Indians and Pakistanis Must Start Anew

Anil Kumar #105

Ottoman Empire, which was basically a continuation of previous Muslim Empire, mostly ruled on predominatly Muslim subjects in Asia and Africa. Their European Incursions they could not keep but its evidence is still in the form of Muslims in Balkan region.

What caused the Europe to advance rapidly and Muslim world into slumber is to be discovered.

It may be related to many factors.

The trade and intellectual activities in Muslim world was at its height. The European basically came into interaction with Muslims during crusades and in Spain.

JR # 104

Although Pakistan remains at the verge of default, but people of Pakistan are in good position. The idea of Pakistan was the economic progress of Muslims and which they feared will not be possible with Hindu domination.

Korakoram #102

Although you are writing that Amnesty International does not care about Terrorist (freedom fighters). It cares. The human right abuses it reports is death under custody. Attacks on civilian population by armed forces and other crimes by state on its civilian. It clearly says that terrorist encounter (freedom struggle) is not in its agenda, nor is it there to support for or against it.

That is why Amnesty International is gold standard for human right abuses by every country. You can dispute its findings, but you cannot dispute its impartiality.

Kabuliwallah #101

You are stating that India does not want to gobble up Pakistan. First of all this a great fear among Pakistanis. 2nd considering the history of India in Kashmir how can one trust you, while most of your compatriots are saying that Kashmir is past of India. While Indian forces were invited by Hari Singh just to prevent attack by Pakistan and to keep them there until the wishes of Kashmiris are known. Now instead of knowing the wishes of Kashmiris, you people are claiming it to be part of India.

Scout #88,89

I totally agree with points made in both of your posts.

YLH #many posts.

There will never be consensus in Pakistan regarding which direction to be taken. There will always be Islamist, liberals, ethnicities etc. To get out of this morass, education and Economic progress is the key. And to stop labelling every voice of dissent as anti-Islam, anti-Pakistan and pro Indian.

Ref: UdayaKumar

This is exactly how a sensitive issue should not be handled. Without doubting honest intentions of the writer, it is my opinion that animosity between people, nations, groups is a product of many complex issues, one of which is fear of being assimilated or absorbed. Writer possibly thought that he will draw big applause from the readers but unfortunately the reaction is negative from both sides.

It is difficult to fortell what future holds for all of us but if ever India and Pakistn were to live peaceful then first and foremost need is to become good neighbours. This requires good borders and by borders I do not mean barbed wires but a policy of keeping away from peeping into each other`s affairs. There should be no government support to any group spreading hatred against each other. Kashmir issue should be solved by plebiscite after a cool off period of 5-10 years with a choice of becoming independent.

Our politicians have let us down but people are equally responsible to fall into their slogans. India and Pakistan both need good, open, responsive democracies where every individual is powerful so that he or she does not have to join a group to be heard. Central government in India and Army in Pakistan has too much power and they need to delegate most of the power to states and local governments.

Well I can go on. Bottom line is this. Let us respect Pakistan as a nation. I am with those Pakistanis who have shown their displeasure. Idea of a unification causes more harm than good. It magnifies the mistrust. Let us live as good neighbours first.

Peace first and always

macgupta #112: You seem to have missed part of my reply. Please read all of it. Perhaps, I was unclear.

``So why is everyone fighting about a partition, or laying claim to a historical culture? The only people who should be complaining about the partition are the British (whose empire was broken up when Pakistan and India came into existence), AND THE STATES LIKE PUNJAB (note: this touches on what you mentioned in #112) which were broken into two parts at partition.``

I think the last sentence covers your query. The point I was trying to make was that the Sub-Continent had all the makings of breaking into more states than it did. No one can, nor should, force people to live together, if they do not want to. In my opinion, it is religion that has actually kept the division of South Asia into just three countries, and not twenty three countries. It is the common factor which united the twenty or so historically independent areas in South Asia into three independent nations.

