Why I am Opposed to the Notion of Minority in Pakistan

To Naya Pakistan Makers:
If Pakistan was exclusively only occupied by one group of people who commonly believed in the divinity of their own theological and political dispensation just as fervently as Zionists do, whatever the theological, sectarian or tribal inclination might be, then, and only then, just like the Zionists living in the 'land without a people for a people without land' (were that a fact), the Pakistanis too would have had every right to construct their own divine nation's exclusive constitution, exceptional laws, and theological and political dispensation any which way they liked.
As a thought experiment, Pakistanis could then have even chosen to be surrounded by 18 feet high electrified fences around their entire geography to keep all outsiders from polluting their sacred theology and sacred geography just like the Zionists prefer it. Today, Pakistanis are merely fencing their borders for keeping out 'terrorists', but that definition can be evolved easily to keep out all those undesired by the uber alles (German word for the chosen ones who deem themselves exceptional and above all others in their rights).
And, per chance, if there was only such group left on the entire earth, these remnants of civilizations long lost could believe and do absolutely whatever they wanted irrespective of who else was outside their dominion (there'd obviously be no one else). Soon they'd start differentiating among themselves on other rubrics, and before long, they'd have all killed off each other as the undesirables, leaving only one man or woman standing (if at all). In either case, that'd be the end of mankind. The notion of separation therefore, in every social Darwinian sense, and in the limit of philosophical reasoning, leads to the extinction of the species.
Fortunately, for the Zionists occupying the Holy Lands, and for the people of Pakistan also occupying their own holy land, there are many peoples of differing beliefs and political inclinations who not only live in these two divine territories on earth, but are also their neighbors in an endless loop of interdependence that reaches over the entire earth's population. Allah, and Nature, have given mankind the natural ability to survive and prosper only due to this diversity.
The Zionists however have been trying their level best to undo nature. They have been attempting to cleanse their holy land by exterminating all those unlike them, and when they are being merciful, by forcing resettlement of the indigenous natives and the undesirables to territories outside of Eretz Yisrael. They are only repulsed in their efforts by the non-cooperation of the natives who stubbornly resist the divine gift of their birthplace to the god's chosen peoples.
But Pakistan? Which group should be the chosen equivalent from among its myriad peoples, ethnicities, sects, tribes?
Ergo, since none of us are like the Zionists, thankfully, we must all live together in equal status.
For, if that exclusivity and exceptionalism is permitted to any one group in any pluralistic society, and specifically in Pakistan, then, by the law of nature, those with the bigger guns, or bigger population, or higher predatory survival instincts, would naturally prevail, making that exercise in primacy no different than the Zionists' claim to exclusivity of the holy land by the law of the jungle and social Darwinianism: might makes right.
Minimally, this Darwinian dispensation makes a mockery of any and all claims to divinity. And with even a slight change in power calculus, the guns of primacy are easily re-pointed in their own direction. Power is a most fickle-minded beloved indeed. Like the bee, it moves from flower to flower based on season. This is just the empirical lesson of history. And egalitarianism in diversity appears to be a faithful and immutable law for the survival of civilization.
So, in order to not be like the Zionists hell-bent on national suicide, what's the best way to avoid exceptionalism such that none enjoy higher status based on theology, race, ethnicity, or tribe, nor exercise exclusivity upon another on any political or apolitical mantra?
In a letter I explained it thusly:
Begin Excerpt
As you already know and is necessary to state here for completeness, not just many different types of Muslim people, Muslim sects, and racial and ethnic and cultural divides exist in Pakistan, just like in India, each with their own understanding of what is Islam, but also a substantial non Muslim minority also exists in Pakistan --- the white portion of Pakistan's flag. Like yourself, I find this rather discordant with the times. One size antediluvian Islamic Sharia laws (derived 1200 years ago by men now long dead, as you also continually point out to your own fawning flock of secular humanists in both India and Canada), cannot, and do not, suit all Muslim sects today, let alone people of other religions living in that state, and which, by definition, lead to discrimination based on belief system. The band-aid