Monday, August 14, 2006
Happy Birthday Pakistan
So today is the 59th birthday of Pakistan. Avari asks some meaningful questions about her accomplishments since independence in 1947. Many within India (and Pakistan) still talk about a united country that would stretch from the Indus to the Himalayas.
But would co-existence been possible back then or now, after nearly six decades of war, bloodshed, and extreme animosity?
The answer lies in the perspective taken. Rampant ignorance was prevalent in the Muslim world in the 1920s and 1930s, a situation made worse by the fall of the Caliphate. The Muslim population in India were more cultural Muslims that anything else and perhaps the best medicine was a nationalist movement based on the unifying concept of Tawheed (oneness of God). Though led by a man who was secularist in nature, masses could only be convinced to leave their wealth, family and ancestral homes with the promise of a land where Islam could be practiced inhibited. Whether that actually took place is a story for another day but that was the single reason both my grandfathers left everything behind to start from scratch. So what it did was wake up many fence-Muslims, forcing them to learn more about the reason an entire country was being carved out for.
From a political perspective, a united India with an even bigger population would have been a force to reckon with. Whether it would have served the interests of Muslims on the global scale is a matter of debate but there is no doubting that a united country would have had far more political and economic clout than a partitioned one. What’s interesting to note is that the founding fathers of India, Nehru and Gandhi, were staunch supporters of the Palestinian cause and to this day India stands by them though it has softened with years of deepening military ties with Israel. Would a united India with a large Muslim minority had formed ties with Israel?
From an ethno-religious point of view, the situation would have been very similar to that of Lebanon. Friction would have remained between the two sides (for sake of simplicity, I’m classifying everyone as Muslims and Hindus though I’ve noticed that Indians tend to identify more with regional associations like Gujarati, South India, etc). Peace would have ensued sooner or later but after a lengthy civil war and at a price of heavy inter-mingling of religions and cultures to the point where only one religion would have existed – Hindislam.
If not, people would have segregated based on religion and lived in isolation in their own communities – a model that seems to be working in Lebanon except when Israel decides to dig up craters in all parts of the country.
Whether partition was worth it is a matter of personal opinion but enough people were supportive, for it led to the creation of Pakistan.
But one can argue that civil wars and behind the scenes friction would have been better off than open rhetoric of exterminating each other with nuclear, hydrogen, and all sorts of other weapons that get paraded around like a teenager on steroids.
I do not doubt the creation of Pakistan for I’m a big proponent of it. Perhaps these questions would be best viewed in the light of a possible peace between the two powers that could still lead to greater economic and even military prosperity (imagine a NATO like alliance – who would dare attack India or Pakistan knowing they got each other’s back?).
But would co-existence been possible back then or now, after nearly six decades of war, bloodshed, and extreme animosity?
The answer lies in the perspective taken. Rampant ignorance was prevalent in the Muslim world in the 1920s and 1930s, a situation made worse by the fall of the Caliphate. The Muslim population in India were more cultural Muslims that anything else and perhaps the best medicine was a nationalist movement based on the unifying concept of Tawheed (oneness of God). Though led by a man who was secularist in nature, masses could only be convinced to leave their wealth, family and ancestral homes with the promise of a land where Islam could be practiced inhibited. Whether that actually took place is a story for another day but that was the single reason both my grandfathers left everything behind to start from scratch. So what it did was wake up many fence-Muslims, forcing them to learn more about the reason an entire country was being carved out for.
From a political perspective, a united India with an even bigger population would have been a force to reckon with. Whether it would have served the interests of Muslims on the global scale is a matter of debate but there is no doubting that a united country would have had far more political and economic clout than a partitioned one. What’s interesting to note is that the founding fathers of India, Nehru and Gandhi, were staunch supporters of the Palestinian cause and to this day India stands by them though it has softened with years of deepening military ties with Israel. Would a united India with a large Muslim minority had formed ties with Israel?
