Pakistan: "Nightmare on the subcontinent"

[Omar1984]

Indians never can leave Pakistan alone, even though partition happened 62 years ago, they are still obsessed over Pakistan. I dont know why, almost all Pakistanis always lived in their land for generations, only a small minority of Hindus/Sikhs left for India (there are still some Hindus/Sikhs in Pakistan) and a small minority of Muslims from the Indian side came over to Pakistan. Almost all Indians always lived in what is known as India and almost all Pakistanis always lived in what is known as Pakistan. India is 8 times larger than Pakistan and they are obsessed over a small Pakistan in the north-west.

We Pakistanis decided the fate of our land 62 years ago and Pakistan's future can only be determined by Allah and Pakistanis not Americans and certainly not Indians.

India has more different ethnic groups than Pakistan and they have more separatist movements going on in India than in Pakistan..so worry about your own damn country first.

BTW, Pakistan's population is now 172 million, India's population is over 1 billion...there are more Muslims in Pakistan than in India. 14% of India's population are Muslims while 97% of Pakistan's population are Muslims..also India recognizes Ahmadiyyas as Muslims while Pakistan doesn't so those 14% Muslims in India also includes Ahmadiyyas.

Also less than 5% of India's population share ethnic similarities with Pakistanis (Punjabis, Sindhis, Pashtuns, Balochis, Kashmiris, Saraikis) so to make Pakistan part of India is crazy because 95% of India's population share no ethnic similarities with Pakistanis and 86% of India's population share no religious similarities with Pakistanis.

 

[saiko]

Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia simply cannot be compared with India because these ethnic groups had active and ongoing conflicts. there really aren't any such problems within India, and frankly it betrays a complete absence of understanding of Indian culture on your part.

Yeah the great Slovakian civil war that didn't happen.

India of course is a happy country ethnic and culturla diversity without any separtist movements. Oh except these ones of course:

Separatist movements of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's a mighty long list there.

Your point is invalid, as I said, because the driving force for an ethnic homeland is the perceived persecution or subjugation of one ethnicity at the hands of another. Such issues do not exist federations whose collective identity is exactly that- collective - rather than the glorification of one single ethnic group.

You seem to be under the mistaken belief that this isn't true for Yugoslavia (Tito tried many things and had some success but only delayed the inevitable) or pretty much every other multi-ethnic society that lasted for a significant amount of time but eventually collapsed. Either the dominant ethnic group violently suppressed the others or tried to appeal to something greater. Neither worked in the long-run.

India is a young nation state and has never been tested without the external enemies (perceived or real) that help unify it internally. As with every other example we can throw out here, in most cases at some opint in time (and even for long periods of time) there were low tensions and peace. Things change. You can not change ethnicity. And if language barriers remain, cultural integration is virtually impossible to the degree necessary to maintain long-term social cohesion. It's why there is such a large debate in the US about Spanish speakers not learning English.

A recent example of the UK being divided up was based on the historical narrative of the subjugation of the Irish by the English. After all, which Irishman would like to be ruled by the king of England?

All the protestant ones do. And why? They are unified against the Catholics. In spite of all being irish and all suffering under the English, they still can't stand to live together.

Similarly, the Soviet Union disintegrated because it was the ethnic Russians which were subjugating the other ethnic groups within the federation, and they failed in creating an identity that all the republics could identify with.

Yet you seem to think this will never apply to India. It may apply right now because tensions are low, but they are there and all it might take is one good kick to bust down the door and send the rest spiralling out of control.

And the fundamental concept of India is the recognition of ethnic homelands along with the larger Indian homeland. The two ideas are complementary, not contradictory as is usually the case.
The idea of India as a single entity is also a historical one, and it is present in the histories of all the communities of India in some form or another.

