Need for a Confederation

re maliani

``Jinnah is responsible for all the blood bath that took place``

really ms/mr maliani, have you not read ANY history of south asia recently? you give mr. jinnah too much credit. he is not single-handedly responsible for partition - he did not really want it or even expect it. nehru`s unwillingness to share power, gandhi`s communalization of the independence struggle and mountbatten`s cowardly, irresponsible decision to announce borders AFTER granting independence to the two countries all contributed to the mess.

your view of mr jinnah is as one-dimensional and distorted as of the guardians of pakistani ideology who never want to mention that he was once the much-celebrated champion of hindu-muslim unity and secular person.

also, you havent mentioned a single army action against the mohajirs in recent years. and, there have been many. any special reason for that omission?

Two Nation theory is a complete failure! Pakistan is a failed state! Unless the ideology of Pakistan is redefined according to the 1940 resolution there is no bright future ahead.The euphoria of Pakistan had died a year after its creation when Jinnah on a trip to Bengal advocated Urdu (the language of the minority) as the national language.

Supporter of 2-nation theory should wake up and smell the coffee - 3 army actions against Baloch people, 1 army action against Sindhis and massacare of Bengalis! Now were they all not muslims?

After demarkation of Punjab and Bengal, Jinnah went to see Mountbatten and lodged a complaint that how could he divide Punjab and Bengal, in the manner it was done. He said ``Punjabis have the same culture, same langauage, they are one people .....`` and Mountbatten replied true but it is you who are the champion of 2-nation theory on the basis of religion and you`re contradicting you`re own theory. Jinnah is responsible for all the blood bath that took place. He and his party members (UP/CP elites) never forsaw the future - they didn`t want to. Never analyzed the consequence of such partition. They wanted Pakistan at all cost, and for that he witnessed massacre of millions.

Basically, the Brits created 2 illigitimate states, first Pakistan and then Israel.

Re: SQureshi

Yeah, Salman Khan, Aamir Khan and Shah Rukh are peons and they work in my house cleaning my pajamas.

And thank god , Indira and Mujib that the bangladeshis are not the peons for Mr.Qureshi.

Thank god and the british the Hindus are not the peons of the Mughals (Muslims).

Thank god and the Gandhi, Jinnah, Nehrus that all of us are not the peons of the British.

Thank god and the Mughals that the backward classes are not the Peons of the Hindu Brahmins and Upper Classes.

Wonder when the thanking will ever end .....

It is statements like these that make me wonder why i still keep visiting chowk....

nitwit......naah

Rishi

``India had never been a Nation, it is still not

one. The name India allegedly did not come into

existence before the Anglos came to know about

this landmass.``

Ignoring the demeaning term ``anglos``, one is hard

put to make any sense from this statement. Does

not having a name imply not being a nation?

Further if a state was not a nation before, does

that mean that it can never be one? If that is

so, then no country in the world is capable of

being called a nation because if you go far back

in the past, there were no nations.

``But very ironically the ashes were picked up by

the anti-thesis -the producing sector, they gave

the idea of a nation a completely new meaning - a

rather dynamic meaning that is. They showed that

the nation building could be a continuous

work-in-progress, an incessant stress and strain

and restructuring based on interests of the

class-conflicts. ``

Even if one leans towards communism, it is too

arrogant to assume that it was the workers who

showed what a dynamic process nation building is.

In fact whenever we strive for anything better,

or put someone down to enhance our own interests,

we are changing the character of the nation, and

this process has been continuing since history

began.

I also find fault with your argument that we took

western concepts ``lock, stock and barrel`` without

any concessions for local conditions. In the

first case there is nothing wrong with taking

from others that which is successful and which

works. I mean it would be stupid to try and

reinvent the wheel. And as for local conditions:

the Indian state is radically different from

Britain, or Europe or the US. We HAVE modified

concepts to suit our situation.

As for your conclusion that a strong demand for

confederation would lead to a similar demand

within India, that is blind optimism. First of

all there is no strong demand for a ``south asian``

confederation. Secondly India is so much a

dominant power in this region that any

confederation, if it occurs, will be on its own

terms, not something that Pakistan or Sri Lanka

want it to be. Geo=politics dictate that such a

confederation will be more a confederation WITH

India, than a south asian confederation. My own

sense is that a very strong sense of nationalism

prevails in India, and that it cannot be snuffed

out as easily as you would make it out to be.

Squerishi:

Ref your post

The test is not whether you are better off than a Muslim in India today. The test is whether YOU are better off in Pakistan than YOU would have been in a united India.

You cannot compare an educated, middle class Muslim with a poor, lower class Muslim. That in effect is the comparison you are making when you compare yourself to the majority of Muslims of India. There are middle class Muslims. Not all Muslims are peons, etc. Compare yourself to the middle class Muslims of India if you like.

As far as I can tell, economic development of both India and Pak is roughly comparable - neither have significantly improved the lives of their citizens more than the other.

Yes, you may conclude you are better off in Pakistan but base it on the right comparison.