When it comes down to it, Islam is the only common factor amongst the four provinces of Pakistan (at least during the early days of Pakistan). Pakistan is now evolving a common culture, which will be a combination of the combined cultures of its provinces. This combined culture will take decades, if not centuries, to override the individual cultures of the provinces. Similarly, Hinduism is the common thread that allowed historically independent states to form India. For some reason, Indians don`t want to admit this. However, do you really think India would be one country, if each of its provinces had a completely different religion? They already had different languages, cultures, and histories; with separate religions, there would have been no common bond.

The other point I was trying to make was that India (or Pakistan) cannot lay claim to a historical national culture, since they only came into existence in 1947. The culture belongs to independent states that consituted the area. Do I as a Punjabi/Kashmiri share a common culture with a South Indian? I only share a common culture with an Indian Punjabi or a Kashmiri. How can a South Indian lay claim to the fact that Punjabis, Kashmiris and South Indians were one nation before the partition, and so should have continued to remain one nation?

Also, India and Pakistan broke away from the British empire. I have yet to figure out how (and why) Indians have come to the conclusion that Pakistan broke away from India, when India actually came into existence one day after Pakistan. How can India claim to be the inheritor of the South Asian culture, when India itself never existed before 1947? Infact, Muslims could make (an equally ridiculous) claim that South Asian states should still be Hindu majorities ruled by Muslim minorities. If Indians feel that the status quo of South Asia is based on one giant state, then the above should be acceptable to them, since that is how things were for 800 years. I doubt any Hindu Indian would accept being ruled by a Muslim minority, yet Hindu Indians (for some strange reason) are bent upon suggesting that Muslims should have agreed to live as a minority in a majority Hindu state of united India. Don`t you see the inconsistency in that? No one wants to live as a minority in a place where they do not feel safe.

I am not quite sure why you brought migration into it. I never mentioned it in my reply. Since you have mentioned it, I would like to point out that migration is the last resort of a person in fear. People only migrate if they feel they will be worse off if they do not migrate. Muslims wanted a separate state, not because they had a separate religion (if this were the case, then they would demand a separate state in every country in which they are a minority). Muslims demanded a separate state because they felt due to their religion, they would suffer in a combined India. At a later stage, Bangladeshis demanded a separate state for similar reasons. Not because they were of a different ethnicity, but because they felt that due to their ethnicity they were suffering in a combined Pakistan. Religion and ethnicities, in and of themselves, are never enough to demand a separate country. It is the discrimination that people feel due to their religion and ethnicities that causes them to demand a separate land. That is why Pakistani Muslims would not want to live in a combined India, but are more than happy to migrate to US and live as a minority.

Migrations and the killings related to partition, are the unfortunate consequences of a partition. Just like divorce is the unfortunate consequence of an unworkable marraige. However, the fact that people are willing to migrate (or get a divorce), despite all its harmful effects, is an indication that they would be worse off, if they did not.

Ideally speaking, I think Muslims could have given it a shot at living in a joint India with Hindus. However, this would have been based on one condition. If, at a later stage, the Muslims felt they were being discriminated against by the majority (more than likely to occur in a third-world country), then the Hindus should have peacefully allowed the Muslims to form their separate country, through a referendum (much like Quebec). If the Muslims did not discriminated against, then they could continue in a united India.

Would India have allowed Muslims to separate peacefully, at a later stage, if required. Unfortunately, after seeing the way Indians are treating Kashmiris, the answer is an obvious, ``no.`` Now, if India had allowed the Kashmiris to peacefully decide their own future, then Indians would have some sort of an argument about the success of a giant united India. Unfortunately, with their actions in Kashmir, Indians have justified the Pakistanis worst fears about living as a minority in a united giant India. Keeping that in mind, I am quite glad my grandparents generation struck when the iron was hot.

Looks like Pakistan will now also object to Indian Ocean because it has ``India`` in it.

