The Old Pakistan is Dead, Long Live New Pakistan

Partition into only two countries was wrong. It was totally manipulated process by British that did not favor independence on ethnic grounds. Had British hanged Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah earlier on, we would have had several countries in the region including Bangladesh and mostly living peacefully with each other.
British wanted to leave behind entities that would more likely to stay on good terms within British Commonwealth. With 10 independent states, it was not certain.

Oops #19 with corrections --->
#17 Romair,
``Based on your argument, would you agree that India was wrong to support the creation of Bangladesh? `` ...

Based on my argument, I would say that partition in 1947 was also wrong. Bangladesh would not have happened had there not been a partition.


``As long as the majority treats the minority fairly, the minority will never want to separate. But if the majority states that, ``all ``abonormalities`` were removed by force,`` then separation is the safest option. ``

``What if there are people in power, who attempt to chase down people of other religions, or other ethnicities and kill them, as a matter of political policy? What should the people of other ethnicities and religions do? ``


If you can read your own lines, you can see the solution. Solution is to somehow have a society where minority is treated fairly.

You are fond of counter questions, so here is one. If I just go by your logic of ``minority not being treated fairly, => have partition``, what will you suggest about Ahmediyas. Would you advocate a partition of Pakistan for them?

Romair - I would agree with friend in #19.

There will always be majorities and minorities - heck, there will always be more and less powerful groups in any society - division along ethnic or religious lines doesn`t change that - in the long run it is fair societies which last, and unfair ones which don`t - homogeneity isn`t that much of a deciding factor (look at the US) and in any case is not an option in the subcontinent.

#17 Romair,
``Based on your argument, would you agree that India was wrong to support the creation of Bangladesh? `` ...

Based on my argument, I would say that even partition in 1947 was wrong. Bangladesh would not have happened had there not been a partition.

``As long as the majority treats the minority fairly, the minority will never want to separate. But if the majority states that, ``all ``abonormalities`` were removed by force,`` then separation is the safest option. ``

``What if there are people in power, who attempt to chase down people of other religions, or other ethnicities and kill them, as a matter of political policy? What should the people of other ethnicities and religions do? ``

If you read your own lines, you can see the solution. Solution is to somehow have a society where minority is treated fairly.

You are fond of counter questions, so here is one. If I just go by ``minority not being treated fairly, => have partition``, what will talk about Ahmediyas. though they may only be few millions, would you advocate a partition of Pakistan for them?

ZafarA #15: The question you have asked is, unfortunately, the basis of much of the violence in the world. What people gain is difficult to understand. What did India and Pakistan gain by separating from the British Empire? There are (were) many British who felt India and Pakistan gained nothing from independence, and lost everything. Hong Kong is much better off than India or Pakistan. But we did not want to live under the British, and that is all that is important. What the occupier thinks is, and should always be, immaterial.

One cannot define what other people may or may not gain. The one thing they gain is that they themselves get to decide what they should gain and not gain, and what they should do and not do with their lives. Basically, that is why people fight for independence.

People should only live in political unions, if they do so willingly. They should not be forced to do so. Human nature dictates that they will only want to separate if they feel they will gain something.

Friend #16: ``Divisions based on language or religion do not make sense in 21st century.``

What if there are people in power, who attempt to chase down people of other religions, or other ethnicities and kill them, as a matter of political policy? What should the people of other ethnicities and religions do?

The reason the USA is one country is because it does not have parties like the BJP in power. Canada is one country, percisely because it does not kill anyone who wants to separate. If today, the KKK came into power, the USA would be at least two countries.

There is a reason that the Muslims of USA or Canada don`t want a separate country, but the Muslims of India and Kashmir do and did want one. It is due to the same reason that the Bengalis in USA don`t want a separate country, but the Bengalis in E. Pakistan wanted one.

As long as the majority treats the minority fairly, the minority will never want to separate. But if the majority states that, ``all ``abonormalities`` were removed by force,`` then separation is the safest option.

Based on your argument, would you agree that India was wrong to support the creation of Bangladesh?

``Four separate political states: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kashmir ``

But what is the point? Why? Who gains? What do people get that they don`t have now? What would people lose? What about the transition?

Divisions based on language or religion do not make sense in 21st century. Within Delhi there are areas dominated by bengalis, beharis, pubjabis, haryanvis and urdu speakrs. Should Delhi be divided in 5 counteries. And what happens to south Indians who live in Chitranjan park? If we want to divide on religious bwhere do we stop? Should we stop at hindu/muslim/sikh/christian level, or a bania, brahmin, kayastha, shia, sunni, catholic, syrian, christian, bahai & namdhari level? What happens to a namdhari family who live in part of territory controlled by mainstream sikhs?
This issue is not unique ot india or Pakistan. This issue is global. In America`s this was partially resolved BECAUSE all ``abonormalities`` were removed by force. Even in USA, there were areas dominated by Germans, French and Spaniards, some of these people left, some were forced to left and some embraced dominant culture.
And we have seen only three to four hunder years of history of these areas. Now USA is becoming more and more mutli-cultural. If spanish speaking people grow in strength, should we divide USA in two countries?
No sir, these issues can not be solved by creating more division. Because there will always be a majority and there will be a minority. We need to think out of box. I woudl even think of a world confedration, where people in world vote together and have a single government. And I can immediately see issues with that plan too.
But IMHO, religious or lingual boundaries are too overlapping and can not be basis of divisions.