Feroze:

You can disagree with me all you like but the fact is that you are not addressing the word ``justified`` in this statement. You appear to have the attitude that the ends justify the means but my friend, not everything in politics, in life, can be judged like that.

Indian arguement about Kashmir is the same as the arguement from the Pakistani side had been if the war in BD had continued to this day.

It was our internal matter. They had no right to do what they did.

Anyways, the idea is that confederation is not the only bright idea around the block. It appears that the same Indian politicians who were waiting for Pakistan to fall in their laps after six months of its creation, now after realizing that it stands as a formidable foe are applying other means to get that same end.

I don`t want to start a thread here so this is my last reply to this article. Sorry. I wish I could continue but I am going out of town. Maybe next week.

Re: afrasiyab post # 1

``...BD`s creation is as much due to India`s unjustifiable military action....``

I disagree with that statement completely. India`s military intervention, against Pakistan, was fully justified. The Indian military action in Bangladesh and its support of the anti-Pakistan elements was a brilliant example of war being the continuation of politics by other means. In fact, when I was a TA, I would discuss the Indian military intervention as textbook case of Clausewitz`s idea on the inter-relationship between war and politics.

I have, for the record, nothing, but a deep admiration for the way the Indians exploited that situation for their own political motives. Where ever Karl von Clausewitz might be, he must surely be pleased at Indians!

The Indians learned the critical lesson on the nature of warfare which had eluded Count Alfred Graf von Schlieffen himself - the mastermind behind Germany`s plans to invade France prior to World War I. What the Indians did to Pakistan in Bangladesh, even the Americans could not articulate in Vietnam and that was, a military strategy based on the attainment of a political aim. The Indian military operations, in the light of the Indian political aims, were simply beautiful!

I am just awed by how the Indians combined the art of war and politics into a winning combination! Bravo!

Re: Soumitra Bose

A premier example of a theoretical academic analysis. Conceptual re-oranizations of the confederated ideals, in case of India or Pakistan, are not the solution to the problem. Both India and Pakistan are federated systems in which the gravity of the power is hinged to the center. Changing the equation of that power base or re-distributing that power will not solve anything.

I am not sure about an India specfic answer, but in the case of Pakistan, the present center-periphery crisis stems from an uneven distribution of political resouces and the style of imperial rule mandated by the present regime in Islamabad.

Re-confederation is never the answer. Re-confederation merely delays the problem without addressing the core issues. Those core issues have to be dealt within the context of the prevailing system. Pakistan and India have to work out their problems as they exist.

There was a request for the text of Simla Agreement, it is available at the following url:

http://pak.gov.pk/govt/kashmir/kashmir-simla.htm

Never underestimate the venality of man - splitting into smaller states with ill-developed ideas of tolerance is a disaster. That is the lesson of Yugoslavia and 1947 India.

The Tamil minority of Bombay is protected today because the Tamil mother state is part of the same political entity as the city of Bombay - the entity being India. I shudder to think how Shiv Sena types will treat Tamils if Tamil Nadu is not part of the same country. You already see their approach to Bangladeshis.

Till a civic culture is developed, a unitary state is the best idea. When we have ``developed`` more, either we can disintegrate into smaller states or transcend our differences and become Indians. We can leave that for future generations.

Soumitra, let me start here by appreciating your
great style of writing and then try to comment on just some of the several EXCELLENT observations that you have been made in this article.
Although I am still unable to agree with the Confederation idea, mainly because I believe that
I am somewhat familiar with the CURRENT thinking
in Pakistan, I do commend you for presenting it
better then anyone else that I have read to date.

Now to pick just a few of your points:

``Any hue of compromise between PPP and AL would have not only saved the country, but also would have created such a strong democratic revolution and re-generation of institutions..``
Some people did try. SMR and ZAB amongst them
but that was not to be. Our people were ready for
democracy but our rulers and their friends along with Indira would rather destroy a country then see this happen.

``Karachi is seeing the same thing what Bangladesh saw before her birth.``
Since I have lived for several years in Dhaka till
1971, and have observed the Karachi situation
from a distance, the similarities are definitely there except for the fact that the Karachi problem has the added killing power of automatic weapons(Progress in technology).

``We were smart people, we knew how to dodge Jinnah and Gandhi. We ``killed`` both. We built huge arsenals to kill each other.``
Very few could have said this better.

Now for a concluding observation. India has been
wrong in it`s assumption that it can intimidate
Pakistan or Bangladesh to give up their concept of
country. The more mencing India looks, the more negative a reaction it gets. If India had the
courage and wisdom to settle the Kashmir dispute
years ago, I am sure that there would be a lot
more Pakistanis giving the confederation idea some
more serious thought. But India remained in the
dynastic clutches of Nehru/Indira/Rajiv who
wanted to use their own brand of ``diplomacy``.
The reaction from Pakistanis was and should
remain predictable.
Vajpayee Ji did not take the Bus recently to
try and intimidate Pakistanis. He made very sure
that he made his hosts feel more at ease. So Let
us hope that this time India is willing to go
further on actually SETTLING Kashmir. Then
and only then can this Confederation idea move
forward IF it still retains some merits.