Obviously we're not going to agree with one another. All I'll say is if the Pakistani/Islamic extremist boogeyman ever stops being something Indians can rally behind India had better do their best to keep economic growth high. China, to their credit, has long recognized these basic facts and has pinned their social stability on greed. And China is far more homogenous culturally, ethnically, religiously and linguistically than India.

It is similar where it needs to be - different ethnic groups and for that matter different cultural groups forming a federation.
Don't get confused boy the homogeneity that you see in today's USA. The situation was completely different two centuries ago.

Uh, the USA is less homogenous today than it ever has been in the past. Even the USA has demographic problems to face - the growing latino populations who do not integrate and their growing political power will lead to problems in the future.

If you think that its bollywood which is keeping India united then you are sadly mistaken. India's cultural unity is a deep undercurrent that transcends language.

I realize sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet but that one should have been obvious.

Canada once again consists of two culturally disparate regions cobbled together by one region accepting the cultural domination of the other. Naturally, it would lead to friction.

I'd love for you to point out the cultural domination the English speaking parts of Canada impose on the French speaking parts.

You're actually going to find that English speaking Canada bends over backwards to appease Quebec and they still came to within a point of separating.

You cynicism is unwarranted, and I'd say that greed and fear are the reasons why states break up, not unify. Unity is something that comes from a sense of higher purpose and an appreciation of what we hold in common along with respect of ones differences.

I didn't write history, I just read it.

 

[jeypore]

Personally, Pakistani government policies don't strike as important as Pakistan's lackluster political leadership. For democratically-elected leaders they seem rather lethargic, unwilling to step forward. No one can imagine Zardari as Abraham Lincoln, for example, taking a divisive stand and hiring and firing generals at will. They behave more like consensus-seeking, power-sharing, oligarchs. The weakness of such a system is simply that it doesn't stand the stresses of war very well - how can general fight successfully if they must accede to a half-dozen or more political bosses?

That is a very good point solomon, And I have been stressing this also. That word commander and chief does not apply to the president or PM in the pakistanie system. So lacks the power to do anything. US has made it clear that they will deal with the politicians in terms of war on terror and funding. It clearly seems to me that US is making a big mistake in dealing with Pakistanie politicians and should be dealing with only the head of the Army. Atleast, we would get something accomplished, instead of all the double talks and tail wagging.

 

[Solomon2]

That word commander and chief does not apply to the president or PM in the pakistanie system.

??? Under the current Constitution, the prez is the C-in-C, yes? He just isn't behaving like one.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Just the plain truth Mr. Agnostic. Unpalatable for you of course, the nationalist that you are.

On second thought, my post was inappropriate and uncalled for.

My apologies for that.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It clearly seems to me that US is making a big mistake in dealing with Pakistanie politicians and should be dealing with only the head of the Army.

Actually according to some reports, Gen. Kiyani is in fact insisting that the US government deal with Pakistan largely through the GoP.

He is fine with the military to military exchanges, but he is holding true to his apolitical reputation and choosing not to step on the turf of the GoP.

 

[jeypore]

Actually according to some reports, Gen. Kiyani is in fact insisting that the US government deal with Pakistan largely through the GoP.

He is fine with the military to military exchanges, but he is holding true to his apolitical reputation and choosing not to get step on the turf of the GoP.

It also shows the positive side of pakistans democratic system at work.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pakistan is not going to see a popular revolution. Its society is too stratified, and any uprising by the peasant class will be couched in religious extremism, which will prove to be even worse for its future.
Unlike Iran for example, where society is far more homogeneous and ideas can take hold quickly among a significant cross-section of the population.

The Taliban are attempting to gain support among the locals by positioning themselves as robin hood (several recent reports to this effect) and promising free, fast, and probably fairer justice than what the dysfunctional courts had to offer before. The brutal and arbitrary nature is something the locals seem ready to accept in return.

The political scene is feudal in nature, not professional like the US. Without economic, political and genealogical clout, its difficult to get a party ticket, much less get elected to parliament. Infact, challenging the local strongman would probably the quickest way to heaven for an idealistic upstart politician.

