Friend, first and foremost, I wish to make it clear, that I am not taking sides here, but am just trying to record facts as I see them! The World may be flying high on prosperity, or be drowning in economic crisis, a tension between India and Pakistan is an omni-present reality, under the veneer of impoving relations! Why is it so?
The Indian perspective:
Here I would like to quote a comment by an average educated Indian Hindu, on an article by Sharon Supriya, published by "OneIndia.com," and entitled "Partition of India - The Sad Saga Of United India." Quote: The most touching phrase of this article is, "A research states that the partition of India ranks, one of the 10 greatest tragedies in human history. It could have been an evitable event. India got its freedom at the prize of a divided country". Yes, if our history books were written with complete "Truth", our new generation would have been more patriotic in the real sense and we would not have to witness and withstand the "heights of Muslim appeasement" in this country. The division of "Bharata-Khanda" was incomplete and that is the root cause of all the wars, communal riots and the Kashmir, Punjab and Bangladesh issues!!! One can make out the the vested interests of British in giving freedom this country and Our country is the role model to show the world the effects of "Divide & Rule Policy" and the result of "Incomplete" and Inconsistant and inefficient policies followed before dividing the country!!! Unquote.
If we try to understand the origin of this concept of "Bharata-Khanda," or "Akhand Bharat," or indivisible unitary India, it is not from Indo-Aryan Philosophical Brahmanism, but from it's later more India oriented manifestations, designed to integrate Darker Dravidians of the South and lighter skinned Indo-Aryans of the North of the Indian peninsula. I refer to the "Mahabharata," where the roots of this concept may be traced. The following is written in one of the Vaishnavi websites, " At the time of Yudhishthira Maharaja the whole planet, all the six continents, were ruled under one flag. This rule lasted until Yudhishthira Maharaja. Before that it was even more perfect, and the Bharata-khanda or India was from the Caspian sea up to Cambodia; and in the north, if you want to see in regards to the present countries, you can say from Lithuania to seven thousand miles south of Cape Comorin (in South India). That is what is meant by Bharata-khanda; that is fifty-four countries, the "India"; and then there are other countries apart from India. India was made up of these fifty-four countries, and there were also other countries existing at that time. In those other countries the varnashrama was not perfectly practiced. In India (Bharata-khanda) this varnashrama (Vaidhika-dharma) was perfectly in practice." What this means that the concept of "Akhand Bharat" is of Hindu origin, and no other reference of this concept, or justification thereof have I found, any where else. As such this concept may be binding for orthodox Hindus, but not for people who are followers of other faiths, including Islam! According to The World Fact Book 2008, English enjoys associate status but is the most important language for national, political, and commercial communication; Hindi is the national language and primary tongue of 41% of the people; there are 14 other official languages: Bengali, Telugu, Marathi, Tamil, Urdu, Gujarati, Malayalam, Kannada, Oriya, Punjabi, Assamese, Kashmiri, Sindhi, and Sanskrit; Hindustani is a popular variant of Hindi/Urdu spoken widely throughout northern India but is not an official language (2001 census) ! So with so many languages, and with English the most important one, it is better for India to take ancient history as history, and accept present day realities!!!
The Pakistani Perspective:
The Pakistan ideology is based on the so-called Two-Nations theory, which says that the Hindus and Muslims are two different nations. The evidence cited for the differences dates to the beginning of the eleventh century, when the scholar Al-Biruni (973-1048) observed that Hindus and Muslims differed in all matters and habits. Allama Iqbal's presidential address to the Muslim League on 29 December 1930 is seen as the first introduction of the two-nation theory in support of what would ultimately become Pakistan. Ten years later, Jinnah made a speech in Lahore on 22 March 1940 which was very similar to Al-Biruni's thesis in theme and tone. Jinnah stated that Hindus and Muslims belonged to two different religious philosophies, with different social customs and literature, with no intermarriage and based on conflicting ideas and concepts. Their outlook on life and of life was different and despite 1,000 years of history, the relations between the Hindus and Muslims could not attain the level of cordiality. The only difference between the writing of Al-Biruni and the speech of Jinnah was that Al-Biruni made calculated predictions, while Jinnah had history behind him to support his argument. Some right wing Hindu leaders such as Vinayak Damodar Savarkar endorsed the Two-Nation Theory. However, Savarkar, the leader of the Hindu Mahasabha, believed that the new nation state of Pakistan should be formed somewhere in the Middle East as opposed to being in the lands in which the Vedic religion was founded and in which Hinduism thrived until the Islamic invasion. In an Op-Ed piece in the Pakistan Times, Samina Mallah asserts that the Two-Nation Theory is relevant to this day, citing factors such as lower literacy and