South Asia is not ``Indian subcontinent`` -Pakistan

Reuters

Jun 26 2000 12:38PM ET

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan said Monday that South Asia should not be called the ``Indian subcontinent`` and accused arch-rival India of using this description to manifest its ``long-cherished dream of exercising hegemony in the region.``

``As India is only one of the countries of Asia, the term `Indian subcontinent` is entirely inappropriate as a description for the whole region,`` a Foreign Ministry spokesman said in a statement.

He said he was objecting to the reported use of the term by Indian Home (interior) Minister Lal Krishnan Advani while talking to reporters in Paris last Monday after talks with his French counterpart Jean-Pierre Chevenement.

``Its use betrays India`s long-cherished dream of exercising hegemony in the region, a dream that India has failed to realize and which it will never succeed in achieving,`` he said.

He said another recent statement by Advani proposing a confederation in the subcontinent was ``also reflective of the same unfortunate mindset.``

``The government of Pakistan, therefore, hopes that use of the term `Indian subcontinent` to refer to South Asia will be avoided,`` the spokesman said.

The ``Indian subcontinent`` has been used to describe the area covered by five countries -- India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan and Nepal -- which, together with Sri Lanka and the Maldives, form the seven-nation South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation group.

Another one of hamidm`s cheeky attempts at humor. Poverty? hah. When`s the next IMF payment due? When will Musharraf tour the muslim ummah countries to pick up a $1 or two? Gotta go. Little cousin is screaming out of fear of the `ghost` - veiled Pakistani woman in black bedsheets parading the neighborhood.

Cheers hamid.

In further reply to Umairr : the people of Punjab, speakers of the same language, and for most of their history together in one kingdom, split into two; the people of Bengal split into two; the ``Muslim nation`` split into two, with people migrating thousands of kilometers; the ``Hindu nation`` likewise split; and innumerable more split-ups on a smaller scale -- this is in the historical record, and yet you deny a vivisection of anything but the British Empire, none of those other relationships existed.

I must admire your sense of history.

-arun gupta

In reply to Umairr : You may be correct, BUT

That is only if sundry rulers like the Mauryas and the Guptas were foreigners. Actually, even Akbar and Aurangzeb were not foreigners, though some BJP-types don`t want to admit that. Large extents of India have been united under these rulers, non-foreign.

-arun gupta

..............pardon my Punjabi - but this article is utter bukwas, garbage and run-of-the mill Indian propaganda ..... this is exactly the kind of rancid and putrid dog-doo that we Pakistanis have come to expect from Swamiji and his churi-hiding disciples ...it is perverse, it is sick, and it should be tossed right back at the plotting-scheming rascals who spoil the wrong side of the border ......... Ya Allah ! When will the progeny of the half-naked faqir give up their pipe dream of Akhand Baharat.....

............ now let us get this straight- we have little in common with the little guy from Kerala who puts coconut in his salan, and the sideways-headshaking sophisticate from Bombay who clasps his hands and puts on a sly smile, hiding his churi in a smelly armpit ....and what is this nonsense about India being better off..... been there - seen it! Nowhere in Pakistan, not even in the Afghan refugee camps , will you see the poverty and human misery of Bombay ....

..... but that is not the point - our parents saw you guys close-up and chose to avoid you .... we trust their judgement... and our children believe in us..... gott go - my little one is screaming again - her sister probably called her a skinny little ``Indian`` again !

Some of you Paki clowns keep proving what I mentioned in a different post. Those who have nothing to be proud of in the recent past or the present, harp on romantic visions of past days of glory going back into the medieval ages.

If Muslims built the Taj Mahal, it is predominantly Hindu brains running the IT revolution in India, to a great extent Silicon Valley, and increasingly in Europe and Southeast Asia. Maybe that`s it. It`s now a brain game and the victor isn`t the biggest caveman who can beat the other cavemen to kill a woolly mammoth or two and bring the food home.