Revolutions are messy, and unfair and unjust in their own way - I don't like them and I will not support one.

My hope for change is incremental and long term, through continuity and hopefully evolution of the existing process, starting with building faith in the system.

It would be interesting to see what the average Pakistani thinks of the constitution, or if they even know their rights enshrined in it. With the system being overthrown through unconstitutional means so often, the constitution itself has lost all value - it has become a piece of paper to be amended and ripped up when need be.

People need to take pride in that document, int the values and rights it enshrines, in the systems and processes it lays out under which the people can genuinely claim that their government is 'for them, by them and of them'.

I agree that the political scene is dominated by feudals, but that has been changing in the last decade or so.

Nawaz Sharif is an industrialist for example, and the MQM is a largely middle class based party which is slowly moving away from its 'gangster roots'.

Commentators often look at the feudal dominated political scene and argue that Pakistan has accomplished very little in 60 years. The problem with that analysis is that with all of the coups and dismissed governments, Pakistan's political process has never really had a chance to evolve and reform. I think the system needs a decent run without interruptions to start changing and before we can make pass judgment on whether Pakistan's social stratification offers an inherent and massive barrier to change and reform.

 

[Rabbit.Rabbit]

Yeah the great Slovakian civil war that didn't happen.

India of course is a happy country ethnic and cultural diversity without any separtist movements. Oh except these ones of course:

Separatist movements of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's a mighty long list there.

Another red herring. How many of those actually enjoy some degree of popular support? Probably a handful.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Anyone can start his own 'movement' for his own 'xyzstan' by opening an office and hiring a few gunmen.

You seem to be under the mistaken belief that this isn't true for Yugoslavia (Tito tried many things and had some success but only delayed the inevitable) or pretty much every other multi-ethnic society that lasted for a significant amount of time but eventually collapsed. Either the dominant ethnic group violently suppressed the others or tried to appeal to something greater. Neither worked in the long-run.

India doesn't HAVE a dominant ethnic group. Pray tell me which ethnic group dominates the other?
The central government and bureaucracy is made up of people from all ethnic groups and regions, it always has.

If you'd been discussing caste-tensions and the domination of upper-castes then I could atleast console myself that you know the first thing about India, but it seems that you don't.

India is a young nation state and has never been tested without the external enemies (perceived or real) that help unify it internally. As with every other example we can throw out here, in most cases at some opint in time (and even for long periods of time) there were low tensions and peace. Things change. You can not change ethnicity. And if language barriers remain, cultural integration is virtually impossible to the degree necessary to maintain long-term social cohesion. It's why there is such a large debate in the US about Spanish speakers not learning English.

India's current level of cultural integration has kept it together for this long. With ethnic differences reducing and not growing, what makes you think that it will be more difficult to keep together than earlier?

All the protestant ones do. And why? They are unified against the Catholics. In spite of all being irish and all suffering under the English, they still can't stand to live together.

That's precisely my point. One group, either religious or ethnic ruling over the other. That's ALWAYS the undercurrent when countries split up. This is why the EU is a success, because it is truly representative.

Yet you seem to think this will never apply to India. It may apply right now because tensions are low, but they are there and all it might take is one good kick to bust down the door and send the rest spiralling out of control.

Again, do name the ethnic group which is dominating the others. Please do. I'm waiting.

You go ahead and give it a kick sir.

Obviously we're not going to agree with one another. All I'll say is if the Pakistani/Islamic extremist boogeyman ever stops being something Indians can rally behind India had better do
their best to keep economic growth high. China, to their credit, has long recognized these basic facts and has pinned their social stability on greed. And China is far more homogenous culturally, ethnically, religiously and linguistically than India.

The Pakistani/Islamic bogeyman has rarely been a rallying point for Indians. Infact, the Congress party actively desists from using this as a poll issue.
In south India, which has never seen a single war with Pakistan or any significant communal tensions, this is infact a non-issue.