education levels amongst Indian Muslims as compared to Indian Hindus, long-standing cultural differences, and outbreaks of religious violence such as those occurring during the 2002 Gujarat Riots in India; as well as the two nation-states of Bangladesh and Pakistan as the reality of the Two Nation Theory, although no longer part of each other yet separate from Republic of India. Despite impressive gains in economic investment and output, India faces pressing problems such as significant overpopulation, environmental degradation, extensive poverty, and ethnic and religious strife. Now coming to Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh completed negotiations for acceding Jammu and Kashmir to India in exchange for receiving military aid. The agreement which ceded Jammu and Kashmir to India was signed by the Maharaja and Lord Mountbatten! Thus this "Agreement for Accession," of Kashmir to the Indian Union, was an imperialistic paper signed by two imperilled aristocrats, and did not represent the will of the Kashmiri people. It is due to this "Agreement of Accession," that India claims Kashmir as it's "Atoot Ang," or inseperable part! The UN previously had passed resolutions setting up for the monitoring of the conflict in Kashmir. The committee it set up was called the United Nations Committee for India and Pakistan. Following the set up of the UNCIP the UN Security Council passed Resolution 47 on April 21, 1948. The resolution imposed that an immediate cease-fire take place and said that Pakistan should withdraw all presence and had no say in Jammu and Kashmir politics. It stated that India should retain a minimum military presence and stated "that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations". Unofficially, the Pakistani leadership has indicated that they would be willing to accept alternatives such as a demilitarized Kashmir, if sovereignty of Azad Kashmir was to be extended over the Kashmir valley. Even with 200,000 military personnel, India maintains that it is infeasible to place enough men to guard all sections of the border throughout the various seasons of the year. But India's control over Kashmir is based on excesses committed by it's military, on Kashmiris. Claims of human rights abuses have been made concerning on both the Indian Armed Forces and the armed militants operating in Jammu and Kashmir. A 2005 study conducted by Médecins Sans Frontières found that Kashmiri women are among the worst sufferers of sexual violence in the world, with 11.6% of respondents reporting that they had been victims of sexual abuse. Some surveys have found that in the Kashmir region itself (where the bulk of separatist and Indian military activity is concentrated), popular perception holds that the Indian Armed Forces are more to blame for human rights violations than the separatist groups. According to the MORI (Market & Opinion Research International Ltd) survey of 2002, in Kashmir only 2% of respondents believed that the militant groups were guilty of widespread human rights abuses, while 64% believed that Indian troops were guilty of the same. This trend was reversed however in other parts of the state. From 1990 to 1999 some organizations report that Indian Armed Forces, its paramilitary groups, and counter-insurgent militias have been responsible for the deaths 4,501 of Kashmiri civilians. Also from 1990 to 1999, there are records of 4,242 women between the ages of 7-70 that have been raped. Similar allegations were also made by some human rights organizations! The Indian Army has been carrying out search-and-cordon operations against militants in Indian-administered Kashmir since the current armed violence broke out here in 1989. While the authorities here say 43,000 persons have been killed in the violence, various rights groups and non-governmental organizations have put the figure at twice that number. In view of these atrocities committed by the Indian armed forces on Kashmiris, this issue does not remain a sectarian one only, but takes on a humanitarian dimension also! Under pressure from indigeneous Kashmir valley pressure groups, Pakistan's military helped form Lashkar-e-Tayiba, to help the beleaguered Kashmiri Muslims. Under the behest of the USA, this group was banned by Pakistan government, after attacks on the Indian Parliament, which were considered to be too far off the aim! Now with Pakistan, economically almost ruined by it's fight against terrorism in its Tribal belt on Pak-Afghan border, some criminals, manage to create mayhem in Mumbai, killing about 160, and all Indian politicains burst out the blame, squarely on the face of Pakistan! With bombings and terrorism, almost a daily occurance in Pakistan, this hue and cry has created a huge feeling of discintent, among the already depressed people of Pakistan! One ray of hope is still there! While C. Rice of USA in harmony with the Indian leadership is pressurising Pakistan to find an instant cure to the peril of terrorism, USA's incumbent President Barrack Obama plans to appoint a high powered third party envoy to settle the Kashmir and other issues between, India and Pakistan, a strategy which is likely to bear fruit! Violence on the other hand, whether in the form of war between two countries whose majorities are languishing in abject poverty, however is not a viable option for either, but extra-judicial terrorism is to be condemned in all of it's forms of manifestations. Mutual Cooperation between India and Pakistan is required to curb this menace!!! Thanks!
Advert.
Reply With Quote