Need for a Confederation
Soumitra Bose February 21, 1999
#30 Posted by youeffo on June 5, 2006 10:57:23 am
Emergence of Bangladesh and Pakistan
There is hardly a country in South Asia in which you find all the people justify their government’s policies. The subcontinent is itself a continent, which is the home of various races, religions and ethnic groups. There are political, economical and regional disparities in each country of the region. Rather a worst kind of apartheid also exists in each and every country. But this doesn’t mean that if a part of machine is not working properly, destroy the whole machine. There are ways and means to handle any situation. You cannot blame the other party ignoring your own incapability, inability and incapacity to put the things straight.
The emergence of Bangladesh should be seen in this context. Is it now true that all the people living in Bangladesh are happy with their government policies and blindly endorse every of its step? Are all people living in India are happy with the government policies? No
But you have to achieve your rights not by destroying the country, but with struggle coupled with certain limits. East and West were to wings of Pakistan where problem started when its capital was declared in the West Wing. And that was also because of geographical location of the two wings. East Pakistan was surrounded by India and it was not plausible to establish the capital of the nascent state on the mercy of Indian hegemony.
But India exploited the situation and started a forceful propaganda against the West wing in the name of economic deprivation of the East wing.
I remember when Awami League emerged as the single largest party, its offices started opening in Lahore. If the Bangla leadership of that time could wait with patience, it would have strong support from the West wing too. But things suddenly changed when a third party intervened.
Pakistanis are democratic people; they always remained democratic people even during the worst kind of dictatorship. There is just one question to ask: if a region of India or Bangladesh wants to be considered a separate country, will the government allow it to do so? Will the government of Bangladesh and India will honour the wishes of separatists?
youeffo
There is hardly a country in South Asia in which you find all the people justify their government’s policies. The subcontinent is itself a continent, which is the home of various races, religions and ethnic groups. There are political, economical and regional disparities in each country of the region. Rather a worst kind of apartheid also exists in each and every country. But this doesn’t mean that if a part of machine is not working properly, destroy the whole machine. There are ways and means to handle any situation. You cannot blame the other party ignoring your own incapability, inability and incapacity to put the things straight.
The emergence of Bangladesh should be seen in this context. Is it now true that all the people living in Bangladesh are happy with their government policies and blindly endorse every of its step? Are all people living in India are happy with the government policies? No
But you have to achieve your rights not by destroying the country, but with struggle coupled with certain limits. East and West were to wings of Pakistan where problem started when its capital was declared in the West Wing. And that was also because of geographical location of the two wings. East Pakistan was surrounded by India and it was not plausible to establish the capital of the nascent state on the mercy of Indian hegemony.
But India exploited the situation and started a forceful propaganda against the West wing in the name of economic deprivation of the East wing.
I remember when Awami League emerged as the single largest party, its offices started opening in Lahore. If the Bangla leadership of that time could wait with patience, it would have strong support from the West wing too. But things suddenly changed when a third party intervened.
Pakistanis are democratic people; they always remained democratic people even during the worst kind of dictatorship. There is just one question to ask: if a region of India or Bangladesh wants to be considered a separate country, will the government allow it to do so? Will the government of Bangladesh and India will honour the wishes of separatists?
youeffo
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#29 Posted by youeffo on June 5, 2006 10:19:53 am
In Soumitra Bose`s words India had never been a Nation, it is still not one. But it is equally true that India had never been a country, it is still not.
The problem with pre-dominantly Hindu India is that its leadership has always ignored the ground realities. It has an obsession of an Akhand Bharat. It wants to rule the whole sub-continent and their mischievous designs always backfired.
In East Pakistan, they created hatred among the brothers. Yes, there could be a sense of deprivation in Bengal, a sense of alienation and also misunderstanding. India just added fuel to fire which lead to breakaway of the country. But soon after the ``independence`` of Bangladesh, their dream of a lackey-state turned into a nightmare. The Bangladesh government and its people stood against the hegemonic designs of the Indian leadership and asserted their power of will and identity. The statement of Indra Ghandi that ``Two nation theory`` has been thrown into the Arabian Sea lost its meanings too soon in the face of a Muslim Bangladesh.
Since the time immemorial and even now, the region comprised of various countries. And still it is an unnatural and unholy alliance of various regions, which the Indian union is trying to keep together by the terror of its military might and conspiracies since its inception. But the history repeats itself and disintegration of India is fait accompli.
youeffo
The problem with pre-dominantly Hindu India is that its leadership has always ignored the ground realities. It has an obsession of an Akhand Bharat. It wants to rule the whole sub-continent and their mischievous designs always backfired.
In East Pakistan, they created hatred among the brothers. Yes, there could be a sense of deprivation in Bengal, a sense of alienation and also misunderstanding. India just added fuel to fire which lead to breakaway of the country. But soon after the ``independence`` of Bangladesh, their dream of a lackey-state turned into a nightmare. The Bangladesh government and its people stood against the hegemonic designs of the Indian leadership and asserted their power of will and identity. The statement of Indra Ghandi that ``Two nation theory`` has been thrown into the Arabian Sea lost its meanings too soon in the face of a Muslim Bangladesh.
Since the time immemorial and even now, the region comprised of various countries. And still it is an unnatural and unholy alliance of various regions, which the Indian union is trying to keep together by the terror of its military might and conspiracies since its inception. But the history repeats itself and disintegration of India is fait accompli.
youeffo
#28 Posted by SR on March 5, 1999 12:47:56 pm
The author`s basic premise that the Indian sub-continent is a patch-quilt of many nations. However, it does not follow that there should be a `confederation` to replace the present imperialistic federal system. What is needed is a commonwealth of independent states (CIS). The present system is based on a colonial style empire. The East India Company`s ghost still holds the sub-continent in its strangle hold.
