Pakistan: "Nightmare on the subcontinent"

[saiko]

Things were based on religion back then. Hinduism Vs Islam was the sole reason why Pakistan and India came into existence. But nowadays, ethnicities are the deciding factor.

I don't believe what you're proposing would've been any good for the region. The more separate states we would've had, the more blood shed would have followed.

Understood about the religious demarcation and it even reverbiates to the current situation today (eg Kashmir).

Europe is actually a very good "future model" to look at, in my opinion. What started as empires pre-WW1 with the French Empire, British Empire, German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Ottoman Empire and Russian Empire has broken down into dozens of nation states. Europe is now and for the forseeable future more peaceful than it has been at any other point in its recorded history (except when it was totally engulfed by a single empire, be it Roman or otherwise - but I doubt anybody here wants that). It's really an all or nothing situation in terms of stability and peace.

I think the Indo-Pak rivalry is a major unifying factor in each respective country as well. If you look to history you notice trends... external enemies provide internal solidarity. Barring that, you can make people too greedy to oppose you by providing them a high quality of life. If India and Pakistan had a stable, long-term peace, I think internal strife in both countries would increase with separtist movements growing in popularity. To what degree, I can only speculate...

 

[Sprint]

Things were based on religion back then. Hinduism Vs Islam was the sole reason why Pakistan and India came into existence. But nowadays, ethnicities are the deciding factor.

I don't believe what you're proposing would've been any good for the region. The more separate states we would've had, the more blood shed would have followed.

Hi again
It is next to impossible that India and pakistan would ever come together.
I have reasons for the same, and very logical ones that would be first we would be confronting immediately.
Say for once if all agree (the general population) and we move a step forward and think of a possible situation of the day India & Pakistan merge

Problem#1: As raised here earlier, though minor, but what would be the new name of the region: (we can easily call this new place as *******-istan (AH in short), trust me with all the problems we have in both countries I can not possibly think of any better name)

Problem#2: Who would be the cheif of army staff of AH army, and same goes true for AHN and AHAF. (do not laugh at it it is a serious matter)

Problem#3 : Assuming both regions have good C&C systems for their Nukes but whose opeartional system would be accepted finally.
Problem#4: How would you designate a parliamentarian MP or Senator.
Problem#5: What should be the new name for school a madarasa or vidya mandir
Problem#6: I do not know how many senators are there in Pakistan but 545 of india plus remaining of pakistan where would you seat them.
The same way we can think of innumerable petty problems that may appear trivial but may be of immense consequence.
any opinion...

 

[Communist]

Things were based on religion back then. Hinduism Vs Islam was the sole reason why Pakistan and India came into existence. But nowadays, ethnicities are the deciding factor.

I don't believe what you're proposing would've been any good for the region. The more separate states we would've had, the more blood shed would have followed.

Cannot agree with you Bezerk. Brother you need to know why Soviet collapsed. Yes CIA was active there, but Soviet became weaker too from within. We need to know the distinctions between a natural spontaneous unification and a superficial forceful unification. When some one accomplishes unity, he must assure the equality. Otherwise, there will occur a centralization of forces and peripheralization of forces at a time. Both types of forces are always antagonistic in nature. Centre always tries to dominate and hegemonize the periphery, and periphery always tries to get away from the central influences. Now the stronger, the centre becomes, the weaker the periphery becomes. The stronger center now applies oppression upon the periphery to try to keep it under control and periphery tries to counter the oppression. Thus the question of equality comes to the surface to avoid such conflicts. When all powers are equal which assures the balance of power, all forces co-exist with each other in a peaceful manner. In Soviet, there gradually inequality came in way as the Soviet began imposing the central cultural overtones on others even without any cultural revolution as Mao latter did in China.

Unity does not necessarily guarantee peace particularly when the unity is gained forcibly and particularly when equality is deliberately ignored. Its not unification, its then a mere imperialism. It will never bring peace. Yes, you can use massive military force to bring a temporary peace, but in the next generation, similar response will grow following Newton's third law.

 

[Rabbit.Rabbit]

Understood about the religious demarcation and it even reverbiates to the current situation today (eg Kashmir).

Europe is actually a very good "future model" to look at, in my opinion. What started as empires pre-WW1 with the French Empire, British Empire, German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Ottoman Empire and Russian Empire has broken down into dozens of nation states. Europe is now and for the forseeable future more peaceful than it has been at any other point in its recorded history (except when it was totally engulfed by a single empire, be it Roman or otherwise - but I doubt anybody here wants that). It's really an all or nothing situation in terms of stability and peace.

