shiv wrote:KLNMurthy wrote:
I know what you mean, but still, whenever someone says Pakistan is in some sense a "province of India" I get a conniption and have to lie down with eau de cologne soaked cloth on my forehead for some time.
The biggest danger for India (aside from the very physical one of nuclear destruction) from Pakistan is the dream to "erase" partition, either out of a sentimental "brothers-reunited" feeling, or out of its obverse, a triumphalist urge to "prove" that the Two Nation Theory is wrong, and "we" have therefore "won".
If we know what's good for India, we should be straining every sinew to keep Pakistan separate.
Let me explain my meaning using an analogy - because words like state and province have too many double meanings that defy clarity.
I was recently involved in a discussion about the Aryan Invasion theory where a person who was in the discussion with me said that since OIT (Out of India) was ruled out, AIT had to be true. Just because OIT is false does not make AIT true - there is the third possibility of neither OIT nor AIT being true.
In the case of Pakistan it needs to be recalled that just because Pakistan is a failed nation state that is the equivalent of one or two of India's provinces (or states), it does not automatically mean that it should be re united as a province of India.
There is a third possibility - and it is for that third possibility that I am trying to create increased awareness. That third possibility is a splintered Pakistan consisting of three or more "states" (
there - that damn word again!!) each state amounting to an existing "province" (
there - that damn word again!!) of Pakistan.That splintered group of states is NOT India. It is NOT Pakistan either. It is neither India nor Pakistan. It is a fractured bunch of states that need to be recognized as such.
It is important not to confuse Pakistan with a state of India. But it is not a nation state either. It consists of provinces which are at war with each other and when we say "government" of Pakistan we all automatically think of Nawaz Sharif. Why don't we automatically also think of the chief ot the TTP when we say "Government of Pakistan?" The TTP is as much a parallel government of Pakistan seeking control over larger areas of Pakistan as any other government in exile of some place living in some western country.
There is a mindset that makes us think of Pakistan as a nation whose borders have a particular shape, but within those borders there are several parallel governing groups and none of them are totally in control. It is argued that the so called "Elected government" controls the largest chunks, but here again that is a false premise. The only entity capable of controlling anything is the army and even that army is not fully in control. Sorry to keep repeating all these well known facts, but unfortunately the fact that Pakistan is considered a nation-state with a functioning government gives it a kind of moral legitimacy and status that allows Pakistan to be compared side by side with India. In actuality that comparison is a specious one although all of us are guilty in looking at Pakistan that was and blessing Pakistan with that respected identity as a possible equal of India.
Pakistan is a disunited nation and does not deserve the epithet "nation". It is a bunch of ethno-lingustic provinces at loggerheads with each other.
shiv, I truly appreciate your elucidation; but as I said I do get what you're trying here. My concern is not that you won't get or it, or that I won't get your intention, but that the words will end up communicating the wrong message to those who already have preconceived notions of "reuniting lost brothers" or some such thing.
While we are at this, I favor de-linking "Muslim" / "Islamic" from whatever characterization of that entity we settle on. I am quite aware of the arguments against this approach, but still, in my view, if we are to do any good, we should focus on the qualities that that entity possesses, and the mindset that the entity represents, which are both acknowledged universally to be negative, while staying "non-communal", rather than turn off those who probably already think BRF is just another (to them) mindless Islamophobic haven. In less convoluted terms, let's keep "Islamic" out of the label, if our goal is to communicate our rather severe reservations about Pakistan more effectively.
Muslims and anti-Islamophobes in general should be made to see that the choice is between indulging in knee-jerk defense of all that is labeled Muslim / Islamic versus taking a stand against collective traits (such as willful stupidity, banditry by design, parasitism, blackmail, greed, wanting something-for-nothing, sloth, envy, supremacism etc.) that are universally considered negative through mankind's hard-earned wisdom.
Choose the name and message so that (a) Muslims and anti-Islamophobes won't get further confirmation of their belief that their Islam is being targeted (and we'll be spared endless puerile preachments about Religion of Peace and so forth) and (b) M & AIs are given an opportunity to repudiate Pakistan and the mindset it stands for.
If the implication of (b) is that M & AIs are forced to explicitly or implicitly reform their ideology or maybe repudiate it altogether, that will be their decision, not something that they will protest is being forced on them by yeevil Yindoos.
during the Battle of Parodh.