The state institutions of civil and military administration are utterly unrepresentative and unaccountable for their actions. And these two power blocks are the final arbitrators of all affairs including the means of production and distribution, law and order, infrastructure, etc.
The militarization of that poorest of the poor parts of the world cannot be undone as long as the cancer of `nationalism` is espoused by the ruling elites. It is for this reason, more than any other, that the imperialistic federal states of Hindustan and Pakistan MUST BE DISMANTLED. As long as the military establishments are alive, the various peoples of the sub-continent will never live in peace and prosperity.
To replace New Delhi and Islamabad based atrocities there should be smaller administrative units, perhaps 30 or forty DEMILITARIZED city-states with open borders and free-trade and citizen exchange between them. The purpose of these administrative units should be only to provide law and order. The larger common area needs (such as transportation, communication etc.), can be handled by some other neutral arrangements such as, perhaps, consortiums of non-government organizations to which the various city-states would subscribe.
In the present setup all the superficial cosmetics of so-called democracy amount to little more than a plutocratic monopoly over the vast peoples in that region. For accountability to be meaningful democratically administered units have to be much, much smaller and more manageable. Revenue collection and resource allocation decisions have to be localized. In the present system we can never have meaningful accountability.
Anil, in his thoughtful message, has suggested that as The Third Wave (the technological revolution) hits the world, nation states will become increasingly irrelevant. That is just as true for the developed countries as it is for the banana republics.
The control of the governments over the economy MUST be abolished. As it is, the local ruling elites, the colonial style bureaucracy and the multinationals form unsavory alliances. It happens all the more because the federal administrative units are huge. In a smaller city-state model where the local administration has to be accountable to local voters and does not have power to grant exclusive permits and licenses, this will likely not happen. This `small is beautiful` model suits the needs of the coming age of the global village.
...SR
The state institutions of civil and military administration are utterly unrepresentative and unaccountable for their actions. And these two power blocks are the final arbitrators of all affairs including the means of production and distribution, law and order, infrastructure, etc.
The militarization of that poorest of the poor parts of the world cannot be undone as long as the cancer of `nationalism` is espoused by the ruling elites. It is for this reason, more than any other, that the imperialistic federal states of Hindustan and Pakistan MUST BE DISMANTLED. As long as the military establishments are alive, the various peoples of the sub-continent will never live in peace and prosperity.
To replace New Delhi and Islamabad based atrocities there should be smaller administrative units, perhaps 30 or forty DEMILITARIZED city-states with open borders and free-trade and citizen exchange between them. The purpose of these administrative units should be only to provide law and order. The larger common area needs (such as transportation, communication etc.), can be handled by some other neutral arrangements such as, perhaps, consortiums of non-government organizations to which the various city-states would subscribe.
In the present setup all the superficial cosmetics of so-called democracy amount to little more than a plutocratic monopoly over the vast peoples in that region. For accountability to be meaningful democratically administered units have to be much, much smaller and more manageable. Revenue collection and resource allocation decisions have to be localized. In the present system we can never have meaningful accountability.
Anil, in his thoughtful message, has suggested that as The Third Wave (the technological revolution) hits the world, nation states will become increasingly irrelevant. That is just as true for the developed countries as it is for the banana republics.
The control of the governments over the economy MUST be abolished. As it is, the local ruling elites, the colonial style bureaucracy and the multinationals form unsavory alliances. It happens all the more because the federal administrative units are huge. In a smaller city-state model where the local administration has to be accountable to local voters and does not have power to grant exclusive permits and licenses, this will likely not happen. This `small is beautiful` model suits the needs of the coming age of the global village.
...SR
#27 Posted by aikrindd on March 5, 1999 12:48:49 am
the PONM is certainly a positive development- especially since it has emerged in whatever sort of democratic set-up that exists in Pakistan. That pakistan is being dominated by Punjabis is merely circumstantial- one should be specific and say it is dominated by vested interest who just happen to be from norther eastern punjab. There is hardly any attempt of cultural hegemony of sorts. Punjabis are the most ill-informed and most illeterate about their cultural heritage. In other parts of pakistan, local schools teach in local languages- that`s not the case with the punjabis (unfortunate). there is not a single punjabi language newspaper (also unfortunate). culturally this is a very lazy bunch and since Ranjit Singh no real Punjabi leader has emerged. Not that there should be one (thank God). The PONM- if and only if it turns out to be a genuine movement pressing for grassroot rights and not just a bunch of leaders from various areas who also want a piece of the cake NS is having- is a possible needed formation to re-think the urdu/islamic ideology that pakistan has unfortunately adopted- and not learned any lessons from.
#26 Posted by Truth on March 4, 1999 4:56:29 pm
Ref akif:
Who lives in Britain:
English, Scots, Welsh, Irish
Who lives in France:
Burgundians, Provencals
Who lives in Italy:
Sicilians, Napleatins, Genovese, Romans
At every level, there are sub-levels:
Who lives in Manhattan:
Upper East-siders, Greenwich Villagers etc.
The key is at what level do you say ``Stop, Enough``.
Different people can arrive at different judgements. Clearly, the Pakistanis and Indians arrived at very different conclusions.
Who lives in Britain:
English, Scots, Welsh, Irish
Who lives in France:
Burgundians, Provencals
Who lives in Italy:
Sicilians, Napleatins, Genovese, Romans
At every level, there are sub-levels:
Who lives in Manhattan:
Upper East-siders, Greenwich Villagers etc.