This has been the decade or 2 decades of decay for Islam. Now some Umairr type character will point an Abdul here or an Ejaz there who has staked his 2 cent claim somewhere or the other but that`s just anecdotal.

What makes your neurons fire less rapidly than those of others? Is it the black fat of hatred or religion or bitterness lodged in your brain somehwere?

What will you be remembered for when the world looks back 100 years from now at the relics of the technological revolution? NOTHING is your best hope! In the worst case scenario you will be remembered for maybe having started a war against India, maybe the US, probably Russia, and Israel or some combination of the these. Hell even your red friends in China have been having some problems in Xinjuang province.

Dear UdayaKumarjee,

Before we run, let us learn to walk. How about if we just build an economically vibrant (much more than today) United States of India. How about if we:

1. Give more rights to states, except defense, currency, communication, external affairs etc.

2. Give equal upper house votes to each state (similar to USA) so that having a state means little more than today.

3. Redefine roles and responsibilities so that states are forced to protect minority lives and property with sever penalties, otherwise federal troops take over.

4. If federal officials are corrupt and commit crime (1984 Sikh riots, Christian burning), they are punished as severely as commoners are.

5. Let progressive states (e.g., Karnataka) progress fast at their speed and backward states suffer and choke themselves until they learn their lessons. No federal subsidies based on population.

As we implement these changes, not only will USI become more efficient but also neighbors will develop more faith in Indian justice system. We also will have a blue print to follow, if other friends from the sub-continent (e.g., Nepal) want to join us.

Kabuliwallah # 100

That was a very nice post. Thank you.

Umair #103

Dear Umair:

You have correctly called the religion as the least common denominator. However, you have ignored ``Civilization`` which is the highest common factor among united (even disunited) regions of the world.

In Europe, it is translates into European Civilization. Even American historians trace the roots of their civilization and create even bigger common factor - Western Civilization.

Religious influences change over time, Spain, Austria, Hungary in Europe to India / Pakistan in Asia are good example of religious changes. Despite changes people living there (European countries) are equally proud to be part of European and Western Civilization, but they no longer call themselves Muslims in Europe and Hindus in Pakistan. Similarly, Mexico changed religions over time, but Mayan and Inca civilizations are known to belong there, people still proudly associate themselves to Machu-Pichoo in Peru to the gigantic Mayan structures in the Jungles of Southern Mexica and Central America.

People change religions over a period of time, whereas civilizations evolve. Therefore religion provides discontinuity, and is never a uniting force, but the evolutionary nature of civilizations provides a continuity, with which the people continue to relate.

To illustare myself, I can say that many Pakistanis I have met are equally proud of Indus valley civilization, but they do not wish to be known as Hindus any longer. Likewise many Indians are proud of this civilization too, even though vehemently reject Muslim label.

The Ottoman empire is long gone, becuase it was driven by religion. It conquered territories and people, but could never conquer hearts of those who did not convert to Islam. Hence it failed to become a civilization, and disappeared. The Ottoman empire had all the ingredients of making of a great civilization, but it did not happen. You and many others at Chowk may have a better handle over Islamic history, and can correct me, but I feel the secret of such a colossal failure is deep rooted in the requirement of strict interpretation and observance of Islamic principles, which at times becomes its worst enemy and destroys what has been beautifully created by Islam. To understand me, please remember, it is not just a delapidated Babri Masjid recently, but one of the exquisite wonders, Alhambra in Spain was changed forever to not have any Islamic symbols - such is the furore of opposition that rebels to Islamic thoughts show whenever they get their chance. It is unfortunate, but sadly true.

ANIL KAPURIA

Anil@Kapuria.COM

Umairr ,

Could you please tell me which country in the world existed as a state before say 5 or 6 centuries ago? Did Germany exist as a state? Did italy exist as a state? Which country existed just like what the physical boundaries are now?

