I think we can agree that two unified but non-contiguous wings of Pakistan was a very bad idea.
Quite apart from that, if it had been drawn a bit differently, it might have been okay, but uprooting 15 million people was never going to go well.
How?
Probably means I have a very shallow understanding of the rest of the country, particularly the North West.
Which is also probably a fair point. I’ve also not been in Pakistan for twenty four years.
I was hoping you would show up. I am sure we are going to disagree a lot, but looking forward to a more full exposition of views from you.
Wow, what do you have against Gandhi dude? First, you call him an asshole, and then you go and say he was delusional. Funnily enough, right wing nuts in India don’t like him, nor from your example, do Pakistanis. Bolsters my theory about how the right wingers in India just want to turn us into Pakistan. It’s a remarkably effective argument for getting them to reconsider their views too 
I think he meant the movie was getting more detached from reality, not the person.
hrm. On re-reading, I’ve possibly misinterpreted the post. Apologies to AK84 if that’s the case.
Gandhi being against the 1946 plan is not really true. It was Patel and Nehru who were principally against the cabinet mission plan. Also, here’s a leading Indian historian Ramachandra Guha who states why the loose confederation would have been a terrible idea.(For those who don’t want to watch the video, he basically says it would have led to a Balkanisation of the sub-continent). BBC journalist Mark Tully agrees with him on this point later on in the same video. For those who’re interested, this video also captures a fairly diverse cross section of Indian views on the topic.
You don’t need a leading historian to tell you that. A loose confederation is invariably a temporary arrangement leading to political union or no confederation at all.
Or in some cases, not so quietly.
Well yes, but I’m countering someone’s point in GD. It’s so much more authoritative done this way
A military operation that ‘conquered’ an area of 223,000 sq. km and 17 million people with fewer than 2000 deaths total would seem to be about as quiet as it gets really.
How the heck did Bhutan and Nepal not get absorbed into India?
I personally think that what was originally Pakistan should have split into three units from the start.
[Southern] Pakistan (or whatever name is best)
Bangladesh
Pashdunistan (They have more in common with Afghans than Southern Pakistanis)
The Pasduns have a strong enough culture and identity to form their own state.
Whether or not these three units should be independent or a part of a loose Indian federation is another question.
- Nobody wants to fight the Ghurkas.
- India isn’t really a hegemon, except with regard to places that are historically “Indian”. Nepal is subtly different. As a rule, India has only annexed territory where Indian people live.
- Nepal has played India and China against one another quite successfully. That’s probably the big one.
What, you mean a Hindu-religious state, or a militarized one?
This map illustrates the ethnic divisions in Pakistan. There are four: Pashtun, Balochi, Punjabi and Sindi. This is complicated by the fact that about half the Punjabis are (presumably) Hindus living in Indian Punjab; about half the Pashtun territory is southern Afghanistan; and the Balochis are divided between Pakistan and Iran. The Balochis have an active autonomist movement. I believe there might have been a movement in the past for the creation of a united “Pashtunistan,” but if so, apparently it no longer exists.
Neither actually. The most numerous right wing nuts claim to not want Hinduism, but Hindutva. A quality of ‘Indian-ness’ as it were.They follow a strategy of glamourising a state where the popular narrative is dominated by the past glories of India and jingoistic national pride rather than a dispassionate analysis of the good and ill in the country - both past and present. This is where they are most similar to Pakistani right wing revisionists. Never mind if the past glories are now all in the distant past and had significant deviations from the current right wing world view, and that the present is not exactly glorious. That can all be hand waved away. Much as Republicans will stir up ‘American exceptionalism’ even though they’re probably well aware of its limits in today’s world.
Of course this is merely the shortest path to power that the right wing sees, probably not what they really believe. (It should be noted that they have started backing down from the crazy talk in the past three-four years)
The approach of ignoring the means to gain and keep power has significant unintended consequences though, as Pakistan is finding out to it dismay. And the Indian jingoistic brigade sounds remarkably like their Pakistani brethren in their intolerance of dissenting viewpoints and need to create a simplistic world-view. Which, as I pointed out, is one of the best ways to puncture their confidence in the approach.
Hm.
What’s the design on their armbands?
Don’t gimme no “Godwin!” shit, that all sounds familiar.
I assume you’re talking about the Swastika, which is an old Indian symbol that pre-dates Nazi usage, and doesn’t really have the same connotations in India as it does elsewhere in the world. I must confess I can’t remember Hindu groups using it on their armbands or anything (if you’re trying to crack a joke here, you must forgive me. I’m so sleepy my regular senses are barely working let alone the one for humour).
And of course it sounds familiar. All extremist bullshit sounds the same, on either side of the political spectrum. The only difference is the framework in which it is situated. India’s in no danger of having Nazis take over.
Ack. Just realised I misread your post somewhat. Their armbands are not a source of concern. Most people are usually too busy snickering at their shorts to care
