A Work In Progress

Ref YLH2 #8

[..... you have shown me that you too have the same mischievious streak as apparent in the more rabid and fanatical of your countrymen on these boards.]

Yasser, dear boy, don`t tell me you have forgotten my name already. I am SOOO hurt (sniff).

articles you won`t see in Pakistani newspapers

----
KASHMIR QUAGMIRE
America has no dog in the fight
By Satu P Limaye

The 50-year-old Kashmir dispute has all the attributes T S Eliot assigned to history. It has ``many cunning passages, contrived corridors`` and ``deceives with whispering ambitions, guides us by vanities``. During the past year, as India and Pakistan faced off militarily and the US searched for al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists nearby, the dispute seemed especially dangerous, US interests in the subcontinent compelling, and America`s influence and Pakistani as well as Indian receptivity to US mediation high. Many called for US mediation to resolve the dispute. These calls, however well-intentioned, are misguided.

Kashmir`s dangers and costs, US influence, and Indian and Pakistani receptivity to mediation are overstated. United States interests in Kashmir are negligible; and the value of resolving Kashmir to improving relations with India and Pakistan and achieving wider strategic objectives are debatable. Anyway, the prospect of a Kashmir compromise is remote. Most problematic is the dispute`s ``whispering ambitions``. Kashmir is not the lone or even most important cause of India-Pakistan enmity. Irreconcilable nationalisms, India`s growing power asymmetry with Pakistan, and India`s desire for regional pre-eminence and Pakistan`s determination to prevent it are the cores of discord.

Pakistan, which most seeks mediation, can least afford compromise. An option for the US is to offer Pakistan a security guarantee in exchange for a Kashmir compromise, and simultaneously move to ``transform`` relations with India. This approach has two limited merits. First, it could resolve Kashmir. Second, it would call the subcontinent`s two enduring bluffs. India`s is that it is reconciled fully to the creation of Pakistan. Pakistan`s is that it fears only Indian hegemony, but does not harbor ambitions to be equal to it - whether by pulling India down or pushing itself up. The major demerit of such a policy is the requirement for a massive US commitment of diplomacy, cash, military equipment, security guarantees - and possibly military presence. US interests in India, Pakistan, or their amity, do not justify such a profound commitment. Behind-the-scenes facilitation and episodic crisis management, though cumbersome and unsatisfying, are effective and commensurate with US interests.

Kashmir`s exaggerated dangers and costs
India and Pakistan have fought two brief, limited wars over Kashmir since their independence in 1947. Given India and Pakistan`s overt nuclearization and shared penchant for brinksmanship, today`s dangers seem greater. Divergent risk assessments exist about the possibility of nuclear war. Still, policymakers must consider its humanitarian costs and strategic implications. India and Pakistan pay for Kashmir in lives, treasure and reputations. Kashmir thwarts India`s global ambitions, as does the diplomatic and perceptual hyphenation with Pakistan it produces. Pakistan is being undermined by the Kashmir conflict`s guns, violence and radicalism. The Kashmiris bear the brunt of conflict.

Kashmir`s dangers and costs are sobering, but should not be overdrawn. Brinksmanship is used by all parties to purpose. Weaker Pakistan ratchets up tensions to gain US pressure on India to negotiate. India uses coercive diplomacy to get US pressure on Pakistan to halt the infiltration of militants. Both seek these ends without war: Pakistan because it might lose; India because it might not win. Each wants the US to hold them back, while pushing their interests forward. Militants use dramatic attacks to loosen India`s grip on Kashmir, and warn Pakistan against reducing commitment to their cause. Outsiders use acute tensions to leverage influence. Tensions employed carefully are creative. Outsiders should not be ``guided by vanities`` that they are the most important bulwark against war.

Nor should the negative implications of nuclear war in the subcontinent be exaggerated. Horrific as the humanitarian costs would be, they must be set against the staggering existing humanitarian challenges in the region. Second, many feared that India and Pakistan`s 1998 nuclear blasts would unhinge the nuclear order. They did not. Similarly, if India and Pakistan use nuclear weapons, other countries involved in disputes with their neighbors will not necessarily follow. A nuclear war in the subcontinent could give a fillip to nonproliferation efforts. Resolving Kashmir would remove a nuclear flashpoint, but not the capabilities and underlying antagonisms that make nuclear war possible.

