..........WHY PARTITION OF INDIA(BHARAT)MUST GO - 5
The Toronto Star in its editorial "Cool Kashmir Crisis" on June7, 2002 wrote that, "India will court resentment and terror as long as it refuses to let Kashmiris vote to embrace India, independence or Pakistan." In a way, the most prominent newspaper of Canada is telling the whole world that terrorism will continue in Kashmir as long as Bharat does not arranges a plebiscite for Kashmiris.
What is the "two-nation" theory that led to the creation of Pakistan and subsequently Pakistani claims to Kashmir? Has this worked?
The two-nation theory was essentially a way of defining nationality in terms of religion by some Muslim leaders in pre-independence Bharat. As a result of this, the British divided the sub-continent into two states at the time of independence -- Pakistan which was a Muslim majority state and Bharat which though dominantly Hindu never ascribed to this theory. However, the theory that religion can bind a people and lead to a sense of nationhood was subsequently belied by a liberation movement in East Pakistan for a nation based on a linguistic identity. East Pakistan seceded from Pakistan in 1971 and became a separate state in 1971. Pakistan's other ethnic groups like the Baluchis have also led movements for secession, but have not succeeded yet.
The maximum number of Muslims live in Indonesia. After Indonesia, it is Bharat, which is on the 2nd number where maximum number of Muslims live. More Muslims live in Bharat than in Pakistan. Most of the Pakistani Muslim families have relatives in Bharat. There are many such Muslim families where one real brother lives in Pakistan and other brother lives in Bharat. Under such circumstances where is the justification and sanity in forming Pakistan by dividing United Bharat.
A Plebiscite for annulling Partition
Despite all the noise made by the 'South-Asia'-wallahs; there is no monolithic culture that encompasses the entire subcontinent. The Muslim cultures of Pakistan and Bangladesh are worlds apart from the composite Indic (Hindu-Buddhist-Jain-Sikh) culture of Bharat. This is evident from the recent race riots in the industrial northern towns of Britain: grim places like Bradford, Barnsley, Oldham, some of which I have had the dubious pleasure of visiting because my sister, a doctor, used to work there.
What is happening in Britain? It is as close to a controlled social experiment as it gets. There is a clear distinction between ghettoized Pakistani- and Bangladeshi-origin, ill-educated, unemployed youth who are rioting in the streets and upwardly mobile, well-educated, bankers, lawyers and other professionals of Bhartiya origin. As I suggested some time ago in my column, 'Why I am not a South Asian,' Bhartiya -origin Britishers resent being lumped in with these delinquent Pakistani/Bangladeshi types, and they are now vocal about it, too.
With good reason. There is a large gap. The British Indians, like Jewish immigrants in the US, respect education and have strong family values that encourage hard work; they rise through sheer determination and effort. British Pakistanis, like some inner-city blacks and to an extent Hispanics in the US, have become a permanent underclass, hopeless and self-destructive: for often the businesses they destroy through rioting are their own.
According to The Economist of July 14, 2001, 'As well as being the most segregated communities, Bangladeshis and Pakistanis suffer some of Britain's worst poverty and unemployment, and do among the worst in school (Indian pupils, by contrast, do the best).'
Why this gulf between the Bharatiyas and the Pakistanis / Bangladeshis? If you were to listen to the 'South-Asia' bleeding hearts pontificating, you'd believe there was this great commonality between Bharatiyas and other subcontinentals. I, on the contrary, have maintained for years that I have absolutely nothing in common with Pakistanis. The experience of the British subcontinentals is scientific support for that sentiment.
The Bharatiyas and the Pakistanis originally came to the United Kingdom subject to the very same handicaps: those related to racism and discrimination. Indeed, the British tend to be more racist and obnoxious towards Hindus rather than towards Muslims, because at the very least they can understand Islam, it being quite the twin of their own Christianity, whereas Hinduism is a bewildering and chaotic Other.
Furthermore, we saw during Partition the British desire to help Pakistan: they gave away to Pakistan, against all logic, the Hindu-Sikh-majority city of Lahore; and in Gilgit, British-led Gilgit Scouts raised the Pakistani flag despite its being part of Jammu & Kashmir that had acceded legally to Bharat.