The key is at what level do you say ``Stop, Enough``.
Different people can arrive at different judgements. Clearly, the Pakistanis and Indians arrived at very different conclusions.
#25 Posted by akif on February 27, 1999 8:39:16 am
Food for thought
The talk of nations, sub-nations, conferations in the subcontinent always reminds me of a small piece from the satirical work of Ibne Insha, certainly one of the top ten amongst humorists, poets, and writers of Pakistan. I will present a small translation from his book Urdu ki Akhri Kitaab (from memory, the words are not exact but to the general effect) It is important to note that this was written in 1969 (before Bangladesh)
What is this country
This is France
Who lives here
Of course the French
What is this country
This is Japan
Who lives here
The Japanese, of course
What is this country
This is Pakistan
Who lives here
The Punjabis, the Bengalis, the Sindhis ..
But the Punjabis and Bengalis and sindhis also live in India
So why did you make Pakistan
``Ghalti ho gai, maaf kar dijiye, aainda nahin banaeyn gay``
(I am sorry, we made a mistake, it won`t be repeated)
Thirty years later Pakistani leaders are no where close to creating an integrated ``nation``. After the Vajpayee visit, perhaps the most important news in Pakistan is the PONAM - an opposition group of many parties callling themselves the Pakistan Oppressed Nations Movement who have raised the banner to fight Pubjabi domination under Nawaz Shareef and declare Pakistan as a confederation of 5 nations.
While coming to the US, I met a very prominent public personality at karachi Airport, his words ring in my ears, ``Let`s hope you have a country to come back to.``
The talk of nations, sub-nations, conferations in the subcontinent always reminds me of a small piece from the satirical work of Ibne Insha, certainly one of the top ten amongst humorists, poets, and writers of Pakistan. I will present a small translation from his book Urdu ki Akhri Kitaab (from memory, the words are not exact but to the general effect) It is important to note that this was written in 1969 (before Bangladesh)
What is this country
This is France
Who lives here
Of course the French
What is this country
This is Japan
Who lives here
The Japanese, of course
What is this country
This is Pakistan
Who lives here
The Punjabis, the Bengalis, the Sindhis ..
But the Punjabis and Bengalis and sindhis also live in India
So why did you make Pakistan
``Ghalti ho gai, maaf kar dijiye, aainda nahin banaeyn gay``
(I am sorry, we made a mistake, it won`t be repeated)
Thirty years later Pakistani leaders are no where close to creating an integrated ``nation``. After the Vajpayee visit, perhaps the most important news in Pakistan is the PONAM - an opposition group of many parties callling themselves the Pakistan Oppressed Nations Movement who have raised the banner to fight Pubjabi domination under Nawaz Shareef and declare Pakistan as a confederation of 5 nations.
While coming to the US, I met a very prominent public personality at karachi Airport, his words ring in my ears, ``Let`s hope you have a country to come back to.``
#24 Posted by aikrindd on February 24, 1999 8:44:45 pm
the tragedy that the partition became is undeniable. but as the author of this article seems to suggest the merits of confederacy, it should be remembered that Jinnah did desire that a stronger role be given to provinces- a request denied. previously, in 1917, the hindu-muslim relations received a great boost in the signing of the Lucknow pact spearheaded by the Jinnah. A few years down the road it was thrown out the window.
there were many in the indian/congres side who felt it would be better to let the muslims go their separate way (by the way, after partition, pakistan (east and west combined) had more muslims than India- just a small correction). even in 1946, 6 years after the pakistan resolution, Jinnah pleaded for a cofederate like state but to no avail. [obviously the parasitic feudal lords of the Muslim League wanted a Pakistan but so did pro-eminent member`s of congress to get rid of such a large minority].
That there are people who call themselves pakistanis today is enough to justify this otherwise visionless nation. it is interesting to note that the only people in whom the questions of identity arise (among pakistanis) are those pakistanis who live abroad- one rarily, if ever, sees (an educated, what of an uneducated) pakistani complain of an identity crisis while having always lived in Pakistan.
And for those of you purporting VS Naipalian theories of `arabization` of pakistan- don`t fall into misleadingly baseless observations. just what is the basis for such accusations? they pakis read their prayers in arabic? just about all muslims do that. today amongst the sunni majority, the majority of those are of the Brelvi sects- beliving in their Sufi`s teachings- something most arabs have shunned. Sufi darbars are a cornerstone of most pakistanis approach to religion and every village has at least one shrine which is paid homage to. this in itself shuns any reason to say that pakis are arabized. it`s rather naive to look at the synthesis of subcontinental-islamic culture as being arab.
there were many in the indian/congres side who felt it would be better to let the muslims go their separate way (by the way, after partition, pakistan (east and west combined) had more muslims than India- just a small correction). even in 1946, 6 years after the pakistan resolution, Jinnah pleaded for a cofederate like state but to no avail. [obviously the parasitic feudal lords of the Muslim League wanted a Pakistan but so did pro-eminent member`s of congress to get rid of such a large minority].
That there are people who call themselves pakistanis today is enough to justify this otherwise visionless nation. it is interesting to note that the only people in whom the questions of identity arise (among pakistanis) are those pakistanis who live abroad- one rarily, if ever, sees (an educated, what of an uneducated) pakistani complain of an identity crisis while having always lived in Pakistan.