Kashmir is not the magic formula for fixing the subcontinent`s ills or America`s difficulties there. Identifying it as such allows India and Pakistan to blame only each other and manipulate the US.

Illusory US influence and regional receptivity
A beguiling but illusory notion is that US leverage and Indian and Pakistani receptivity to it is at a peak. India`s reliance on Washington to wring and validate commitments from Pakistan to halt infiltration into Kashmir, and its desire for closer ties do not make New Delhi receptive to mediation. India is peeved at Washington`s new-found friendship with Islamabad and doubts that Washington will hold Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf to his pledge to permanently end infiltration. Pakistan suspects that the US has been complicit in India`s coercive diplomacy and is disillusioned that Kashmir is seen as a terrorism problem rather than as a freedom struggle. India and Pakistan`s grievances indicate that the US is well placed to play a mediatory role. But they also show that neither is really ready to receive it.

America has no dog in the Kashmir fight
America`s interests in Kashmir are limited. Kashmir`s future is not the target of a unified, powerful lobby within domestic politics or the subject of US domestic laws. Its intricate history rarely and fleetingly overlaps with American history. The dispute is unfamiliar to most Americans save a few academic and government specialists. Kashmir contains no resources the US, or its allies and friends, must have. Its dispensation does not involve clear ideological values that America holds dear. US allies and friends are not directly threatened by the dispute or clamoring for its resolution. The chance of another power displacing America`s centrality in the subcontinent and addressing the dispute to America`s detriment is negligible. The dispute sometimes detracts from other US priorities, but not unsustainably so. American credibility depends far more heavily on the outcome of other flashpoints. Long-standing US commitments are not at stake. The Kashmir dispute is not equivalent to the cross-strait quandary involving China and Taiwan. Kashmir`s line-of-control (LoC) is not Korea`s demilitarized zone. Simply put, the US does not have a dog in the Kashmir fight.

The dispute does complicate US relations with India and Pakistan and wider strategic objectives (eg, the war on terrorism) but not unmanageably so. During the Cold War and during a decade of Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, America relatively successfully pursued its core interests while managing rather than resolving India-Pakistan tensions or the Kashmir dispute. The global war on terrorism need not be different. Indeed, pressing for resolution of Kashmir now threatens to hamper, not ease US relations with India and Pakistan and the pursuit of wider strategic objectives.

Pakistan can least afford compromise
An irony of the Kashmir dispute is that Pakistan, which most wants mediation, can least afford compromise. First, Kashmir is central to Pakistan`s national identity in a way it is not for India. Second, any reasonable compromise would involve a tacit recognition of the current LoC, a position India already accepts but Pakistan does not. Musharraf recently reiterated that the LoC is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Third, the Kashmir dispute allows Pakistan to assert parity with India in perceptions and diplomacy - if not real power. Kashmir is the hyphen in the India-Pakistan relationship; a punctuation mark vital to Pakistan`s grammar of geopolitics. If Kashmir is resolved, Pakistan loses a way of blunting India`s ambitions for regional pre-eminence. Even Pakistan`s possession of nuclear weapons does not afford the same parity. Pakistan`s nuclear weapons especially matter when they are linked with the Kashmir conflict. Finally, the Kashmir dispute serves Pakistani leaders as a domestic pressure release valve. Musharraf, mocked at home for behaving like Busharraf (ie, too cooperative with President George W Bush in the global war on terrorism), makes like Musharrafat - hedging by supporting the Kashmir freedom struggle.

What`s so funny about behind-the-scenes facilitation and episodic crisis management? By providing Islamabad with a security guarantee and economic and military assistance, the US theoretically could make a Kashmir compromise palatable to Pakistan. US protection of Pakistan would also serve as a restraint on it. India might accept such an arrangement if US support helped Islamabad feel secure, end support for the Kashmiri militancy completely, marginalize its domestic extremists, stabilize its economy, and establish a sustainable democracy. Once Pakistan is secure, a US-India relationship to include military sales, technology transfers and economic cooperation could theoretically develop. Is it worth it? Not now. Such an approach would lock the US in a relentless and expensive engagement; more enduring and costly than trying to resolve Kashmir - much less manage it.

