I am enthralled by your answer. Don't be irritated at my lengthy responses, because the way in which you have engaged with my arguments (let us overlook the very rough treatment given them: sar salaamat toh pugree hazaar). In this day of half-witted, half-baked and half-grown little runts (I refer to their mental development), this is blissful.
An interesting take, but there are major issues I disagree with. Allow me to go through them one by one.
Also, forgive me if I misinterpret your view, or repeat a point you've addressed.
Rubbish. This is the best that has come my way for some time.
I wouldn't call it "artificially equated position", as there was already a sentiment among the hindu population at the time, that Muslims were nothing more than British agents, and prior to that, occupiers; Many still believed that a majority of Muslims were simply Hindus that were forced to convert and would likely "revert" back to hinduism, when the British left. This issue can today be seen in the form of anti-conversion laws, which exclude efforts by hindu nationalists to expand "Ghar Wapsi" projects.
I disagree completely.
You are extrapolating backwards into history some of the rank prejudices of today, and these are disgusting growths on the face of society, nothing normal. Can you cite any evidence of your assertions about Muslims being nothing more than British agents, or occupiers? On the contrary, I have the clear evidence of the Hunter Commission Report (was it 1874? I have no time and am not in the mood to look it up) which first created the simulacrum of the Indian Muslim, rather than the earlier, far more authentic model of the Muslim Indian. Yes, you might want similar treatment as that meted out to you, and might accost me with an unfriendly tap on the shoulder and the question,"So where are your citations? Or is the sauce for the goose turning out to be sauce for the gander?" If you undertake to suspend disbelief, as I am informed Pakistani habitually do when watching those outrages on the senses that you and most Indians glorify by the name of cinema, then please wait for this Sunday evening for the sources.
This purported belief that Muslims would fall back into a form of Hinduism would have been justified if there had been evidence. There is none, unless the practice of Hindus worshipping at Muslim shrines, as the softer temper of those times permitted, or the practice of Muslims participating in originally Hindu festivals such as Holi, or Baisakhi, or some aspects of the Pujas in Bengal, or some obscure social practices like the Bangladeshi adoption of gaye holood, the turmeric ceremony for the bride, now, to the utter bewilderment of Hindus, extended to the hapless and surely undeserving bridegroom as well in B'desh, gives the impression of an increasing readiness NOT to hold your collective skirts away from the contagion of kaffir touch.
Where did the British agents bit come in? They were, after all, in post-Mutiny days, hated and distrusted by the British, until Curzon came in and succeeded in turning them into a British ally once again with his first partition of Bengal. This agency of the British is a feature of common superstition or prejudice that could have come along only in the mature stages of the independence struggle, when suddenly Muslim political activism on their own account surged up, and earlier Muslim involvement with the mainstream independence movement was obscured. Remember the widespread sympathetic movement during Surendranath Bannerjee's episode, and the agitation against British tyranny and unfairness in dealing with his case. There was certainly strong Muslim involvement at that stage, the late 19th century.
Anti-conversion laws have recently been proposed in some states, those ruled by the BJP, and I was under the impression that these, too, are under judicial scrutiny at the moment. These proposals represent the BJP at its most irresponsible, and to apply this particular type of soorma to the entire face of India, indeed, to the entire face of the Hindu part of India, is unfair. Incidentally, such laws would undermine the Ghar Wapasi projects; they would not allow the individual concerned to undergo conversion back to Hinduism.
The fear was that, and I would argue that India's history of Muslim-Hindu tensions and riots justify this fear, Muslims would not only be a minority, but they'd be a minority that would be constantly targeted.
This is a remarkable statement, considering that the Muslims generally had the upper hand in this rioting, prior to independence. I believe that statistics support this view; again, this will have to wait till Sunday evening. It is reportedly true after independence.
It is also appropriate to mention that in Bengal, the last major communal riots were the Telinipara riots on the right bank of the Hooghly. That was an attack by the Bihari Hindu component of the jute mill work force on the Bihari Muslim component. My family was personally involved; M. J. Akbar, whose father lived there, has acknowledged in public a family member's role in crushing the riots in short order. Under the Communist administration, for thirty five years, there was not a single riot. There were unpleasant episodes like the blind eye turned to Muslim bigots during the Salman Rushdie episode, or the thoroughly bad behaviour of both government and the Muslim community towards the harried Taslima Nasreen, or the nasty incident of the sub-editor of The Statesman, forced from his employment by mob insistence, but not a single incident of the victimisation of the Muslim by the Hindu occurred.
I do agree that partition became inevitable, but just not for the exact mentality you say was present during the time.
Let us set it aside until we have examined the other facts in greater detail.
On both these points, I disagree.
