a certain degree multi-ethnic and multi-cultural, that it will not survive as a single state unless Islam is enforced as the unifying factor.

This argument is absurd and seriously flawed.

There are a lot of Muslim and non-Muslim countries that are multi-lingual and multi-ethnic and they have managed to survive without any religion as a unifying factor. In some cases most notably in Britain, religion is one of the key dividing factors between the Germanic English and the Celtic Irish aside from slight difference in ethnicity.

The same can be said for Pakistan, with rival Shia-Sunni conflicts tearing up the country's religious infrastructure.

The same can be said for India, in which religion has contributed to the country's inter-conflicts such as those between "Hindus" and Sikhs or "Hindus" and Muslims or "Hindus" and Christians.

Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey and the north African Arab states are all multi-lingual and Islam has definitely not contributed to their unity. Neither have their governments tried to use Islam as a common unifying factor. In the case of Iran, it has just led to more tensions between the Shia majority and Sunni minority.

The same again can be said in the case of Pakistan. With the Shia minorities resisting Sunni-state control.

Other arguments have also been laid in favor of embedding religion into the state rule such as:

-The Bangladeshis abandoned the Pakistani state because they saw themselves as Bangladeshis first then as Muslims.

-Pakistan was founded as a separate homeland for the Muslims if not Islam why not become a part of India?

To answer the first argument, the reason why the Bangladeshis chose to gain independence from Pakistan was not because of their alleged un-Islamic sentiments, but because they felt they were being cheated (as do many ethnic minorities of Pakistan today) along linguistic and cultural rights. They resented Urdu (or Undri) being the national language at the expense of their native Bengali.

In addition their political rights as Pakistani citizens were neglected such as the lack of presence of Bengalis in the Pakistani military.

The tension between the Bengalis and the Pakistani state reached a climax when the victory of the Awami league in the elections was not respected.

After all this unfair treatment, the Bengalis revolted. It had nothing to do with their preference of ethnicity over religion.

Additionally Bengalis are much more different to the rest of Pakistan culturally, geographically and racially. Not that it makes them "inferior" or "less worthy" but it makes no sense in being once state especially with a giant enemy in between always adding more to the problem.

To answer to the question if not for Islam why 'create' Pakistan in the first place?

This question is based on a lot of misconceptions. Firstly the Pakistan region or the Indus region was never a 'part' of a country called "India" which never really existed.

The name "India" was brought by the British to Southern Asia and imposed into the local population. It was the British who unified this multi-cultural, multi-lingual, multi-ethnic region into one single state.

Even today this country calling itself "India" has no common identity be it linguistic, racial, cultural or religion.

The nation of Pakistan has existed for at least nine thousand years from what records show . The Indus valley Civilization spread over most of Pakistan. It's nationhood can be evident even further as it's main cities spread over various provinces of the country as the map above shows.
Indeed Pakistan is a very unique country for it's region and most of the world. It's people lived share a common ancestry and lived together for thousands of years. They speak closely related languages almost all belonging to the Indo-Iranic subfamily of Indo-European. In addition they have caucasianoid skulls and common R1A genetic markers (with Kashmiris having the highest percentage of R1A genes) all evidence of a common ancestry.
The same cannot be said for other country's in the region such as Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and especially India.

India is one of the last countries in the world to see itself as a single-identity state. It's people do not have a common language family. The main language families in India are Indo-European, Sino-Tibetan, Austro-Asiatic, Dravidian- all unrelated to one another as far as linguists can tell.
The people today known as "Indians" are also racially diverse. Though they have mostly Caucasoid skulls like Pakistanis, a large and very significant percentage of the have Mongoloid skulls particularly in the north Eastern areas. Also Australoid skulls can be found in the southern areas of the country.

So to conclude it all, "Indians" are no more of a people than "Americans" or "Canadians."
Coming back to the myth of Islam being the unifying factor- it is clearly false. The people of Pakistan lived together for thousands of years prior to the arrival of Islam. They share a common ancestry as do the languages they speak today.
As stated in an earlier post, even the non-Indo-European speaking populations; the Hunza, the Brahuis, the Baltistanis do not stand out much genetically.

This is more than enough reason to unify the country without bringing in religion.
If Islam is everything what Pakistan is about why was Jinnah then a secular man?
The answer comes back to the same conclusion, Islam is not a unifying factor for Pakistan or it's identity.

Let's also not forget the British opposed the idea of Pakistan becoming an independent state, contrary to what is falsely preached by many.
The British wanted a single puppet state that they could use as a proxy in the region as opposed to having to deal with multiple states.
There are differences between Pakistani tribes and ethnicities. This is the process of evolution. Cultures, races, languages evolve due to independence from one another. But the similarities are far greater than the differences.

But those who blindly chant that Balochis, Sindhis, Punjabis, Pakhtuns, Kashmiris are all different are illiterate in the fields of linguistics, anthropology and race and should not be taken seriously.
Mistrust exists between Pakistani ethnicities due to political imbalance which is wrongly dominated by the Punjabi population. It is not because one is slightly culturally and linguistically different from the other.
And it's these imbalances that should be dealt with through justice, not by highlighting minor differences between Pakistani ethnicities or imposing religion on the state and the masses.