At a time when Washington seeks solutions to international problems rather than to manage them, behind-scenes-facilitation and episodic crisis management might seem an unsatisfying sop - even an abdication of bold leadership. But management of the Kashmir dispute saves the US from making promises it cannot keep, making commitments that outweigh benefits, and hitching itself to a region whose importance to the US must not be over-sold. Calibrating levels and types of engagement with interests is a tricky and dynamic challenge. Currently, US efforts call for management, not mediation of the Kashmir dispute.
---

Peace,
###16 by faisaluno on Janauary 7, 2003 8:20am PT
so if people are not happy with the settlement reached 55 years ago, why dont they do what jinnah did. why dont they get of their butts and work to create a system that will provide peace and prosperity to the region ##
thats exactly was the biggest mistake of these great visionaries Jinnah, Nehru, and Gandhi, all three of them had a great vision of India, they all tried to achieve their goals and at some point got at odds with each other while at certain point found themselves in the same bed. However they had a basic flaw in their vision all three of them, they thought that this vision of the future of India is shared by the people of India, that was the basic flaw of their vision. The Indians of then and today, with exception of say 10%(i know its exagerated), are the poor, lazy, non thinking, people who had no vision or sense of a life with a goal. They have always been a herd of sheep herded into doing things by the Great visionaries from Ashoka, to Bhutto...
But they all waisted their time on the assumption that these people actualy wanted to live a good life...

Peace

Sure, pakiland is in an important position these days. Its position is about exporting terrorism or threats of that nature. Look what pakis are up to ...

http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/dec/17ram.htm

churchill as by quoted by cowasjee:

``If the viceroys and governments of India in the past had given half as much attention to dealing with the social conditions of the masses of the Indian people as they have to busying themselves with negotiating with unrepresentative leaders of the political classes for constitutional changes - if they had addressed themselves to the moral and material problems which are at the root of Indian life, I think it would have been much better for the working folk of Burnely and Bombay, of Oldham and Ahmadabad.``

http://www.tehelka.com/channels/currentaffairs/2002/jun/10/ca061002poor.htm

the more things change _ _ _. what is the point of rehashing old issues? how can someone who died 54 years ago be held responsible for the current impasse? why is jinnah being blamed for accolades heaped upon the likes of advani and qadir khan? how many shujat hussains had jinnah surrounded himself with? so jinnah did not want to live in a quasi-hindu-socialist utopia dominated by three (and possibly four) generations of nehru dynasty. he gave up his comfy lifestyle in vilayat, came home and worked for a settlement which in his opinion provided the best solution. and even the most ardent jinnah haters admit that jinnah did not demand partition until very late in the process.

so if people are not happy with the settlement reached 55 years ago, why dont they do what jinnah did. why dont they get of their butts and work to create a system that will provide peace and prosperity to the region.

Feroz,
One should not be overly critical of every Pakistani leader since the birth of the country to the present day. Taking ``pot shots`` at leaders is alright once in a while but this well written and very sad tale, smacks of a lack of national self confidence and esteem.
One can agree that few bright spots appear in Pakistani history thus far, but hope is an addiction that some of us cannot shake off. In my opinion, Pakistanis are a talented people who are still in the process of finding themselves and their place on the world map. They need some luck and hopefully more confidence.

From Mushahid Hussain`s piece in The Nation (Lahore) today January 7:

``There is a cultural problem of Pakistani leaders when they negotiate with the United States, barring Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who, having been American-educated, had a better understanding of the American culture and political system and could deal with the Americans without any inferiority complex. For example, in a 1963 meeting with President Kennedy, the American President was so impressed with Bhutto that he told him: `If you were American, you would be in my cabinet`. Bhutto replied with a tongue-in-cheek comment that most other Pakistani leaders would not dare make to an American President: `If I were American, you would be in my cabinet, Mr President`.``

Ras

ferozk

are you the ulloo who wrote this?