Pakistan's stance was NOT the right to have sole ownership of the subcontinents's Islamic Identity (which I assume is what you're saying), but rather be a homeland for the subcontinent's Muslim population. Being an Islamic nation itself was only a secondary objective, which is why Pakistan did not, and still does not purge the nation of non-Muslims. It is also why the army has from the beginning, recruited army officers from minority religious groups, from Christians to Hindus.
Good argument. But why then does the government of Pakistan criticise the government of India from time to time on the condition of Muslim Indians, other than the understandable criticisms directed towards the international audience of Indian wrong-doings in Kashmir?
"Strategic parity" is a term that I find a lot of people throw around, when it comes to Pakistan army's quest, without actually fully understanding PA's thinking.
When Pakistan's military says "strategic parity", it does not mean a 1 for 1 manpower, 1 for 1 fighter jet, 1 for 1 tank; what Pakistan's stance is that India should not have a clear superior advantage that would lead to a dominating Indian victory. Pakistan's stance is similar to Israel, where it wants to maintain certain advantages, which would force India to rethink its attempt any sort of military adventure against Pakistan.
From the Indian perspective, considering the records of the military skirmishes of the last seventy years, this has a bitter taste to it. Except 1971, when Indira Gandhi was driven to accident by the seething anger in Bengal, India has never been an aggressor. I address this to the audience that is prepared to look at the written record, at the historical narrative and at the consensus of military experts. What is the sense of maintaining a salience over a strong neighbour, and then attacking that neighbour at every single opportunity?
Keep in mind, Pakistani military personnel, as zealous as they can be, aren't stupid. They know that they'll never match India 1 for 1, but "strategic parity" in this case would allow them to make sure that India would not be able to win a war against Pakistan.
In the end, that's literally what Pakistan army's idea of "strategic parity" is, to make sure India does not win in a war between the two nations. That's where the idea of Pakistan's "offensive defense" came from, take over Indian territory, and force India to the negotiating table.
Reasonable, but the record is damning.
I hope I haven't disappointed your expectations. I'm allowed to have irrational beliefs, aren't I?
I am wounded, almost deeply wounded. Also left feeling deflated. I took such care with my circumlocution, and I thought with great self-admiration that it had drawn a silken veil over the personal criticism involved.
Anyway, I'm not saying its exactly the same, but the nature and principle are similar in nature; I don't think that is a controversial statement to make.
It isn't particularly controversial, except that it seemed the right thing to suggest, to keep you on the back foot.
I can mostly agree to that. Where I would disagree is that even the "correct model" would likely have led to similar situation, if only on a smaller scale. Separatism, for federations such as Pakistan and India (even the US and China), is inevitable situations that they have to address. Even highly educated nations, with better income equality than the subcontinent, such as the UK, have to face separatist sentiments; The idea of a "United" kingdom, where the British, Irish and Scottish, plus other citizens that have made their way there from the commonwealth of nations (the successor organization to Imperial Britain) are all equal under a single flag, common values, and common identity, has faced the harsh reality that some peoples just do not want to integrate with the greater populous.
Separatism in Pakistan, much like in most of the world, is based on racial separation. Baluchis want a homeland based upon the idea of having a community that is mainly share the same blood, that is why we have seen BLA and BRA target non-Baluch minority groups within Baluchistan.
Ah, you discovered the carefully-laid trap! Or some part of it, anyway.
I had planned to suggest, at this point, that you look up the term zugzwang. Now that you have detected the ambush, you might as well check out that term - is that the way it is said?
But regardless of the motives of separation, the subsequent loss of Kashmir would enbolden them. If Pakistan can lose Kashmir, a region that it has fought tooth and nail for, why couldn't they also separate?
Whether the separatist bid succeeds or fails is irrelevant, it would weaken the state, and irreparably damaging it for decades to come. Keep in mind, a lot of the issues Baluchistan faces actually have nothing to do with what they claim has been "negligence" from the federal government, rather it has been due to separatist insurgencies that have stifled investments, and forced the government and domestic companies to slow down the pace of development, for the sake of safety and security.
Look at what is happening to CPEC. A majority of the propaganda that the insurgents have been throwing around about it, have been out right lies. If the insurgents ever succeeded, they'd be begging to get these investments themselves.
This part of your response is very satisfactory, in a very partisan sense. I shall not clear it up, until it (inevitably) dawns on you. Oh, I am such a wily, cunning Hindu!
I honestly have no idea what to make of this portion. Can you rewrite it? Just pretend I'm 5 years old, because my brain can't seem to process it.
"If Pakistan is doing well, why are you worried about secession and survival?"
I now await your onslaught. I am glad that you have not fully read the riddle posed.