I think the Indo-Pak rivalry is a major unifying factor in each respective country as well. If you look to history you notice trends... external enemies provide internal solidarity. Barring that, you can make people too greedy to oppose you by providing them a high quality of life. If India and Pakistan had a stable, long-term peace, I think internal strife in both countries would increase with separtist movements growing in popularity. To what degree, I can only speculate...

Your understanding of history is quite flawed, for the simple reason that you seem to be comparing historical empires with modern federal states.
If anything, you should be comparing India and Pakistan with countries like the US which have created a successful federation based upon democracy. Obviously, multinational empires would tend to fall apart because they are comprised of one dominant ethnicity or nationality subjugating a number of weaker ones. This model is not applicable to India because everybody gets a stake in the national interest and no ethnic group dominates the politics in the country.

Infact, India is quite ahead of Europe in political terms. Whereas Europe managed to put aside their ethnic differences and form an economic federation only recently, the Indian federation has achieved not only economic but also political integration, and has been fairly successful in creating an idea of nationhood that most Indians can associate with.

 

[Communist]

So you all know now that I AM NEW here so smilies please.......

Something about me I am an Indian (proud to be so) a hindu (proud again) a brahmin (hat trick of being proud) hail from a family in which people have fought two wars with pakistan (65&71) victory live in USA (WTF) and on top of all this extermely proud of being extremistly (word coined by me) moderate and tolerant towards all.

Welcome to this forum. Enjoy your stay.

Tell me, how many threads a Brahmin need to make his Upanayana by gathering them together? Which color of Upanayana a Brahmin must wear, red, white or blue? And if red, why red? If white, why white? If blue, why blue?

Mods please consider this welcome cum off topic post.

 

[jeypore]

Welcome to this forum. Enjoy your stay.

[ Which color of Upanayana a Brahmin must wear, red, white or blue? And if red, why red? If white, why white? If blue, why blue? [/SIZE]

Mods please consider this welcome cum off topic post.

The color of Upanayana a brahmin must wear is GREEN, am I right Mr. Communist?

 

[wtf]

Cannot agree with you Bezerk. Brother you need to know why Soviet collapsed. Yes CIA was active there, but Soviet became weaker too from within. We need to know the distinctions between a natural spontaneous unification and a superficial forceful unification. When some one accomplishes unity, he must assure the equality. Otherwise, there will occur a centralization of forces and peripheralization of forces at a time. Both types of forces are always antagonistic in nature. Centre always tries to dominate and hegemonize the periphery, and periphery always tries to get away from the central influences. Now the stronger, the centre becomes, the weaker the periphery becomes. The stronger center now applies oppression upon the periphery to try to keep it under control and periphery tries to counter the oppression. Thus the question of equality comes to the surface to avoid such conflicts. When all powers are equal which assures the balance of power, all forces co-exist with each other in a peaceful manner. In Soviet, there gradually inequality came in way as the Soviet began imposing the central cultural overtones on others even without any cultural revolution as Mao latter did in China.

Unity does not necessarily guarantee peace particularly when the unity is gained forcibly and particularly when equality is deliberately ignored. Its not unification, its then a mere imperialism. It will never bring peace. Yes, you can use massive military force to bring a temporary peace, but in the next generation, similar response will grow following Newton's third law.

A smart post from you, Communist!! It's been a long time I heard something as nice as that from you
I agree with the premise that in the history of the world, it has been the rare case when the center actively gave power away to the periphery. United States started out with each state action almost like an independent state (including state militias) but nowadays it is pretty much centralized. Roman empire started pretty federal, but its attempts at controlling religions in the periphery moved it to a central state.
I think there are two reasons for this 1) Military and 2) Economy. As long as the center is the only one with the army, it will exert increasing pressure on the periphery -this is obvious. The other one is economy - It is much easier to control the economy if there is only one big reserve bank for the country that sets interest rates and one which can issue sovereign debt. (The big-ness is why IMF is so powerful, eventhough all of its money comes from sovereign states, the interest it has to pay is lower than if each state raised money themselves).

So in effect, no, Unification of India and Pakistan is impossible in the near term. Neither Indians, nor Pakistanis want it either.