A very realistic depiction of the situation. What happens to a country when the majority want independence from the minority?

ZafarA #12: You have made some good points.

I think neither a centralized, nor a confederated solution should be forced. Any state that wants to be separate, should be allowed to be separate. But this should not be forced.

Such separations, need not be bloody. Quebec went through a civilian referendum. If California wanted to separate politically from the USA, I have a feeling it would be a bloodless vote.

We have all seen the effects of forced centralization in 47 (forced separation due to lack of acceptance of loose federation by Nehru), Bangladesh (forced centralization from Pakistan) and now Kashmir (forced centralization by India). All these would not have occured had the powerful central authority, in each case, volunatarily accepted the right of separation of the areas. Infact, it could have offered them a joint currency and no-visa policy. I believe Pakistan, Bangladesh and Kashmir, would have accepted that.

My ideal view of the Sub-Continent, keeping in mind the historical events, wishes of people, practicalities etc. would include:

Four separate political states: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kashmir

One common currency: For all four states, like the Euro

No visa: No visa restriction for travel between these four entities

Common Council: Much like the EU Councils, to monitor combined economic policies, and perhaps even ocmbined foreign and defence policy. The head of the council could alternate between India and the other three countries, i.e. One year from India, one from Pakistan, India again, then Bangladesh, India again, and then Kashmir.

In the end, nation states are slowly going to become emotional concepts. Common economic unions, like EU, will and should, replace them. For areas with monolithic aspirations, histories, languages etc. like USA, they could be centralized (which is more efficient, if everyone wants to be part of one political entity). For areas with so many differences (and commonalities) like Europe and Sub-Continent, they should be lose federations of economic unions, with each region voluntarily being a part of any country it wants to join, or becoming a separate political entity, and even leaving the economic union if it wants (no one ever wants to leave successful economic unions, however).

SR #6: I agree with you. I have been suggesting something similar for a while.

Pakistan (and India) cannot work under the USA forumula, i.e. one giant state. They must work under the EU formula, i.e. a large number of easily distinguishable states with different ethnicities, languages, etc. which exist under one common central govt., which just controls defence, currency, and foreign affairs. Everything else should be local.

The biggest tragedy of the Sub-Continent is Nehru`s refusal to accept the Cabinet Mission Plan, while all other parties accepted it. I think the Sub-Continent should have been one loose federation, with autonomous Muslim and Hindu regions in 47. It could have then taken its own natural time to evolve into either one monolithic secular state, with no room for the BJPs, or two or three or x number of different states, with no one in for the BJPs to target in each state.

As a rule, any state that wants some independence from the monolithic Pakistan and India entities should be allowed to separate peacefully (like Quebec), while remaining in a joint economic union, with no visa restrictions. In the end, if you have one economic union with no visa restricitions and the same currency, you are basically one country, anyways.

Reply JS #10

Many nation states we think of today started off precisely as state nations - for example France. France reached its present dimensions (more or less) under the Bourbons, and it was due to their centralised administration from Paris that the language of Paris gained its dominance over the other languages spoken in the country (Provencal, Basque, Breton, dialects of German and Dutch). And with the common language came the growth of a common identity, but it came at a high cost in terms of provincial self-government, and blood from across the country. It was a long, slow, and decidedly warlike process.

The question is, DO we, in the subcontinent, need to belong to ethnolinguistic nation states? Is it in our best interests to have such entities, or are we better off in the equivalents of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, entities which encompass many languages and ethnicities, but which still have a certain political and social identity? Keep in mind that France became what we would recognise as French by a process of one culture and language dominating the others, not by grace of an originally linguisitically homogenous population.

Also - if one wanted to create linguistic states by a splitting, or partition, of the current countries, don`t forget that there are far more linguistically mixed areas in the subcontinent than there are linguistically homogenous ones. You would either get massive population movements - as we experienced during Partition - or large minorities which suddenly found themselves speaking a ``foreign`` language in their home towns. Even in a country which is officially committed to multiethnic nationality (India) this has created some problems in the past between our (did you know?) linguistically based states. And this despite all individuals having the franchise and equal rights.

For an example further from home look at, well at Central Asia. What are all their simmering conflicts about, and would they happen without large ``minorities`` - minorities, mind you, that are living in their ancestral villages and towns?