for this in our subcontinent is the still existent Personal Law invented by the British colonizers for ease of colonial governance of a pluralistic multicultural society. Its significance of course is more pertinent in India today than in Pakistan where its Constitution is mostly "Sunni Islamic". Whereas, my understanding is that their respective Personal Law governs Muslims and other minorities in India, while the secular Indian Constitution governs the majority, as well as others when not in conflict with their Personal Law. I am not sure which prevails when these might be in conflict, but I imagine Personal Law would, that being its raison d'ĂȘtre, and that is just absurd in a modern nation-state for both the egalitarian constitution and a parochial system to co-exist. What for, except for intellectual laziness, or primacy, or both!
The British invented the Personal Law for India's many religions in order to pacify the Indian subcontinent so that they could rape and plunder their Jewel in the crown quite peaceably, and continue to exercise their effectiveness as the ruling state of the world for over two centuries. The British empire did not much care which idiotic beliefs (from their point of view), and which azan, the colonized slaves preferred for themselves --- they held them all in equal contempt quite generously as per their la mission civilisatrice --- and they gave to each flavor of their slave their own preference of religious laws so long as these did not interfere with the business of Pax Britannia and the harvesting of their colonies.
The Personal Law was a handy band-aid to administer the slave colonies and this should finally be obvious to the Muslims of the subcontinent. Like all the rest of the vestiges of colonial existence, from our Penal code to street names to education system to language co-option, it also needs to be exorcised in favor of one set of laws for all under one constitution for all. And this applies to the entire subcontinent.
I don't quite understand why it is not obvious to Muslims that the antediluvian Sharia laws are unable to keep up with the principal values of modern nation-states to lend egalitarian justice and fairness to all its peoples. As for instance, in the matter of triple talaq debate in India where you most eloquently point out the bizzaredom of antiquity that is so discordant with modernity. The same debate exists in Pakistan, but is more muted, and I am sure also in Bangladesh. Modern world has moved on a bit from that time when women were treated as mostly chattel and for bearing babies, but the foundation of Personal Law that the British empire instituted to pacify the pluralistic population of India have not kept up with the advancements in civilizations and our understanding of our place in the universe.
However, in fairness to the public's rights to choose their own governance and not be dictated from the mount of the white man's burden, it should also be stated that for monolithic theological states where only one type of belief might exist among its peoples, or, where the people have come to agree to live by a min-set of religious beliefs common to them all because they do want to live by their own religious principles for all spheres of life, it is the peoples' right to choose whatever rules and laws they wish to devise for their theological state without discrimination among their own peoples and without exercising primacy upon others. And there is nothing in principle, that might preclude a religion based theocratic state in such a monolithic circumstance. While I think this is largely of academic interest in modern times, it still needs to be stated because the foundation principles of any modern state must be only that which give justice and fairness of opportunities to its peoples, to grow and flourish to the best that they can become. In practice however, all modern nation states, except perhaps Iran, have a pluralistic population and therefore, in our modernity, such a separation between religion and state is mandated by necessity, of having one single set of fair laws for all that give fair justice to all without discrimination.
End Excerpt
Here are some essays that explore different aspects of living in a pluralistic society such as Pakistan, and an essay, my very first as Project Humanbeingsfirst circa early 2007, on living peaceably in Zionistan (short of ethnic cleansing succeeding) before Allah, fate, karma, yahwah, voodoo politics, and enslaved Muslim masses finally coming together in the common cause of liberty from servitude, forcibly alter the direction of the guns from which there shall neither be any escape, nor any sympathy, for any uber alles.
Now is the time to fear the wrath of minorities, all minorities, wherever they might live, and the oppressed, howsoever they are subjugated (whether by law or by theology), before the tables are turned by the power of injustice, and the caprice of fate, to rectify itself.

Zahir Ebrahim
Project Humanbeingsfirst.org

First published Tuesday, April 30, 2019 03:00 pm 1764