India and its neighbours

I'm glad articles like this one (Pakistan Tribune, April 1, 2012) are being written in the Pak press. I do believe as I've mentioned earlier that if we were to develop economic ties, borders would become soft like in Europe and these disputes a thing of the past. Not just between India Pakistan but far beyond. Goods and people being transported freely from Teheran to Bangkok on freeways and railways. Everyone prospering as a result of the peace and economic buzz.

One of the Pakistanis (usmanx) commented on this news article that India had mistreated all its neighbours since Independence, and so it was good for Pakistan to remain hostile to keep India in check. Here's his post:

How are India’s relations with Sri Lanka who despise her for her interference. How about Nepal who have no-visa policy but 400 sq. km have been encroached by her more powerful southern neighbor. How about Bangladesh, although liberated by India (really bengali freedom-fighters) terminated its friendship treaty with India and constantly feels over-powered. How about China – who taught the Indians a lesson for the provocative forward policy (indians belived themselves to be the inheritors of its northern boundary imagined by her former masters (the british). How about Maldives where India sponsored a coup. Imagine the regional countries condition if Pakistan was not there to counter India’s hegemony.

I would like to respond to usmanx's post, specifically his references to India's other neighbours, as his appears to be a common view among his countrymen:

China: China wasn't even on the scene in the Ladakh border area until they occupied and annexed Tibet in the 50s. The British may have been pushing into the north and the border India inherited a newer border. But you could make that case for KP as well, not to mention Balochistan. KP is a vestige of the British foray into Afghanistan. It is the main reason Afghanistan did not recognize Pak for the longest time. And is still a dispute from their perspective. Will Pakistanis support Pakistan giving up this area as well? Baluchistan was a free country until very recently. And Pakistan just inherited a new British acquisition. By his argument, it should be let go as well; it's not like they haven't been struggling for independence for decades.

Nepal: I've never heard of any encroachment or border dispute here. There is visa-free movement and lots of Nepalis live and work in India without any problems.

Bhutan: they too much appreciate that India is there to protect them from Chinese takeover if the need arises. Never has any Indian army encroached into their land. They maintain their distinct culture and independent monarchy as they prefer.

Burma: The US and India are cooperating to drive the military junta to implement democratic reforms and change is already evident.

Bangladesh: as political parties change in BD, the relations have ups and downs depending on their issues of the day.

Sri Lanka: FYI India intervened in SL on the side of the govt to stop the terrorism. This is why Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by the LTTE. Hardly would SL be wary of us. AFAIK, we enjoy good relations as proven by the UN vote just last week.

Meanwhile, Pakistan isn't exactly the favorite among its neighbors either. Afghans hate you for having used and abused their country since 1979 and unleashing the Taliban on them. Iran is wary and dislikes Pakistan for its treatment of Shias. Chinese look at it as a good means of making money and getting linked to the Gulf but in private, snicker about the fanaticism and the fantasies Pakistanis live in (read all about it if one can google). And I don't even need to mention India that has suffered constant terrorist attacks and aggression from Pakistan.

Ultimately, I believe all countries will always have some issues with their neighbors. China has issues, Japan does, the US does. It's human nature. Singling out India as the bad guy is more indicative of Pakistanis' distorted view than any reflection of reality.

The fact of the matter is that today India has no interest in these ridiculous squabbles with Pakistan. Our primary interest is in prosperity and security for our people. We have always been open to a cooperative relationship with Pakistan. It is really for Pakistan to work out its issues, stop living in a made-up world and make up its mind vis-a-vis India.

Secularism rules!

I am so glad that the constituent assembly that wrote the Indian constitution gave us a secular republic. Yes, they did many things wrong - they should have called for a complete reconstruction of the civil services (the police for instance), should have written a uniform civil law and should have called for better structuring of affirmative action policies — but by clearly separating religion from state, they gave India, a country of myriad different religious viewpoints and identities, a stable polity to build on. Debates like this one where Pakistanis endlessly and fascinatingly debate the role of Islam in the country, just bring out in relief (pun intended) just how much Indians have benefited from a secular polity. And I say this, as a practicing Hindu.

Two Muslim views on Partition

From my interaction with Muslims from all over the subcontinent, there are two primary viewpoints that I can distinguish when it comes to Partition, that watershed event in the subcontinent's history in the last century.

The first one sees Partition as a painful but glorious event, whereby a homeland was created for Muslims where Islamic culture of Mughal and other origins could flourish, where Muslims could keep their customs and traditions alive, free from being submerged and assimilated into the multitudinous multi-religious but Hindu-majority mainstream that was India. This view also holds that if Partition had not happened, Muslims would have been constantly persecuted in India by the majority Hindus. And in support, people holding this viewpoint point to the regular riots and tension between the two communities in India, and point to how the creation of Pakistan and Bangladesh keeps the Muslims in these countries safe from such trouble.

The other view is that Partition was a colossal mistake. Instead of a united Muslim polity in the subcontinent, it divided the Muslims across three states that are pitted against each other. This view holds that this was a grand strategy of the enemies of Islam to keep the religion weak in India and prevent it from ever taking control of the subcontinent again. The event also forever restricted Muslim areas to be those of the new states, and condemned the Muslims who chose to stay behind to a minority existence. They point to numbers where instead of a 500-million-strong (500 million = 50 crores) united Muslim population that would have formed 1/3 the population of a united India and would have had the shared power with the Hindus to decide Indian destiny, what you have today are 3 divided populations, spending billions of dollars in fighting their neighboring states. Instead of a united shining India that would have been the envy of the world, given its rich cultural heritage, its land rich with natural gifts, with enough arable land and food aplenty to feed everyone, Partition left a legacy of squander and death and sadness. A subcontinent this rich, with people so sweet, civilized and cultured to each other in normal times, would have made unbounded progress to quickly take its place among the leaders of the world. With a diverse population, with strong and friendly links with the Islamic world, while being fully confident and proud of its millenia-old heritage embodied in the Hindu, Buddhist and other populations, the country would have been a magical place, to rival the United States in terms of diversity and equality and justice. And Partition, in this view, destroyed all that. That the India that remains aims to achieve just such a vision is small comfort to people who hold this view, typically progressive urban Muslims in India.

Both views to me, are fascinating. Has Pakistan achieved the dream of a just, equitable, loving Islamic land? I hope Pakistanis can comment on this. Would India united have achieved the vision laid out by the latter view? It's something to wonder about.