Thanks

Mr. Udayakumar,

It may be best to wait until migration/partition is complete before proposing reunification.

from rediff.com

Defection of villagers is propaganda victory for Pakistan



Tara Shankar Sahay in New Delhi

The crossing of nearly 300 Kashmiri villagers into Pakistan occupied Kashmir alleging brutalities by Indian security forces has provided Islamabad considerable propaganda material.

`` The government is helpless as there was an intelligence failure. How such a large number of people crossed over is a mystery. It is a fact that Pakistan will use it for anti-Indian propaganda by featuring the villagers on Pakistan Television. The villagers invariably give exaggerated accounts of brutality,`` admitted a senior home ministry official.

Another official pointed out that incidents like these have been occurring periodically right from the early 1990s but successive central governments, whether of the Congress, the United Front or the ruling National Democratic Government, have been unable to prevent them.

While ``exploitation `` of such incidents by Pakistan is routine, the international fallout is far graver.

Such incidents provide grist for human rights organisations like Amnesty International which is overzealous in portraying the alleged enthusiasm of Indian security forces in tackling anti-national elements.

Army officials in South Block, however, fume at the ``sheer one-sidedness `` of the human rights groups` reports pertaining to activities of the Indian security forces in Kashmir.

`` Why don`t these human rights groups report how the Indian Army suffers cowardly attacks by foreign militants in Kashmir? They are only interested in concocted details provided by villagers in border areas. The army has been maintaining commendable restraint during combing operations in border villages but there is no question of laxity when we flush out militants,`` an official in the valley told rediff.com.

He, however, indicated that the army would do its job without bothering about what human rights organisations were reporting.

He also claimed that many army personnel had been brutally killed by militants and that `` they can expect little mercy once apprehended.``

Bharatiya Janata Party vice-president Jagdish Prasad Mathur said he could not comment on the issue. He said Pakistan`s Inter Services Intelligence may have exploited the villagers` `` religious affinity``.

Major General (retd) Afsir Karim underscored that ``terrorism is considered essential to coerce the passive Kashmiri population to rise in revolt against Indian security forces.`` He pointed out that the ISI has been trying to inject radical Islam among the Kashmiris and small groups like Allah Tigers and Ul-Umar were terrorising villagers.

Pakistan was created as a homeland for the Muslims of pre-partition India in order to give them an equal or better chance at progress, without the domination of a Hindu majority.

The proof of the pudding is in its eating.

After 53 years, have the people who believed in Pakistan progressed? Has the common man in streets of Pakistan made it out of poverty? What about education, living standards, health? These are the questions that need to be asked.

If the answer to any of these questions is `NO` then Pakistan has turned out to be a pipe dream for many.

After 53 years, if Pakistan has indeed turned out to be better off than India in most ways and is poised to do even better, then none of these intellectuals, Indians or others would ever be questioning the ideology of Pakistan. Right?

But, today, Pakistan has fallen behind in almost every way and is poised to further slip down into an almost unknown future.

Okay, let us set India aside, because it is only marginally better off presently, though definitely better positioned for progress. What about the world? The world - the entire world is pointing an accusing finger at Pakistan.

I think at this juncture even if one is a Pakistani nationalist he should be asking why Pakistan has failed - as an ideology and as a nation.

My knowledge of South Asian history (pre-British) is somewhat limited. But if I remember correctly, the country India (and Pakistan) never existed before the British conquered South Asia. It was only after the British conquered the various independent and semi-independent states now constituting India and Pakistan, that the current landmass known as India came into existence. Infact, the provinces that now constitute India (and Pakistan) have known unfication only through the efforts of their foreign conquereres, i.e. had India not been invaded again and again, conquered again and again, it would still be a set of independent predominately Hindu countries (much like the independent European Christian nations that exist today).

Every province, of what is currently India and Pakistan, has all the characteristics of an independent entity, i.e. language, ethnicity, culture, etc. This shows that historically, they were independent entities, and would have evolved into independent nation-states, with populations and areas equalling those of European nations.