And for those of you purporting VS Naipalian theories of `arabization` of pakistan- don`t fall into misleadingly baseless observations. just what is the basis for such accusations? they pakis read their prayers in arabic? just about all muslims do that. today amongst the sunni majority, the majority of those are of the Brelvi sects- beliving in their Sufi`s teachings- something most arabs have shunned. Sufi darbars are a cornerstone of most pakistanis approach to religion and every village has at least one shrine which is paid homage to. this in itself shuns any reason to say that pakis are arabized. it`s rather naive to look at the synthesis of subcontinental-islamic culture as being arab.
#23 Posted by RanaRansher on February 24, 1999 3:17:15 pm
re: Anil
A very refreshing reply. A change from the same old drivel.
Well said.
regards
A very refreshing reply. A change from the same old drivel.
Well said.
regards
#22 Posted by Aliya on February 24, 1999 2:15:28 pm
Re: Hari Baba
`` In fact, I heard that a lot of Hindus are bonded labourers working for rich Muslim Zamindars as slaves.``....``Of course, there are Muslims in India who remain backward, simply because of their own prejuidices.``
.......arms manufacturers of the world can rest assured, there will be always a market in the sub continent as long as such ideas prevail.
`` In fact, I heard that a lot of Hindus are bonded labourers working for rich Muslim Zamindars as slaves.``....``Of course, there are Muslims in India who remain backward, simply because of their own prejuidices.``
.......arms manufacturers of the world can rest assured, there will be always a market in the sub continent as long as such ideas prevail.
#21 Posted by anil on February 24, 1999 10:52:41 am
EVOLVING SOUTH ASIA
Pakistan, rather than looking for Islamic quick fixes, must examine the geopolitical ground reality without Islamic Rose Colored glasses. These glasses give Pakistan a very distorted view, that by merely being an Islamic country, Pakistan, in the last fifty-one years, has become a part of Arabian
(= middle east) orbit.
Why and how Indonesia and Malaysia, despite being strong Islamic countries, escaped Arabian orbit are important to examine. Unlike, Pakistan these countries forged out very strong identities of their own. These identities have also allowed them to create market economies and alliances with non-Islamic countries that define ASEAN. The cynics may point that their economies are now in trouble, but time will prove them wrong. Their proud leaders and identities, and resilient alliances would allow them to come out of the present economic crisis even stronger.
The only identity of Pakistan, that the world-at-large recognizes, is that of ``Not-Indian attempting to be Arabia``. To see it so, Pakistan must look and feel beyond Arabian orbit.
For example, if Pakistan considers itself and others accept it to be part of Central Asia (or middle east), then it must not be part of SAARC. Such contradictions, contribute to a split personality of a ``Not Indian attempting to be in Arabian orbit``.
Pakistan needs to evaluate ground realities of where it belongs and is accepted. Like it or not, Pakistan is more readily accepted with open arms elsewhere, than where Pakistan has spent last fifty-one years in trying to be accepted.
It is easy to debate with anyone that if a European Parliament like body is constituted by SAARC today, then sub-continents Muslims will have greater control and voice, than what they presently have. The mathematics of electoral process can be ignored, even if it was not obvious to the founding fathers of present day Pakistan. A careful analysis of Indian elections of the last twenty years (post emergency period in India) reveal true electoral mathematics and power of smaller numbers.
BASIC LAWS OF DEMOCRACY:
Thus an evolution toward the unity at SAARC level should be more important to the people of the sub-continent in general and Muslims in particular. This is based on a firm belief that democracy - however corrupted by the politicians - ultimately delivers power to the largest group of small
numbers. This law of democracy can only be violated by abolishing democracy, or by ignoring democratic law for some time (as in Indira Gandhi`s emergency). I would further assert that it is easier to abolish democracy in a society / nation-state where only one group dominates. But
in a plural set up of multiple religions, languages, regions etc., it would be impossible to abolish entrenched democracy. Indira Gandhi`s emergency and its aftermath have proven this point beyond doubt.
Pakistan may perceive it differently, but present state of Indian politics should convince the most skeptics that Hindus are not as united as Pakistanis fear. In fact, Hindus never were so united, and there is no reason to believe it will be different in the future. Thus a separation of religion and state is not only enshrined but also assured in ``Indian`` democracy, both in theory and practice. By this statement, I am not implying there is no discrimination against groups of people in India, this
is a separate question to deal with.
However, unity of Hindus should not be confused with pluralistic India. Three political events affected the largest humanity in this century. These are: Soviet revolution, which has fallen wayside; Chinese revolution which has changed its course; and poor men`s experiment with democracy -- Indian independence. This experiment has been growing stronger. It was also the
single largest peaceful transfer of power from the ruler to the ruled, where the rulers were invited to stay back. Only violence that occurred, was among the ruled who became the new rulers. Indian political, and governmental institutions have been finding their own systems and solutions.
SOUTH ASIAN REGION:
Neither Pakistan nor India should role-play a regional leader, until they are leaders. Role-playing a regional leader of present desolation, and Taliban-controlled country with a great promise is hardly an accomplishment. The leadership in the next millennium will be more determined by the economy and ownership of the market. Larger its economy, and larger its markets, larger the leader would be. The political leadership vacuum in the region should be collectively filled at SAARC.
SOCIAL PRIORITIES & THE FUTURE:
Pakistan should also consider new and emerging world-order as the world moves into the next millennium.
In this emerging order, the high technology, highly mobile capital, highly mobile and educated workforce, and globalization shall obsolete the old world order dictated by nation-state`s political borders and economies. All this will happen in less than one generation from now, and great majority of Pakistanis and Indians shall witness this transition. It is not clear to me what will happen to the countries who will be left behind.