From an ethno-religious point of view, the situation would have been very similar to that of Lebanon. Friction would have remained between the two sides (for sake of simplicity, I’m classifying everyone as Muslims and Hindus though I’ve noticed that Indians tend to identify more with regional associations like Gujarati, South India, etc). Peace would have ensued sooner or later but after a lengthy civil war and at a price of heavy inter-mingling of religions and cultures to the point where only one religion would have existed – Hindislam.
If not, people would have segregated based on religion and lived in isolation in their own communities – a model that seems to be working in Lebanon except when Israel decides to dig up craters in all parts of the country.
Whether partition was worth it is a matter of personal opinion but enough people were supportive, for it led to the creation of Pakistan.
But one can argue that civil wars and behind the scenes friction would have been better off than open rhetoric of exterminating each other with nuclear, hydrogen, and all sorts of other weapons that get paraded around like a teenager on steroids.
I do not doubt the creation of Pakistan for I’m a big proponent of it. Perhaps these questions would be best viewed in the light of a possible peace between the two powers that could still lead to greater economic and even military prosperity (imagine a NATO like alliance – who would dare attack India or Pakistan knowing they got each other’s back?).
Faraz Ahmed 11:46 a.m.
5 Comments:
So, tell me again: What's the point of this particularly entry? The link to "meaningful questions" doesn't work. The grammar throughout is atrocious. And the whole entry rambles, thereby failing to solidify a supposed central theme on the creation (birthday) of Pakistan.
Dude, seriously: learn to write coherently. Take the time to organize your thoughts, even if they are a tad biased, and then write an entry. A quick skim of your other entries prove to be no better than this one.
But hey, great blog title. You might have a career in marketing someday...
Dude, seriously: learn to write coherently. Take the time to organize your thoughts, even if they are a tad biased, and then write an entry. A quick skim of your other entries prove to be no better than this one.
But hey, great blog title. You might have a career in marketing someday...
i for one enjoy the "unorganized" way in which he writes. it follows the structure of human thought process, rather than a bloody high school essay. maybe you should focus on the message bidge. or rather, just don't visit this site.
Thanx anon! My writings are usually more about the msg as you said than grammatical perfection.
I accept that my writing is quite poor but I don't claim otherwise.
I have a feeling bidge was more upset with what I had to say rather than how I said it.
I accept that my writing is quite poor but I don't claim otherwise.
I have a feeling bidge was more upset with what I had to say rather than how I said it.
No, I'm not upset with anything you say. I simply had a difficult time following your points. Perfection is hardly necessary, but clarity goes a very long way towards establishing any kind of readership--if such a thing appeals to you.
If you are simply looking to vent, or to opine, that's fine... Don't make any changes. If you wish to inform your readers in some meaningful fashion, then consider being more clear by cleaning up typos and making minor adjustments to the grammatical style.
I cannot focus on the message if I need to decipher it beforehand. The "structure of human thought" is practically indefinable and differs from person to person. Some people think in imagery, others use words, and still others think in music. Some do all the above and more.
Just take your time and organize a bit. Proofread. Or get someone else to help. If you can write coherently, then people will take you a little more seriously, even if they disagree.
But I do sincerely wish you the best of luck.
If you are simply looking to vent, or to opine, that's fine... Don't make any changes. If you wish to inform your readers in some meaningful fashion, then consider being more clear by cleaning up typos and making minor adjustments to the grammatical style.
I cannot focus on the message if I need to decipher it beforehand. The "structure of human thought" is practically indefinable and differs from person to person. Some people think in imagery, others use words, and still others think in music. Some do all the above and more.
Just take your time and organize a bit. Proofread. Or get someone else to help. If you can write coherently, then people will take you a little more seriously, even if they disagree.
But I do sincerely wish you the best of luck.
If YOU can't focus..then maybe you shouldn't blame the guy..cuz he's not holding a gun to your head telling you to read his blog! No one is perfect and their writing isn't always going to be free of errors either. And if you're so obsessed with checking for grammatical errors maybe you should consider taking up teaching as a profession?