In any case, British subcontinentals toiled away for years, but their destinies could not be more different. The Muslims tended to have far more babies, not to educate their children, and to easily become fundamentalists: for instance there is the curious case of British Pakistani Aurangazeb who 'innocently wandered over the Line of Control into Bharat,' which is Orwellian doublespeak meaning 'terrorist infiltrator.' The Hindus and Sikhs, on the other hand, prospered and moved out of the ghettos in the grimy industrial towns. The obvious difference: religion.
I am beginning to believe that this is the most crucial difference. I didn't use to think this: I used to have a generally benign attitude towards Pakistanis until I started encountering them in the US and on the net. Now I wonder if there is any compromise possible: perhaps the Pakistani believes so blindly in the dogma of his religion that there is no possibility of tolerance or even dialog.
Does this mean Muslims cannot live with non-Muslims? I didn't use to think so, but now I wonder. I know a lot of very decent Muslim Indians, but I am beginning to wonder, if whipped up into a frenzy of hatred, would they murder me in cold blood just because I am a Hindu?
The Muslims from the Malabar Coast that I know well are very nice people, honest and friendly to a fault. But I shudder to think that it was these very people who went on a murderous dance of death in 1920 or so, the infamous 'Moplah Rebellion', raping, looting, pillaging and murdering and converting by force thousands of their defenseless Hindu neighbors with whom they had lived peaceably for centuries. And all this, just because Mustafa Kemal Pasha abolished the Caliphate in Turkey! What exactly did this have to do with the poor Hindus of Malabar? Maybe Mohammed Ali Jinnah was right after all. Maybe the Two-Nation Theory is in fact correct: maybe Muslims couldn't possibly live with non-Muslims.
Maybe we should have a plebiscite, as Musharraf insists. Well, why stop at Jammu and Kashmir? Let us revisit Partition, and give the people of Bharat and Pakistan a chance to finally reveal exactly what their desire is. After all, it is suggested by eminent people (e.g. M J Akbar in The Siege Within) that the Muslim masses never really desired Partition, and that it was basically a demand from the wealthy Muslim landowners of the Indo-Gangetic Plain. Akbar points out that the Muslim League in undivided Bharat won any power democratically except in an election that the Congress, for other reasons, boycotted.
Let us now take this opportunity to correct this historical error: let us give every citizen the chance to provide his or her opinion on whether we should revert to the status quo ante of an undivided nation or maybe move forward to a federation, a United States of India, which is what the Gadar Party of San Francisco once envisaged. By the way, reader Lehar, the Gadarites were certainly not advocating a theocracy in a part of Bharat, they were talking about a united and single Bharat: hence their secularism.
Let the public give its verdict. I suspect the results will be rather startling. For one thing, I imagine the women of Pakistan, having seen what their own fundamentalists have wrought upon Afghan women, and also images of the freedom Bharatiya women have (thank you, Bollywood, for the inadvertent propaganda), will vote en masse for reunification. Secondly, the MQM chief has proclaimed publicly that Pakistan was a mistake: therefore presumably most Mohajirs will vote to nullify Partition. Third, the Sindhis, Baluchis, Pathans and other ethnic minorities suffering under the Punjabi yoke in Pakistan may also see that their prospects are rather dim. Similarly with Shias, Ahmadiyyas and non-Muslims.
Fourth, the worsening economic situation in Pakistan, as more and more people slide down the slippery slope into poverty, as well as the worsening law and order situation, and the dangers of rampant religious fundamentalism, might move a lot of Pakistanis to wonder about their future. After years of boasting a higher per capita income, Pakistan is now sliding backwards, and Bharat has caught up and is rapidly passing them by, with much higher GDP growth (6 per cent vs. 3 per cent) and lower population growth.
Yes, despite religious fervor, I think the majority of people in Pakistan will see that Partition has brought them little good. It is only that small, exploitative, parasitic minority of 10 to 20 per cent of the population, Sunni Punjabi men, at the top of Pakistan's intricate caste structure, that has benefited. Rational economic thinking for the majority would indicate reunification. We may not have a common culture, but then economics makes for strange bedfellows.
The Two Nation Theory, just like Marxism, may be passť for purely economic reasons.
