Saturday, January 14, 2006

Unintelligent Design?

Daily Times columnist Ahmad Faruqui dares to question the conventional wisdom blaming Mr. Jinnah's early death and the absence of politically strong successors for Pakistan's ills.

Instead, Mr. Faruqui argues:

Jinnah might conclude that Pakistan had failed not because the leaders who followed him were weak, but because there were weaknesses in the original design. How else can one explain the behaviour of a state that was able to bring home 93,000 prisoners of war within two years of a military debacle but another 32 years later, has been unable to bring home 200,000 civilians displaced by the same war?

Only a state that has succumbed to regimented thinking would fail to see the contradiction in calling for the people of Kashmir to be given the right of self-determination for 58 years, while continuing to deny its own people the right to elect their own government.

Jinnah would conclude that Pakistan had failed him. But will the barrister, who was once the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity, call for the annulment of Partition? That is the $64 million question.

It's much too late -- and quite dangerous -- to reverse the partition, but this debate is crucial so that a failed Pakistan is seen as a warning by divisive others in our Indian political maelstorm.

3 comments:

Primary Red said...

RM:

In a peaceful world, Kashmiris would enjoy just as many freedoms as the rest of their fellow Indians. These freedoms far exceed anything they will experience as Pakistanis.

To the extent there is a freedom deficit in Kashmir, the resolution is in greater integration with India -- not fusion with a failing Pakistan. Most Indians are committed to making this integration a reality.

Without meaning to offend anyone, we must observe that religion-based nationalism has repeatedly failed in our neighborhood. What evidence is there that Kashmiris will be more successful with this than Pakistanis and Bangladeshis?

An Islamist Kashmir is one where young women will be beheaded -- as some already have been -- for not wearing the veil. An Islamist Kashmir is one where global terrorists will find shelter -- as many already do in Pakistan's large cities and tribal agencies. An Islamist Kashmir will not be democratic, will not be an integral part of the global supply chain, will not be able to leverage the vast scale of India to seek economic advance.

We know this because we've travelled this road before -- in Pakistan and Bangladesh.

As an Indian -- a militantly secular Indian at that -- this blogger is not prepared to accept any more of such tragedies. We do not accept a people's claim to "azadi" in order to destroy freedom.

As for the reference to Emergency in India while Mr. Bhutto was running Pakistan, let's recall that Indians grabbed their democracy back and have never let go. In contrast, Pakistan's people have repeatedly allowed their democracy to fade and have failed to fight for their freedoms. The comparison of how India handled its dark hours and how Pakistan has its dark decades is hardly favorable to Pakistan. India's moral claim is earned over six decades of institution building -- which allowed its people to take such fierce pride in their democracy that no one dare overturn our constitution and way of life; Pakistan's experience is a staggering surrender to its army.

For a nation whose children are brought up on bigoted propaganda of their superiority to ten Indians (!), the repeated meek collapse before the army is rather pathetic and mirthful -- and the precise reason why its moral claim has no meaning.

Best regards.

doubtinggaurav said...

PR,

I agree with you.

Should partition be reversed, I do not know.

While I think it would be a good thing for peole living in Pakistan to come out from this failed experiment. I do not think the current realities in pakistan are conducive for it

Regards

Anonymous said...

"reformist" muslim's blog is full of circular "logic" just like his postings here...

Followers

Blog Archive