Ras

re: Soumitra

There are quite a few good points in your article but I do not agree with your suggestion of a confederation for India. Such things have been mooted by the left since they do not see a future for themselves within the existing setup.

I like your observations about the organized sector creating the pan-Indian identity. I come from an industrial township in Madhya Pradesh and I have myself seen regional and religious identities become irrelevant, especially among those in my generation. I was shocked to find out that this was not a national phenomenon even among the supposedly cosmopolitan city-bred people. And this remains true in all SAARC countries where feudalism is still important.

You claim that the elite in India has used this 10% population belonging to the organized sector to cling to power while withstanding divisive forces. I differ with you on this. Though this population is not yet politically active, the reason why the elite has had to aver to being non-divisive is because of pressure from this group.

I predict that in the future this middle-class will become more influential and that will reduce divisive politics even further. The need for us is to work to increase their proportion in the population.

You say that (the 1956) reorganization of states on linguistic lines was a mistake but rather smaller identities should have been the basis. I disagree. In fact, I believe, this was the appropriate step at the time: a step in the direction of your proposed confederation (linguistic identity which is as good as any other), while not moving so far as to set up borders. Again, further break-up is not advisable. For example, Madras into AP and TN was fine but AP into Andhra region and Telangana (was and) is not necessary. The reason being the very same pan-Indian (or pan-AP) identity being created by the recent industrial development of Telangana (software industry, etc. in Hyderabad) and also of the traditionally richer Andhra region.

What is wrong with a truck going with one fee from Ladakh to Lanka-gate? We should be dismantling octroi between states and not putting up borders and customs duties. You blame the bureaucracy and then want to increase borders in this era of free trade. Isn`t a large nation better for overall development?

``the sheer size of Hindustan is a problem`` [for SAARC].

I disagree completely. I do not see why we should apologize for our size, especially, when others with far less benign intentions (US and China) don`t even think about this. You are perhaps looking towards ASEAN as a model. May I point out NAFTA and APEC who are doing much better on the whole. Moreover, we can always learn from all such groupings and make ours better (and friendlier for those who choose to feel threatened). Breaking up a nation that works (partially, at least) for such a reason would be foolish.

Being ``large`` has actually helped us (again partially) bring an end to the dominance of feudalism. The effects of this can be seen in the feudal problems of Bihar (as opposed to West Bengal) where land reform was carried out less thoroughly. And of course the best example of the benefits of land reforms is Japan.

It is time we stopped debating break-up of the nation, presidential form of govt., getting a benevolent dictator to solve all problems, etc. and concentrate on economic development. State reorganization can be part of the process (as it is) for more efficient and responsive administration. All problems in the North and North-east will disappear with economic developemnt which can only happen when the govt. becomes more responsive and efficient (like the punjab problem). We need not question our nationhood for this. The idea of nationality may be western but it does benefit citizens. Moreover, we cannot afford to become amorphous once again when other ``nations`` of the west have actually increased their ability to dominate.

Ashish

Sumitra Bose:

I see echoes of G. Palme Dutt in what you say.

Yes, the Great Leader, resigned to the idea, when Battenberg called his bluff.

The biggest stumbling block for a future confederation in the region is suspicion and name. The former obviously needs no further elaboration. The latter----- India, Hindustant or versions thereof will never be acceptable to the other players. (Yeah, one never says never in politics).

regards

Very interesting.

I can see your point when it comes to Jinnah`s ideas about Pakistan. I can also see why you are so passionate about what happenned during the migrations. My father and mother were immigrants, from Delhi and Faizabad respectively, too. Their stories bring tears to my eyes also leaving me wondering about all the people who will never have their stories told, Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims. However, to state that the two nation theory is dead, is as erronous as stating that due to the fall of Russia, communism is dead.

Anyways, why is it that you bind yourself to one form of solution to this problem at the end of the article. Why can`t we remain two seperate countries as it is today and try and solve the problems from that standpoint. I personally think that it is possible. You are trying to turn the clock backwards. I don`t think that that is possible anymore. In a world shrinking at the speed you see around you, it is now impossible to create the Indian atmosphere of the past,

way-- way in the past.

I would like to say one thing here. Karachi`s situation and its comparison with Bangladesh is laughable. First of all, not a single party in Karachi including the MQM has any official stances the likes of which Mujeeb had. Also, BD`s creation is as much due to India`s unjustifiable military action as the drive of seccession from Pakistan from within the Bengalis.

Yes, I agree, we have problems and pressing issues that we must deal with but I refuse to accept that we need the Indian confederation`s umbrella and its aasheerbaad to solve them.

Sumrita, in short, it appears that you are trying to appeal to the Indians with this article and Pakistan is mentioned only because it ``appears`` to you and some others that every problem India faces today, from communal riots to famine and poverty can be ``blamed`` on Pakistan and that one guy named Jinnah, the Quaid-e-Azam, as you so fondly refer to him.

Take a long hard look at what you have written here and tell me again, why should I be able to relate to this article as a Pakistani?