Chinese leadership has already demonstrated their priorities. It is very interesting to note that no one now doubts that China would be the world`s largest market for computers, and that no one even though true, mentions that China would be the world`s largest market for toys also.
Interestingly, the ideology of any variety, an obsession (of religious variety) with present Pakistani leadership, is uninteresting to modern Chinese leadership. This does not mean that it is unimportant to Chinese leadership.
This transition by the leadership of billion people was accomplished in less than fifty years. A similar transition, although at a slower pace is happening in India too. In India this change has been forced by the law of democracy in pluralistic society and also by electoral mathematics of large group of small numbers. If older generation Pakistani leadership, even after fifty-one years still corners Pakistan down to same issues of no peace or trade in the region until Kashmir is resolved, then the time may have come for post-independence born Pakistani leaders to give a chance to fresh thinking. A common axiom of human societies is that when two neighbors have
a lot of common economy and mutual dependency then they also solve thorny issues, because there is simply too much to loose.
NATION STATE MODEL
Another interesting question for visionary leadership to ask is how relevant Nation-State borders are today and would be in the future. Why not create so much economic activity that the borders become irrelevant. The cooperation, beginning mid seventies till 1997, between British Hong Kong (before 1997) and Mainland China has demonstrated to the world that the prosperity travels, and makes the border very porous and hence irrelevant.
Bombing of Afghanistan and Sudan is another example of what modern ``hot pursuit`` shall be, just as bombing of the U.S. embassy in Kenya and Tanzania is an example of what the terrorism would be. Neither terrorism, nor their hot pursuit would honor political boundaries of a nation-state.
Historically, nation-state boundaries were essential to create and protect the assets in a geographic region of the world. This entailed creation of schemes of benefits (political, commercial, militaries, governance etc.) for the people living within the boundaries of the nation-state. In this period, if you examine, nation-state failed to contain spread of religions, e.g. spread of Islam, and Christianity, within the boundaries of a nation-state. Therefore, it is absurd to think that religious fundamentalism of any type can become the basis of a nation-state. We can lay blame from here to enternity on any number of people, but the fact remains that disintegration of Pakistan into Bangladesh, also proved that nation-state could not be contained within a religion either. Similarly, the disintegration of Soviet Union also proved that nation-state could not
be contained within a political ideology either.
Feudalism emerged as the builder and protector of nation-state. Later industrial revolution made nation-state essential, to organize, control and protect wealth creation. The Information revolution of the next millennium shall render nation-state irrelevant. Communities of interest living,
organizing and controlling wealth creation and knowledge while simultaneously dispersed all over the world yet linked together would be the engine that would drive the future societies.
The information revolution, and the future societies are characterized by high technology, highly mobile capital, highly mobile and educated workforce, and true globalization. These forces of change, like the religions of yester-years, can never be contained within the realms of nation-state boundaries. Ability of India and Pakistan to explode nuclear devices, precise bombing of Afaghanistan and Sudan by the U.S. from great distance shows mobility of technology both in cause and effect, while presence and acceptance of highly educated Pakistanis and Indians in the
U.S. demonstrate people mobility, and cross-border flow of several hundred billion dollars within a matter of minutes exemplifies the dawn of information revolution and future societies, and sadly signals the demise of nation-state also.
Therefore, instead of Islamization, Pakistan would benefit by developing a vision and leadership to benefit from information revolution and seed future societies in Pakistan. In my opinion, all religions of the world, in this scenario must either evolve as offering personal and spiritual values (a la Hinduism, and Buddhism), or evolve into refined rules governing modern societies (e.g. Islam, Christianity, Judaism). One thing is sure a religion must certainly evolve or else it too shall become irrelevant.
ANIL KAPURIA
CHAIRMAN, C.E.O.
ASMASOFT INC.
90 N. First Street, 2nd Floor
San Jose, CA 95113, U.S.A.
Email: Anil@Kapuria.Com
Pakistan, rather than looking for Islamic quick fixes, must examine the geopolitical ground reality without Islamic Rose Colored glasses. These glasses give Pakistan a very distorted view, that by merely being an Islamic country, Pakistan, in the last fifty-one years, has become a part of Arabian
(= middle east) orbit.
Why and how Indonesia and Malaysia, despite being strong Islamic countries, escaped Arabian orbit are important to examine. Unlike, Pakistan these countries forged out very strong identities of their own. These identities have also allowed them to create market economies and alliances with non-Islamic countries that define ASEAN. The cynics may point that their economies are now in trouble, but time will prove them wrong. Their proud leaders and identities, and resilient alliances would allow them to come out of the present economic crisis even stronger.
The only identity of Pakistan, that the world-at-large recognizes, is that of ``Not-Indian attempting to be Arabia``. To see it so, Pakistan must look and feel beyond Arabian orbit.
For example, if Pakistan considers itself and others accept it to be part of Central Asia (or middle east), then it must not be part of SAARC. Such contradictions, contribute to a split personality of a ``Not Indian attempting to be in Arabian orbit``.
Pakistan needs to evaluate ground realities of where it belongs and is accepted. Like it or not, Pakistan is more readily accepted with open arms elsewhere, than where Pakistan has spent last fifty-one years in trying to be accepted.
It is easy to debate with anyone that if a European Parliament like body is constituted by SAARC today, then sub-continents Muslims will have greater control and voice, than what they presently have. The mathematics of electoral process can be ignored, even if it was not obvious to the founding fathers of present day Pakistan. A careful analysis of Indian elections of the last twenty years (post emergency period in India) reveal true electoral mathematics and power of smaller numbers.