China, you've forgotten to mention, is not a democracy, and hence it needs to give people compelling reasons not to revolt against the complete stifling of political freedom.

Also, India remained intact for 50 odd years when the economic growth was almost negligible. I wonder why...

Uh, the USA is less homogenous today than it ever has been in the past. Even the USA has demographic problems to face - the growing latino populations who do not integrate and their growing political power will lead to problems in the future.

If you compare the different regions of the US, they are far more similar today than a they were a couple of centuries ago. Even accents are more or less similar, with regional inflections disappearing.

I'd love for you to point out the cultural domination the English speaking parts of Canada impose on the French speaking parts.

You're actually going to find that English speaking Canada bends over backwards to appease Quebec and they still came to within a point of separating.

Really? Then why is Queen Elizabeth the reigning monarch? Is there an unpleasant history here that we're not discussing? hmm....

I didn't write history, I just read it.

I'd say I do the same Mr. saiko

 

[zombie]

So what is the preferred solution? Greater India with a looser federal structure? The break-up of Pakistan into additional independent states? Anarchy? Does anybody think Pakistan will be the same state five years from now that it was a decade ago?

Well Pakistan was born out of division so incorporating Pakistan into rest of India will only have detrimental effect on a "greater" country and wont be agreeable to most Indians even if Pakistanis want to.

But instead of a unstable Pakistan, 4 seperate stable nations would be the answer. After all even in such a case the seperate nation theory would still hold good and these countries would continue to be muslim in nature.

Jinnah wanted to have muslims live in a seperate country from "Hindustan". This doesnt necessarilly mean one country. Muslims not living under under non-muslims doesnt mean they have to live under the tyranny of other muslims who will use religion to rule them.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

But instead of a unstable Pakistan, 4 seperate stable nations would be the answer. After all even in such a case the seperate nation theory would still hold good and these countries would continue to be muslim in nature.

Why four separate nations from Pakistan and not a dozen or more from India?

 

[zombie]

Why four separate nations from Pakistan and not a dozen or more from India?

India wasnt created for religious reasons while for it was for pakistan.

 

[Rabbit.Rabbit]

If you see that way, each Indian state should have been nation by itself. Would have been a nightmare. We have many state level disputes like Maharashtra- Karnataka border dispute, Karnataka - Tamilnadu water dispute etc. Thankfully today, as they have center to go to, these problems do not escalate. In absence of a center, there would have been wars for sure. And what if some states get nuclear assets? Then we have got a problem at our hands. All states would have turned into a bunch of failed states.

Precisely. The Indian federation is the solution to these potential ethnic and political clashes. It has brought peace to a region which otherwise could have had a dozen different armies fighting over peanuts.

The Europeans took a while to realize this, and WWII was the great shock which made them take concrete steps to prevent the mass killing all over again.

Indians had a headstart in that the British had already built the administrative structures, but what was needed is the realization among different community leaders that peace and unity is the bes way to solve your problems, not interminable wars and ethnic conflicts.

 

[IceCold]

Well Pakistan was born out of division so incorporating Pakistan into rest of India will only have detrimental effect on a "greater" country and wont be agreeable to most Indians even if Pakistanis want to.

Do you seriously believe that Pakistanis would want to join India...hahaha man seriously it seems some ego maniacs are trying to fulfill their ego. Now go get a life, Pakistanis would rather die then to your join your pathetic land of fanatic Hindus.

 

[white_pawn]

First of all there is going to be no Unification of India and Pakistan both are saperate nation and both have different foundation and look better to be so. The situation here in South Asia is similar to that of europe before 1950's. Once the countires and ppls come to actual sence of what is happening the situation may Stabilize .

I wont proclaim pakistan a "Nightmare on the subcontinent" at this moment , but if the condition continues for long then it could be a Nightmare got for the region, and to avoide GOP and PA has to take some very Concrete steps.