Feroz Khan:
//...Mohammad Ali Jinnah, was blessed with an acute eye for property .... Jinnah was not only successful in locating a prime piece of real estate for Pakistan, but in his lifetime, he accumulated some highly prized properties himself both in India and Pakistan...///

So you mean to say that Mr Jhinna was basically a glorified real estate agent. you may be right. The cunning lawyer that he was, he used his devious ways to carve out a nice little chunk of land to lord over - all in name of Islam for which he had no respect ( eating pork , drinking alcohol ) and muslims ( with whom he never mingled - choosing to associate with the goras ; he stayed away from the unwashed masses in the street ). While carrying out his little satanic act - he very conveniently blamed it all on the Hindu Baniya, who with his infinite expertise in cunning is going to snatch away bread from the muslim mouth.

Here is the guy who demanded a country in name of religion and as soon as he got it - he said ``Guess what guys, I lied - our new country is actually going to be secular, because you know - I love pork and whisky which Islam forbids``.

He said hindus and muslims can`t live together , hindus are just so bad people - yet he chose to leave half of the muslims back with the those cunning hindu hyenas without bothering what would happen to them.

The lies that this man was propagating was exposed when many of his own family didn`t believe what he said and actually chose to stay back with the hindu hyenas.

But then we can`t really blame Mr. Jhinna, he has done what any of us would have done in his place - exploit the willing succkers. Unfortunately - the great unwashed masses of undevided India fell for his trick.

Today his legacy lives on: the true inheritors of his legacy are using the same trick that he has used half century ago. They still claim to fight for Islam, for muslims, for pakistan and corner nice little plots of land for themselves. They still drown in whisky in army clubs and yet profess to be the true fighters for islam. They are still afraid of the Hindu hyena.

And the the great unwashed masses are still falling for the lie.

Feroz Khan:
//...Mohammad Ali Jinnah, was blessed with an acute eye for property .... Jinnah was not only successful in locating a prime piece of real estate for Pakistan, but in his lifetime, he accumulated some highly prized properties himself both in India and Pakistan...///

So you mean to say that Mr Jhinna was basically a glorified real estate agent. you may be right. The cunning lawyer that he was, he used his devious ways to carve out a nice little chunk of land to lord over - all in name of Islam for which he had no respect ( eating pork , drinking alcohol ) and muslims ( with whom he never mingled - choosing to associate with the goras ; he stayed away from the unwashed masses in the street ). While carrying out his little satanic act - he very conveniently blamed it all on the Hindu Baniya, who with his infinite expertise in cunning is going to snatch away bread from the muslim mouth.

Here is the guy who demanded a country in name of religion and as soon as he got it - he declared ``Guess what guys, I lied - our new country is actually going to be secular, because you know - I love pork and whisky which Islam forbids``.

He said hindus and muslims can`t live together , hindus are so bad people - yet he chose to leave half of the muslims back with the those cunning hindu hyenas without bothering what would happen to them.

The lies that this man was propagating was exposed when many of his own family didn`t believe what he said and actually chose to stay back with the hindu hyenas.

But then we can`t really blame Mr. Jhinna, he has done what any of us would have done in his place - exploit the willing succkers. Unfortunately - the great unwashed masses of undevided India fell for his trick.

Today his legacy lives on: the true inheritors of his legacy are using the same trick that he has used half century ago. They still claim to fight for Islam, for muslims, for pakistan and grab nice little plots of land for themselves. They still drown in whisky in army clubs and yet profess to be the true fighters for islam. And they are still afraid of the Hindu hyena.

And the great unwashed masses are still falling for the lie.

COMPLETED WORK,

Pakistan is no more a work in p[rocess, it is almost there, the vision of jinnah, the frution of two nation theory is almost complete. part of pakistan with nearly 25 percent non-muslims have been made to another country, the pakistan of today that had 10 percent non-muslims have been reduced to negligible non-muslims, the blasphemy laws, hodood ordinance in line with the dictates of the sheria courts of pakistan has survived all of the constitutional changes and form the fabric of pak society ( one mans one speach as can be expected is seen as the outcome of genetic deformity of forked tongue).