BASIC LAWS OF DEMOCRACY:
Thus an evolution toward the unity at SAARC level should be more important to the people of the sub-continent in general and Muslims in particular. This is based on a firm belief that democracy - however corrupted by the politicians - ultimately delivers power to the largest group of small
numbers. This law of democracy can only be violated by abolishing democracy, or by ignoring democratic law for some time (as in Indira Gandhi`s emergency). I would further assert that it is easier to abolish democracy in a society / nation-state where only one group dominates. But
in a plural set up of multiple religions, languages, regions etc., it would be impossible to abolish entrenched democracy. Indira Gandhi`s emergency and its aftermath have proven this point beyond doubt.
Pakistan may perceive it differently, but present state of Indian politics should convince the most skeptics that Hindus are not as united as Pakistanis fear. In fact, Hindus never were so united, and there is no reason to believe it will be different in the future. Thus a separation of religion and state is not only enshrined but also assured in ``Indian`` democracy, both in theory and practice. By this statement, I am not implying there is no discrimination against groups of people in India, this
is a separate question to deal with.
However, unity of Hindus should not be confused with pluralistic India. Three political events affected the largest humanity in this century. These are: Soviet revolution, which has fallen wayside; Chinese revolution which has changed its course; and poor men`s experiment with democracy -- Indian independence. This experiment has been growing stronger. It was also the
single largest peaceful transfer of power from the ruler to the ruled, where the rulers were invited to stay back. Only violence that occurred, was among the ruled who became the new rulers. Indian political, and governmental institutions have been finding their own systems and solutions.
SOUTH ASIAN REGION:
Neither Pakistan nor India should role-play a regional leader, until they are leaders. Role-playing a regional leader of present desolation, and Taliban-controlled country with a great promise is hardly an accomplishment. The leadership in the next millennium will be more determined by the economy and ownership of the market. Larger its economy, and larger its markets, larger the leader would be. The political leadership vacuum in the region should be collectively filled at SAARC.
SOCIAL PRIORITIES & THE FUTURE:
Pakistan should also consider new and emerging world-order as the world moves into the next millennium.
In this emerging order, the high technology, highly mobile capital, highly mobile and educated workforce, and globalization shall obsolete the old world order dictated by nation-state`s political borders and economies. All this will happen in less than one generation from now, and great majority of Pakistanis and Indians shall witness this transition. It is not clear to me what will happen to the countries who will be left behind.
Chinese leadership has already demonstrated their priorities. It is very interesting to note that no one now doubts that China would be the world`s largest market for computers, and that no one even though true, mentions that China would be the world`s largest market for toys also.
Interestingly, the ideology of any variety, an obsession (of religious variety) with present Pakistani leadership, is uninteresting to modern Chinese leadership. This does not mean that it is unimportant to Chinese leadership.
This transition by the leadership of billion people was accomplished in less than fifty years. A similar transition, although at a slower pace is happening in India too. In India this change has been forced by the law of democracy in pluralistic society and also by electoral mathematics of large group of small numbers. If older generation Pakistani leadership, even after fifty-one years still corners Pakistan down to same issues of no peace or trade in the region until Kashmir is resolved, then the time may have come for post-independence born Pakistani leaders to give a chance to fresh thinking. A common axiom of human societies is that when two neighbors have
a lot of common economy and mutual dependency then they also solve thorny issues, because there is simply too much to loose.
NATION STATE MODEL
Another interesting question for visionary leadership to ask is how relevant Nation-State borders are today and would be in the future. Why not create so much economic activity that the borders become irrelevant. The cooperation, beginning mid seventies till 1997, between British Hong Kong (before 1997) and Mainland China has demonstrated to the world that the prosperity travels, and makes the border very porous and hence irrelevant.
Bombing of Afghanistan and Sudan is another example of what modern ``hot pursuit`` shall be, just as bombing of the U.S. embassy in Kenya and Tanzania is an example of what the terrorism would be. Neither terrorism, nor their hot pursuit would honor political boundaries of a nation-state.
Historically, nation-state boundaries were essential to create and protect the assets in a geographic region of the world. This entailed creation of schemes of benefits (political, commercial, militaries, governance etc.) for the people living within the boundaries of the nation-state. In this period, if you examine, nation-state failed to contain spread of religions, e.g. spread of Islam, and Christianity, within the boundaries of a nation-state. Therefore, it is absurd to think that religious fundamentalism of any type can become the basis of a nation-state. We can lay blame from here to enternity on any number of people, but the fact remains that disintegration of Pakistan into Bangladesh, also proved that nation-state could not be contained within a religion either. Similarly, the disintegration of Soviet Union also proved that nation-state could not
be contained within a political ideology either.
Feudalism emerged as the builder and protector of nation-state. Later industrial revolution made nation-state essential, to organize, control and protect wealth creation. The Information revolution of the next millennium shall render nation-state irrelevant. Communities of interest living,
organizing and controlling wealth creation and knowledge while simultaneously dispersed all over the world yet linked together would be the engine that would drive the future societies.
The information revolution, and the future societies are characterized by high technology, highly mobile capital, highly mobile and educated workforce, and true globalization. These forces of change, like the religions of yester-years, can never be contained within the realms of nation-state boundaries. Ability of India and Pakistan to explode nuclear devices, precise bombing of Afaghanistan and Sudan by the U.S. from great distance shows mobility of technology both in cause and effect, while presence and acceptance of highly educated Pakistanis and Indians in the
U.S. demonstrate people mobility, and cross-border flow of several hundred billion dollars within a matter of minutes exemplifies the dawn of information revolution and future societies, and sadly signals the demise of nation-state also.