In Bharat, arrayed against this dialectical inevitability of history and the rise of the bourgeois revanchists (I simply love the turgid and meaningless vocabulary of the leftists!) will be a few thousand Canute-like Nehruvian Stalinists and Jawahar Nehru University types and a half million Marxists, who prefer the current situation: after all, it suits their patron and possible paymaster, China, to keep Bharat off-balance. Also, if there weren't poverty and victims, who on earth would be their acolytes? Isn't it quite amazing how much nuisance value this tiny but extremely vocal minority has? But if it's one man, one vote, their opinions will not amount to very much at all.
I think it will be nolo contender, no contest: a plebiscite would get a massive mandate for Reunification, for annulling Partition. Even if it does not, at the very least it will be a diversionary tactic to shut the Nehruvian Stalinists and Musharraf up for a while. Yes, bring on the plebiscite!
Indo-Pak confederation possible: Advani
New Delhi, June 8
Home Minister L K Advani has said if East and West Germany could unite, there was no reason why Bharat and Pakistan could not form a confederation of their own free will after resolving all problems through dialogue and not by violence or terrorism.
"If East and West Germany could unite despite acrimonious political relations, why not Bharat and Pakistan? There may be difficulties, but it is not impossible".
(MR. ADVANI, THE IMPOSSIBILITY LIES IN THIS THAT BOTH GERMANYS WERE CHRISTIAN AND ALSO ONE GERMANY HAD NOT repeatedly INVADED, CONQUERED, RULED, RAPED, PLUNDERED AND ENSLAVED THE OTHER FOR OVER ONE THOUSAND YEARS. WE WISH YOU KNEW BETTER, MR. ADVANI, YOU ARE THE HOME MINISTER OF INDIA.!)
"A day will come when the people of both countries will realise that partition has done no good to them," Advani said on Saturday after launching a monthly journal, South Asia Politics, here".
"The most important thing to move towards a confederation is that all disputes and problems between Bharat and Pakistan be resolved only through dialogue and not by violence or terrorism", the home minister said.
Referring to an assessment of the US Administration about existence of a possibility of "revolutionary change" in Indo- Pak relations during the Lahore bus trip by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, he said this could not happen "as the then Pakistan army chief (Pervez Musharraf) had other things in mind which led to the Kargil war".
In Agra too, Musharraf described terrorists as "freedom fighters". But now, the world community had accepted the reality about cross-border terrorism and asked Pakistan to "act in accordance with the promises (to contain terrorism) it has made", Advani said.
....................TIME FOR ACTION
THE HINDUS LIVING IN BHARAT AND ABROAD MUST REALISE THAT EVEN THE MUSLIMS IN BHARAT OR ANY WHERE IN THE WORLD ARE NOT TRUST WORTHY. THEY ARE TRAITORS. SOME MUSLIMS WHO PORTRAY THEM SELVES AS MODERATE ARE NOT MODERATE IN REAL SENSE. THEIR MODERATION IS ONLY FOR THEIR OWN SELFISH MOTIVE AND GAIN AND THEY CHANGE THEIR COLOURS QUICKER THAN CHAMELEON. WE MUST UNDERSTAND THE MUSLIM MENTALITY. WHEN THEY ARE IN MINORITY IN THE AREA THEY LIVE LIKE A GOAT. BUT WHEN THEY ARE IN SLIGHT MAJORITY THEY BEHAVE LIKE MAD WOLF. IF HINDUS DO NOT TRY TO UNDERSTAND THIS SIMPLE POINT, THE FUTURE OF HINDUS ARE IN HIGH RISK AS THE MUSLIM POPULATION IS RISING BY LEAPS AND BOUND AND MILLIONS OF PAKIS AND BANGALDESHI MUSLIM ILLEGALLY ENTERING BHARAT. HINDUS MUST ARISE AND AWAKE. THEY MUST COME OUT FROM THEIR IDIOTIC AND SUICIDAL PRINCIPLE OF SECULARISM AND BE PREPARED TO COUNTER ATTACK AND THE THREAT TO OUR DHARMA, RASHTRA, SANSKRITI AND PARAMPARA. THE ACTION MUST START WITH ECONOMICAL SANCTIONS. HINDUS MUST NOT BUY ANY GOODS OR PRODUCE OF PAKISTAN AND KANGALDESH (BANGLA) AND DO NOT BUY GOODS FROM MUSLIM SHOPS AND TRADERS. THE TIME IS RUNNING OUT SO HINDU MUST ACT IMMEDIATELY BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. (Kangaldesh is a country, which is a pauper or very poor country) H KAUTILYA