So when people talk of a common Indian heritage, what exactly are they refering to? Prior to 1947 (or pre-British, at most) the only thing common amongst the states that now constitute India was their religion, Hinduism. Despite all the talk of multiculturism, the uniting factor amongst the Indian provinces is their religion (even though most Indians seem hesitant to admit it). Infact very few people outside India know that India has a multi-million Muslim minority. The world, rightly or wrongly, views India as a Hindu nation.

Apart from religion, there really isn`t any common South Asian heritage or culture that either India or Pakistan can claim. This is due to the simple fact, that the two entities never existed until 1947. Each of the states and provinces in India and Pakistan can, of course, claim thousands of years of heritage and culture; but Pakistan and India cannot claim that as their own. If someone were to conquer all the nations of Europe, and combine them into one country, could that single resultant country then claim a common historical culture? The only aspect common to them would be there Christian religion. So if one were to look at things factually, the culture and history of South Asia belongs to its provinces. India and Pakistan don`t have any history dating past 1947. For a country to have a history, it has to first exist.

Keeping the above in mind, I don`t see how anyone can claim that Pakistan, ``broke away`` from India. Pakistan broke away from the British Empire. The entity India came into existence one day after Pakistan. How could Pakistan have broken away from something which actually came into existence after Pakistan?

The history of South Asia is neither Indian, nor Pakistani. It is a history of independent states and kingdoms. The Mughals and other ruling dynasties and princes never ruled over, what is now, India or Pakistan. They ruled over a combination of states, some of which ended up in India, and some in Pakistan. How can India (or Pakistan) claim that to be a part of, ``its`` cultural history?

What factor united all these states into two or three countries? One was the British conquest, and the other was the least common denominator of religion. If each of the twenty or so provinces constituting India and Pakistan now, had twenty separate religions (i.e. Punjab was Jewish, Gujrat was Christian, etc.), I think they would be twenty separate countries by now. Infact, had the independent states in South Asia not been conquered, it is quite possible that they would have been independent countries, even if everyone practiced the same religion. That is how different they are from each other culturally.

Infact, had a partition not taken place in 1947, the cultural, religious, historical differences in a giant, ``united`` India would have come up sooner or later, and South Asia would consist of more independent states than it consists of today. At the very least, the landmass that constitutes India right now would be smaller than it is currently, i.e a greater partition(s) would have eventually taken place. What other common denominator, besides religion, was there for historically independent and culturally different states of India to form one country? And what what other common denominator, besides religion, was there for historically independent and culturally different states of Pakistan to form one country? So before people (specially Indians) jump up and down and complain about religion being a dividing factor, they should realize that it is religion(s) that kept South Asia (and is contintuing to keep South Asia) from breaking into many different countries. The fact that the Sub-Continent is three different countries, and not twenty-three different countries (like Europe) is quite an achievement, considering that there were enough cultural differences to justify twenty three different naitons.

Only the people who know they will end up as a majority, will wish for one giant combined South Asia. They have everything to gain and nothing to lose. They need to understand the historical differences, and be thankful that South Asia merely split up into three countries, and not twenty three countries.

So when people attempt to lay claim to a, ``common`` culture and identity of India (and Pakistan) before 1947, they should keep in mind that the two countries never existed before 1947. How could they even have a culture? The culture, history, and heritage before 1947 belongs to the provinces (or the independent states that roughly transformed into provinces).

So why is everyone fighting about a partition, or laying claim to a historical culture? The only people who should be complaining about the partition are the British (whose empire was broken up when Pakistan and India came into existence), and the states like Punjab which were broken into two parts at partition.

So, to everyone who is still in a state of depression due to the partition; get over it, be thankful that the Sub-Continent is only three countries and not twenty-three countries, quit trying to blame religion for all your problems India is a set of historically independent states, now united by a common religion. And Pakisan is a historically independent states, now united by a common religion. One has more minorities than the other, but both have a predominant religion, whether they admit or not. Be thankful, that greater partitions have not taken place in South Asia.