 

[wtf]

The color of Upanayana a brahmin must wear is GREEN, am I right Mr. Communist?

No, it is red for communist Brahmins, I heard.Saffron is OK for the brave ones. Green is for the farmer Brahmins and white for peaceful ones

 

[Beskar]

Cannot agree with you Bezerk. Brother you need to know why Soviet collapsed. Yes CIA was active there, but Soviet became weaker too from within. We need to know the distinctions between a natural spontaneous unification and a superficial forceful unification. When some one accomplishes unity, he must assure the equality. Otherwise, there will occur a centralization of forces and peripheralization of forces at a time. Both types of forces are always antagonistic in nature. Centre always tries to dominate and hegemonize the periphery, and periphery always tries to get away from the central influences. Now the stronger, the centre becomes, the weaker the periphery becomes. The stronger center now applies oppression upon the periphery to try to keep it under control and periphery tries to counter the oppression. Thus the question of equality comes to the surface to avoid such conflicts. When all powers are equal which assures the balance of power, all forces co-exist with each other in a peaceful manner. In Soviet, there gradually inequality came in way as the Soviet began imposing the central cultural overtones on others even without any cultural revolution as Mao latter did in China.

Unity does not necessarily guarantee peace particularly when the unity is gained forcibly and particularly when equality is deliberately ignored. Its not unification, its then a mere imperialism. It will never bring peace. Yes, you can use massive military force to bring a temporary peace, but in the next generation, similar response will grow following Newton's third law.

I know exactly why Soviet Union collapsed. That has nothing to do with what I posted back there.

My point was that in our PRESENT times, a collapse is unsuitable for the region (Pakistan, India) simply because our governments and political systems wouldn't change. When you talk about soviet union, it wasn't just the collapse of a state, it was also the collapse of Communism. The entire region saw a fresh start including the vast territory that later formed Russia. It was a defeat of an ideology. What ideology is there to defeat in Pakistan's case? That we're a bit more liberal than the TTP extremists? That's not enough of a reason to collapse an entire state. Sadly, the terrorists from BLA and TTP would beg to differ with me on this.

As far as India is concerned, I'm not saying they shouldn't collapse, I'm only saying that it will bring more bloodshed to the region. They wouldn't sit idle and let the newly formed states live in peace. That's exactly why they've kept their separatists movement in control all this time to SOME degree.

We've had a 60+ year old dispute on Kashmir and that pretty much shows our tolerance towards loosing any territory. If we loose territory now in shape of a collapse and formation of new countries, I'm sure both of us wouldn't just sit around and sulk. More blood shed, insurgencies, and dirty strategic tactics would follow in our region, nothing more.

 

[Communist]

The color of Upanayana a brahmin must wear is GREEN, am I right Mr. Communist?

No. There is no green colored Upanayana. It shows you are not a Brahmin. Brahmins know which color. Because the Upanayana culture was initiated by the Brahmins.

 

[Patriot]

Pakistan will not breakup again..period.ISI is very strong now unlike 1971..Pakistan breakup is impossible.Keep in mind both countries are nuclear armed now.Any attempt to break up Pakistan could result in a nuclear holocaust.

 

[Rabbit.Rabbit]

A Greater India is rather far-fetched, mainly because the inhabitants of Sindh and Pakistani Punjab would never agree to it, and also because India is simply not interested in expanding its territory, especially hostile regions which would be a nightmare to govern.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

A Greater India is rather far-fetched, mainly because the inhabitants of Sindh and Pakistani Punjab would never agree to it,

... and neither would the Pashtun, Kashmiris, Baluchis ....

 

[Solomon2]

Pakistan will not breakup again..period.ISI is very strong now unlike 1971..Pakistan breakup is impossible.Keep in mind both countries are nuclear armed now.Any attempt to break up Pakistan could result in a nuclear holocaust.

No secret police/spy system was stronger than that of the Soviet KGB and GRU, yet in the end these didn't prevent the State from collapsing, why would the ISI be any different? And nuclear arms made no difference in preventing either the breakup of the S.U. or the death of apartheid in South Africa. (The South Africans dismantled their nuclear weapons before the ANC took over.)

 

[Rabbit.Rabbit]

... and neither would the Pashtun, Kashmiris, Baluchis ....

That goes without saying. Balochis and Pashtuns don't even want to be a part of Pakistan, so its absurd to think that they would want to be part of India.