The outcome of the hero worship of the ilks of gaznai, and tuglak have reincarnated as mushy. Look at his latest speach to the people of pakistan, he claimed that his threat of non-conventional attack stopped the indian army. Now this man is denying it. He is coming up with all kinds of excuses and interpretations. How come a man of such low political understanding happen to become the army chief, how come in a country of a few hundred million, no one is capable of giving the head of stste competant advice. It is simply the ultimate proof of the success of TNT, pakistan is the final proof of darwenian experiment, those who believed in TNT have been selected and sent to pakistan. Now the outcome of the selection process is there for all the world to see, a society that selects the dumbest for the top job.

Ferzok, it is work completed, finished work, or should I say pakistan is finished.

My dear Stuka Dive Bomber,
Thanks for correcting me about Bengal. You see the piece of land in question is this part, and so my omission.
By the way, I am new to chowk, but I wonder what made you have the nom de plume of JU87D (if I remember correctly from my childhood war comics) `Stuka` dive bomber of Luftwaffe, the terror of European cities till it met its superiors, hurricane and spitfires?
And when I said overwhelming majority, I did not forget the minority communities, and neither did Mr Jinnah. His historic 11 August 1947 opening address to the constituent assembly of Pakistan guaranteed equal rights to all. And Mr Jinnah, everybody agrees, meant what he said.
I do not know why are you terrified of being a minority under muslim rule, when inspite of all the horror stories, the share of state posts in Aurangzeb`s Mughal heirarchy was 50/50. Please see Sir Jadunaath Sarkaar`s History of Aurangzeb.
As for Jinnah, he nominated the hedonistic barrister son of Sir Sobha Singh, I mean our dear old Khushwant Singh, as Justice of Lahore High Court. Prime Minister IK Gujraal`s father I forget his name was his first choice as the Law Minister, later the Honorable Joginder Naath Mandal , a lower caste member from Bengal, was selected. Gujraal senior was on the Governor General Council as Minister Without portfolio with special responsibility for inter-communal relations, till he left for India in december 47 or jan 48. I have discussed that in detail in Chowk unplugged, off the wall discussions, Happy Birthday Mr Jinnah, so no point repeating here that the Pakistan Dream was very different from what India has forced it to become. Your brother, IK

My dear Stuka Dive Bomber,
Thanks for correcting me about Bengal. You see the piece of land in question is this part, and so my omission.
By the way, I am new to chowk, but I wonder what made you have the nom de plume of JU87D (if I remember correctly from my childhood war comics) `Stuka` dive bomber of Luftwaffe, the terror of European cities till it met its superiors, hurricane and spitfires?
And when I said overwhelming majority, I did not forget the minority communities, and neither did Mr Jinnah. His historic 11 August 1947 opening address to the constituent assembly of Pakistan guaranteed equal rights to all. And Mr Jinnah, everybody agrees, meant what he said.
I do not know why are you terrified of being a minority under muslim rule, when inspite of all the horror stories, the share of state posts in Aurangzeb`s Mughal heirarchy was 50/50. Please see Sir Jadunaath Sarkaar`s History of Aurangzeb.
As for Jinnah, he nominated the hedonistic barrister son of Sir Sobha Singh, I mean our dear old Khushwant Singh, as Justice of Lahore High Court. Prime Minister IK Gujraal`s father I forget his name was his first choice as the Law Minister, later the Honorable Joginder Naath Mandal , a lower caste member from Bengal, was selected. Gujraal senior was on the Governor General Council as Minister Without portfolio with special responsibility for inter-communal relations, till he left for India in december 47 or jan 48. I have discussed that in detail in Chowk unplugged, off the wall discussions, Happy Birthday Mr Jinnah, so no point repeating here that the Pakistan Dream was very different from what India has forced it to become. Your brother, IK

KHUSHWAN SINGH`S BIOGRAPHY AND MOHAMMED ALI JINNAH

ATTN Mr. Dost Mittar,

Let me start by saying one thing : I have only one purpose for which I am communicating on this forum at this time. I have absolutely no interest in convincing you of anything since you proved to be quite obtuse and obstinate in blocking out the facts and sticking with your own perception which is rather skewed to say the least since you still view partition with the eyes of a 7 year old ....