Therefore, instead of Islamization, Pakistan would benefit by developing a vision and leadership to benefit from information revolution and seed future societies in Pakistan. In my opinion, all religions of the world, in this scenario must either evolve as offering personal and spiritual values (a la Hinduism, and Buddhism), or evolve into refined rules governing modern societies (e.g. Islam, Christianity, Judaism). One thing is sure a religion must certainly evolve or else it too shall become irrelevant.
ANIL KAPURIA
CHAIRMAN, C.E.O.
ASMASOFT INC.
90 N. First Street, 2nd Floor
San Jose, CA 95113, U.S.A.
Email: Anil@Kapuria.Com
#20 Posted by Hari Baba on February 24, 1999 9:30:44 am
Ref Reply #11
India had Presidents who were Muslims, there are governors and chief ministers who are Muslims. The chief scientific advisor to the government, Mr. Abdul Kalam is a Muslim. There are a lot of rich businessmen who are Muslims.
Whereas in Pakistan, it is the other way around. Most of the Hindus and Christians hold menial positions, In fact, I heard that a lot of Hindus are bonded labourers working for rich Muslim Zamindars as slaves.
Of course, there are Muslims in India who remain backward, simply because of their own prejuidices. Many muslims do not believe in sending their daughters to school. The Madrasah system of education also does not help.
India had Presidents who were Muslims, there are governors and chief ministers who are Muslims. The chief scientific advisor to the government, Mr. Abdul Kalam is a Muslim. There are a lot of rich businessmen who are Muslims.
Whereas in Pakistan, it is the other way around. Most of the Hindus and Christians hold menial positions, In fact, I heard that a lot of Hindus are bonded labourers working for rich Muslim Zamindars as slaves.
Of course, there are Muslims in India who remain backward, simply because of their own prejuidices. Many muslims do not believe in sending their daughters to school. The Madrasah system of education also does not help.
#19 Posted by Faisal on February 24, 1999 12:30:26 am
Dear Author,
``India had never been a Nation…`` HA! Aren`t you a freshman! Please refer to the ``Mahabharata`` before making such bold statements. Just contemplate the name- such rudimentary reading of the history of nation-state, and such bold claims?
Also, before you limit Jinnah`s efforts to a week of transience, I suggest you go through the transfer of power papers (U of Chicago, U T Austin, India Office Lib, UK).
Your goals are noble friend, but you have no idea what you are talking about.
Allah baili,
Faisal
``India had never been a Nation…`` HA! Aren`t you a freshman! Please refer to the ``Mahabharata`` before making such bold statements. Just contemplate the name- such rudimentary reading of the history of nation-state, and such bold claims?
Also, before you limit Jinnah`s efforts to a week of transience, I suggest you go through the transfer of power papers (U of Chicago, U T Austin, India Office Lib, UK).
Your goals are noble friend, but you have no idea what you are talking about.
Allah baili,
Faisal
#18 Posted by ferozk on February 23, 1999 11:33:53 pm
Re: Temporal # 18
You nailed problem! The lack of will is what is keeping the present situation in an embroiled state. No, I did not know the opening preamble to the Dacca document...thanks for the info!
Did you read the Washington Post: Uncle Sam has admited that India-Pakistan will not reverse or curtail their nuclear options. Could not find a carrot juicy enough or a stick big enough. Presently, there is an evolving American policy, as outlined, by Strobe Talbott in an article of Foreign Affairs. Also, did you know that American Naval War College has been ``playing`` out an India-Pakistan war with actual Indian and Pakistani military types playing out the options! Not once did the threshold reach the nuclear level! Both sides limited operations to conventional forces.
I generally dislike the idea of confederations, but in the case of Indo-Pak, I would suggest a free trade zone and no barriers of any sort on contacts across the border.
You nailed problem! The lack of will is what is keeping the present situation in an embroiled state. No, I did not know the opening preamble to the Dacca document...thanks for the info!
Did you read the Washington Post: Uncle Sam has admited that India-Pakistan will not reverse or curtail their nuclear options. Could not find a carrot juicy enough or a stick big enough. Presently, there is an evolving American policy, as outlined, by Strobe Talbott in an article of Foreign Affairs. Also, did you know that American Naval War College has been ``playing`` out an India-Pakistan war with actual Indian and Pakistani military types playing out the options! Not once did the threshold reach the nuclear level! Both sides limited operations to conventional forces.
I generally dislike the idea of confederations, but in the case of Indo-Pak, I would suggest a free trade zone and no barriers of any sort on contacts across the border.
#17 Posted by Ras Siddiqui on February 23, 1999 10:44:11 pm
RE:PST Reply #: 14 Rishi
Your points are well taken except for
``It is statements like these that make me wonder why i still keep visiting chowk....``
CHOWK is one of the only publications where
even some editorial staff of Pakistani origin would dare print this article.
Your presence is very welcome, but as with any topic people of a different political orientation
will also express their views. And not all views
will merit a response.
Ras
#16 Posted by temporal on February 23, 1999 10:10:30 pm
Feroz:
Do you know the opening words of the petition sent to the British on the eve of the formation of Muslim League in 1906 at Dacca?
WE THE NAWABS, TAMUNDARS, ZAMINDARS...........
I am constantly amazed at the half baked ideas of some (well, one, really) interactor on this screen. I guess in the grand scheme of things in this universe such half baked rhetorics have their place too!
(I am sorry for the tangent)
Back to the topic being discussed---- we have much to learn from Israelis. Unless we undergo a drastic rethinking we are doomed. We have discussed this elsewhere before. What bothers me most is the lack of will. We keep talking of tackling the migraine in the terminally ill cancer patient.