Also, consider this: the most prosperous parts of the subcontinent are those which are multiethnic and multilingual. (For example, EVERY large city has people speaking several languages.) What do they have to gain from being shoe horned into a linguistically homogenous country? What are they losing by being in a large ethnically and linguistically heterogenous state? What would the knock on effects on the economy of the whole subcontinent be if you derailed the growth of these heterogenous wealth producing spots?

Finally - is the nation state the best we can aspire to? Why?

Regards

Apart from the narratives of past happenings,which are undeniable facts,i believe,the author of the article wants to drive home a very thought provoking point and that is-Hindustan and Pakistan are no ``Nation States`` and they were never before in the history.If at all they are,these two entities are ``State Nations``.The fine difference between the two concepts is that nation sates are born after pangs of ``Nationalism``-the cocept which got currency in the 18th century,paticularly during Napoleonic era.Such states cobbled togather the boundry in which cultural unity--in the broadest sense--existed.The other factors were,in many states,the language,the climatic oneness etc.This nationalism became like religion and also proved very destructive on many occasions.``State Nations``-like Hindustan and Pakistan-are unfortunately do not fit in the defination of Nation States because,in this case, states were born by political artificial insemenation and than efforts were underway to make a nation.This is impossible.It has never happened in the history ever.Nation bears state -state can never give birth to a nation.In this context neither Hindustan is a nation state nor Pakistan.Both states were not there,the day they were born to British midwife.They have to wither away into different ``Nation States``.If this is the idea of the author,it has lot of sense.People should give their view points about Nation state and State Nation.

I do not understand the point of this article. Does the author believe that should not be Pakistan? Is he commenting on the mismanagement of the state of Pakistan. Everyone knows whta happened or what is happening. I am surprised that such nonsense is even published.

Dr. Rabbani`s condensed article provides an interesting combination of events and analogies. He seems to reject (or undermine) the religious basis of our national identity without explicitly pointing out the need for a just and secular state. It also appears that he believes in the need to restructure Pakistan on the basis of ethnicity. If Dr. Rabbani thinks that the creation of Pakistan on the basis of religion was a serious mistake, then any effort to restructure existing Pakistan on an ethno-linguistic basis may be another grave mistake, perhaps one of the worst mistakes in the history of Pakistan (and South Asia).

I think, we need to work for the unity of existing Pakistan by protecting the fundamental civil, political, social, and human rights of all Pakistani nationals irrespective of their class, gender, ethno-linguistic background, religious orientation, geographical location, etc. Having said this, I want to reproduce and share a couple of my letter that I published recently in the Frontier Post.

Frontier Post, June 11, 1999

Protect minorities, ensure national unity



The Quid-e-Azam was very sensitive to the minority question. In pre-Partition India, particularly during the 1930s and the 1940s, the Muslim minority developed a sense of insecurity. It was this sense of economic, political, and cultural insecurity that eventually led to the creation of Pakistan.

Given the ethno-linguistic setup of Pakistan, the Baluchis, the Pukhtuns, and the Sindhis are some of the leading minority groups. Pakistan, however, is the home of numerous additional minority groups. Majority-minority relations exist in every province of Pakistan. Can we say with pride that the minorities in Pakistan are fully protected against the kind of alienation, oppression, and deprivation that the Indian Muslim minority felt some fifty-two odd years back?

The imagined community of the Indians was shattered in the late 1940s. Can we protect ours in this period of gradual and persistent decadence? If we, as a Pakistani nation, have some hope, then we must find ways to save ourselves from further disintegration. One major step would be to show real concern for our socially and geographically variable economic, political, and cultural insecurities.

Bilal Ahmad,

USA

Frontier Post; July 2, 1999

Another Call for Devolution



Many Pakistani citizens have recently stressed the need for a change in the structure of power through devolution. Devolution refers to the transfer of power from the center to a subnational jurisdiction. In Pakistan, a call for devolution is basically a call for some sort of provincial autonomy. Interestingly, Benazir Bhutto has also shown her belief in the devolution of decision-making since it would provide a more effective government to our people (Letter to the Editor, Washington Post, June 28).



In her letter, she further maintains that ``greater regional autonomy`` would ``help our people make the best use of available resources ... in tackling the problems of poverty, illiteracy and backwardness``. I wonder what she really means by ``our people,`` a select few or all Pakistani citizens irrespective of their class, gender, ethno-linguistic, religious, and other bases of individual and collective identities? Regardless of her real intent, the significance of devolution cannot be undermined since this measure may lead to greater citizen empowerment, a responsive government, and above all, national unity and security. If there is any merit in these expectations, then the issue of devolution must be placed on the forefront of our national agenda.

Bilal Ahmad

USA

Not a bad article and certainly not as confrontional as threatened in the preface. However, would disagree with the premise that the ideological basis for Pakistan does not exist. What we must acknowledge is that the dynamics of nationhood now require a reasssesment of the mechanics and framework of how this right is exercised. Times and circumstances mean that Pakistan must reflect the ethos of our people and not just the oligarchies that continue to dominate our country.