The reason why I have temporarily come out of my retirement from the boring interactions on this website is because you unwittingly or for sinister purposes (I can`t be sure) attributed an inaccurate statement to a great man Khushwant Singh who is by all accounts a man of honesty and integrity much like the man he admires, Mr. Mohammed Ali Jinnah... You claimed that Khushwant Singh agrees with you when you say that Jinnah had envisaged no place for Non-Muslims in Pakistan .... This is absolutely and totally false ..... I am reproducing the original statement from the book `TRUTH LIES AND A LITTLE MALICE` the autobiography of Mr.Khushwant Singh:


``Evidently he (Jinnah) had neither wished nor forseen that in Pakistan there would be no place for Non-Muslims``

PAGE 116 `TRUTH LIES AND LITTLE MALICE`


Khushwant Singh has accurately concluded what any sane person would if he read the facts cool mindedly or saw them with his own eyes. Mohammed Ali Jinnah had not envisaged an exchange of populations and wanted a Pakistan where all people regardless of religion caste or creed lived as equal citizens...

I don`t want to say any further since I think in credibility Khushwant Singh ranks higher than most people especially some one who left Sialkot at the age of 7 a whole month before Jinnah even flew to Pakistan. But I do want to say one thing though... By so deliberately misquoting Khushwant Singh (You might have read that article which misquoted Khushwant Singh in that case your crime is not to read the original Source) you have shown me that you too have the same mischievious streak as apparent in the more rabid and fanatical of your countrymen on these boards.

Kindly don`t dare to patronize me in the future... I don`t need your patronizing.... Maybe you should reserve it for the Saffron brigafe you have unleashed on this unsuspecting board.


Long Live Khushwant Singh and His India (Not the saffron Brigade`s)
Long Live Jinnah`s Pakistan

Sincerely
YLH

Ref hrrehman #6

[One must admire today the great vision of the founder of Pakistan Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and his fellow leaders about the two-nations theory. Quaid-e-Azam understood the Hindu mentality quite long ago..... on the resolution day, 23rd of March, while addressing to the annual Muslim League convention in Lahore, he said, ``Hindus and the Muslims belong to two different religions, philosophies, social customs and literature. They neither inter-marry nor inter-dine ...``]

Do they rape across religious boundaries? Do they?

[``....and, indeed they belong to two different civilizations, which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their concepts on life and of life are different. They have different epics, different heroes and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other, and likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state.``]

So, what do we do with the 120+ million Muslims in India? Are we in India to accept them and the consequent ``growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state``? Or do you think we should expel them to Pakistan and/or Bangladesh? Or, perhaps make them revert (hey, that is a word you guys like to use; you know, everybody is a Muslim, it is just that some of us don`t know it) to Hinduism?

Just like Osama started pushing the cause of kashmir to recruit pakistanis, Jinnah started embracing the concept of mulims-hindu permanant and divine divide. Those who call him farsighted, conveneinetly ignore the fact that he was campaigning for seperatist movement in the muslim minority areas, and hence endangering the lives and honour of these poor yet emotional muslims. It is like if Altaf Hussain of MQM starts his separatist movement from urdu speaking areas in Rawalpindi and Lahore.

Those who say that he was secular, also conveneinetly forget that he had two faces: one for western media and another for Indian muslims. u can not demand a country on the basis of religion and then insist that it would be secular. By that standard, Israel is perhaps more secular than what Jinnah ever dreamed of pak.

One must admire today the great vision of the founder of Pakistan Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and his fellow leaders about the two-nations theory. Quaid-e-Azam understood the Hindu mentality quite long ago. In 1934, in an address, he said: ``The Hindu sentiment, the Hindu mind, the Hindu attitude led me to the conclusion that there was no hope of unity.” “We (Muslims) are a Nation`` he asserted, ``with our own distinctive culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of value and proportion, legal laws and moral code, custom and calendar, history and tradition, aptitude and ambitions; in short, we have our own distinctive outlook on life and of life. By all canons of international law we are a Nation.``
Then on the resolution day, 23rd of March, while addressing to the annual Muslim League convention in Lahore, he said, ``Hindus and the Muslims belong to two different religions, philosophies, social customs and literature. They neither inter-marry nor inter-dine and, indeed they belong to two different civilizations, which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their concepts on life and of life are different. They have different epics, different heroes and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other, and likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state.``