(To my Indian friends who are adventurous enough to be here, I sincerely apologise. Not all of us are Paki-jansanghis)!
regards
Do you know the opening words of the petition sent to the British on the eve of the formation of Muslim League in 1906 at Dacca?
WE THE NAWABS, TAMUNDARS, ZAMINDARS...........
I am constantly amazed at the half baked ideas of some (well, one, really) interactor on this screen. I guess in the grand scheme of things in this universe such half baked rhetorics have their place too!
(I am sorry for the tangent)
Back to the topic being discussed---- we have much to learn from Israelis. Unless we undergo a drastic rethinking we are doomed. We have discussed this elsewhere before. What bothers me most is the lack of will. We keep talking of tackling the migraine in the terminally ill cancer patient.
(To my Indian friends who are adventurous enough to be here, I sincerely apologise. Not all of us are Paki-jansanghis)!
regards
#15 Posted by ferozk on February 23, 1999 8:42:19 pm
Re: maliani post # 15
When you suggest that Pakistan needs to redefine its 1940s ideology, are you suggesting its reason for being; a home for the Muslims?
We, as Pakistanis, should not be revisiting that idea. It is, because of that very idea that Pakistan has no bright future. The end of Pakistani euphoria is open to speculation and Jinnah`s comments did not end it. The military coup by Iskander Mirza in 1956 did. The changing of the Pakistani consitution making Pakistan an Islamic republic did. Since then, Pakistan has been struggling to define what its ideology really is. It is for a lack of resolution to that problem, that we are presently debating sharia versus the British system of law.
As to your crediting Jinnah with creating the partition nightmare, I agree with what BG said.
Everyone, to a certain degree, involved in the parition decision had blood on their hands and to blame that sin entirely on Jinnah and thus, sotto voce, absolving the rest of their share of guilt is an ad hoc fallacy. In your haste to condemn Jinnah, you seem to forget what Jinnah tried to do. I think BG`s answer covers all the various facets of Jinnah career well.
On an amusing note; it seems that Israel and Pakistan do share something in common! Orphans of the world, unite!
When you suggest that Pakistan needs to redefine its 1940s ideology, are you suggesting its reason for being; a home for the Muslims?
We, as Pakistanis, should not be revisiting that idea. It is, because of that very idea that Pakistan has no bright future. The end of Pakistani euphoria is open to speculation and Jinnah`s comments did not end it. The military coup by Iskander Mirza in 1956 did. The changing of the Pakistani consitution making Pakistan an Islamic republic did. Since then, Pakistan has been struggling to define what its ideology really is. It is for a lack of resolution to that problem, that we are presently debating sharia versus the British system of law.
As to your crediting Jinnah with creating the partition nightmare, I agree with what BG said.
Everyone, to a certain degree, involved in the parition decision had blood on their hands and to blame that sin entirely on Jinnah and thus, sotto voce, absolving the rest of their share of guilt is an ad hoc fallacy. In your haste to condemn Jinnah, you seem to forget what Jinnah tried to do. I think BG`s answer covers all the various facets of Jinnah career well.
On an amusing note; it seems that Israel and Pakistan do share something in common! Orphans of the world, unite!
#14 Posted by BG on February 23, 1999 7:42:30 pm
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?
``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?
#13 Posted by maliani on February 23, 1999 7:05:53 pm
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.
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.
#12 Posted by rishi on February 23, 1999 12:55:40 pm
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
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
#11 Posted by narain on February 23, 1999 12:55:40 pm
``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.
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.
#10 Posted by Truth on February 23, 1999 12:55:40 pm
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.
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.
#9 Posted by afrasiyab on February 23, 1999 7:41:56 am
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.
#8 Posted by ferozk on February 22, 1999 8:30:16 pm
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!
``...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!
#7 Posted by ferozk on February 22, 1999 4:31:01 pm
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.
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.
#6 Posted by ShahbazC on February 22, 1999 1:29:47 pm
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
http://pak.gov.pk/govt/kashmir/kashmir-simla.htm
#5 Posted by Truth on February 22, 1999 1:29:47 pm
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.
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.
#4 Posted by Ras Siddiqui on February 22, 1999 1:08:09 am
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
#3 Posted by ASK on February 21, 1999 7:42:26 pm
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
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
#2 Posted by temporal on February 21, 1999 1:22:51 pm
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
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
#1 Posted by afrasiyab on February 21, 1999 8:27:43 am
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?
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?
listing 1-16
1 2
Interact Index
Similar Articles
- The Peacock Moments kashkin dabruski
- Prisoner of Conscience MD WAQAR
- The Good Monster: Musharraf's Cultural Legacy Nadeem F Paracha
- Media: The more things change... Beena Sarwar
- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici Naveed Ejaz
US Elections 2008 Primaries
Get Chowk RSS FeedLatest Interacts
- hamidm2: Re: # 38 tahmed, .... your... The Palestinian Puzzle
- tahmed32: HP #243. OK. I... Terrorism Unveiled
- tahmed32: Gentlemen: Let us not... The Palestinian Puzzle
- anil: Romair: Masadi to me is... Terrorism Unveiled
- Kulharee: Masadi (#248), instead of... Terrorism Unveiled
- anil: Re: # 247 Masadi: "...Okhla mian... Terrorism Unveiled
- CreateAlpha: LOL Sheru....yah..SWAT is not... Swat Calls For Civil
- anil: Romair (various): I have a... Terrorism Unveiled
