"Every instinct will persuade you that there should not be a Pakistan."
April 19, 2015 12:28 PM Subscribe
The Los Angeles Times in 1943 further declared that “Only an old-school Southerner who thinks Appomattox was a shocking bad show could go for Pakistan.”
The Longest August: The Unflinching Rivalry Between India And Pakistan, the latest book by long-time Middle East observer Dilip Hiro, is a grim assessment of the current state of relations.
Too many so-called experts have been prophesying and rooting for an all-out war between India and Pakistan but let me tell you, the smart money says that Pakistan is more likely to war with Iran because of the lack of communication between the Indian and Pakistani commands in comparison to between Pakistan and Iran.
Also, there is the bitter animosity between Sunnis and Shiites that pretty much shadows both of their relations.
Then add to the mix the fact that Sunni Pakistan has atomic weapons and Iran does not.
Add also the fact that the Western Pakistani states have separatist movements bankrolled primarily by Iran (and India) because of huge Shiite populations and a lack of a feeling of belonging to Pakistan and you can see how they'd go at it.
India has had enough restrain not to end Pakistan after the 2008 Mumbai terror spree and the 2001 Kargil infiltration so the odds of India doing anything now are essentially nil.
posted by Renoroc at 1:13 PM on April 19, 2015
Also, there is the bitter animosity between Sunnis and Shiites that pretty much shadows both of their relations.
Then add to the mix the fact that Sunni Pakistan has atomic weapons and Iran does not.
Add also the fact that the Western Pakistani states have separatist movements bankrolled primarily by Iran (and India) because of huge Shiite populations and a lack of a feeling of belonging to Pakistan and you can see how they'd go at it.
India has had enough restrain not to end Pakistan after the 2008 Mumbai terror spree and the 2001 Kargil infiltration so the odds of India doing anything now are essentially nil.
posted by Renoroc at 1:13 PM on April 19, 2015
What a coincidence for me. Although I am new to this subject, I had just been reading briefly about Louis Mountbatten, who implemented and presided over the Partition. It is hard not to see this in part as a result of patrician bumbling from a man who was born under Victoria as a German hereditary prince. But that is nothing near the whole story, of course.
posted by Countess Elena at 1:20 PM on April 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Countess Elena at 1:20 PM on April 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
Well that is an extraordinarily one-sided article. It ignores, for example, that as late as 1946, the Muslim League (Jinnah's party) was on board with the Cabinet Mission Plan, which envisioned a unified India, and was essentially scuttled by the Indian National Congress.
It also ignores that while Pakistan has many, many problems, communal violence against Muslims in post-Partition India did not end with the violence immediately associated with the Partition.
It's too late in the evening for me to pull up references right now or to add more detail otherwise. May come back with them tomorrow.
posted by bardophile at 1:32 PM on April 19, 2015 [7 favorites]
It also ignores that while Pakistan has many, many problems, communal violence against Muslims in post-Partition India did not end with the violence immediately associated with the Partition.
It's too late in the evening for me to pull up references right now or to add more detail otherwise. May come back with them tomorrow.
posted by bardophile at 1:32 PM on April 19, 2015 [7 favorites]
I may not, because this article just makes my blood boil. I'm not sure I will be able to participate calmly or productively in a discussion of it.
posted by bardophile at 1:35 PM on April 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by bardophile at 1:35 PM on April 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
What a coincidence for me. Although I am new to this subject, I had just been reading briefly about Louis Mountbatten, who implemented and presided over the Partition. It is hard not to see this in part as a result of patrician bumbling from a man who was born under Victoria as a German hereditary prince. But that is nothing near the whole story, of course.
By the time Mountbatten was appointed the possible outcomes were already rather bad. The Labour government had sought to keep India united but the Muslim League was mostly unyielding in its goal of partition and Congress often made matters worse. Come 1947 there simply wasn't a 'solution' for India that the Viceroy could impose.
posted by Thing at 1:39 PM on April 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
By the time Mountbatten was appointed the possible outcomes were already rather bad. The Labour government had sought to keep India united but the Muslim League was mostly unyielding in its goal of partition and Congress often made matters worse. Come 1947 there simply wasn't a 'solution' for India that the Viceroy could impose.
posted by Thing at 1:39 PM on April 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
the smart money says that Pakistan is more likely to war with Iran because of the lack of communication between the Indian and Pakistani commands in comparison to between Pakistan and Iran
I, too, have read that chapter in World War Z.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:42 PM on April 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
I, too, have read that chapter in World War Z.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:42 PM on April 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
the smart money says that Pakistan is more likely to war with Iran because of the lack of communication between the Indian and Pakistani commands in comparison to between Pakistan and Iran.
This assumes that countries that a lack of communication leads to war. I disagree.
Also, there is the bitter animosity between Sunnis and Shiites that pretty much shadows both of their relations.
This assumes that ethnic conflict causes interstate war. I again disagree.
Then add to the mix the fact that Sunni Pakistan has atomic weapons and Iran does not.
This is actually a reason for peace, not for war.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:54 PM on April 19, 2015
This assumes that countries that a lack of communication leads to war. I disagree.
Also, there is the bitter animosity between Sunnis and Shiites that pretty much shadows both of their relations.
This assumes that ethnic conflict causes interstate war. I again disagree.
Then add to the mix the fact that Sunni Pakistan has atomic weapons and Iran does not.
This is actually a reason for peace, not for war.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:54 PM on April 19, 2015
So ... Partition was a historic atrocity, yes, that's clear. But it seems really strange that there is no mention of the fact that the Hindu nationalist BJP is actually in power in India at the moment, nor the fact that this party is allegedly violently anti-Muslim. I mean, leaving India at a secular constitution is pretty tendentious.
Also, there's no real discussion of the Pakistani army, which is semi-independent of the government and controls a surprising amount of the economy (you would too if you'd received the amount of foreign aid they have). Similar to a few other states like Egypt and for basically the same reasons, which have everything to do with power structures and nothing to do with Islam, much less Islamism.
No mention of the multiple separatist movements in Pakistan itself, either, or really much insight about Pakistan after the split with Bangladesh. And calling the author an expert on the Middle East when you are talking about South Asia is just the icing on the cake. I'm not sure about the book, but the review manages to be painfully one-sided.
posted by graymouser at 2:18 PM on April 19, 2015 [5 favorites]
Also, there's no real discussion of the Pakistani army, which is semi-independent of the government and controls a surprising amount of the economy (you would too if you'd received the amount of foreign aid they have). Similar to a few other states like Egypt and for basically the same reasons, which have everything to do with power structures and nothing to do with Islam, much less Islamism.
No mention of the multiple separatist movements in Pakistan itself, either, or really much insight about Pakistan after the split with Bangladesh. And calling the author an expert on the Middle East when you are talking about South Asia is just the icing on the cake. I'm not sure about the book, but the review manages to be painfully one-sided.
posted by graymouser at 2:18 PM on April 19, 2015 [5 favorites]
In one edition of "The Quick and Dirty Guide to War", Jim Dunnigan postulated that the most likely scenario in future for first use of a nuclear weapon was a new war between Pakistan and India.
But not how you expect. Dunnigan's scenario was that the war is initially fought with conventional weapons, and Pakistan gets stomped. With Pakistani ground forces routed and Indian forces well into Pakistani territory and headed towards major cities, Dunnigan postulates that Pakistan uses one or more nukes in its own territory to wipe out a major part of the invading Indian force.
Then the countries start a city-swapping duel, and it gets really ugly.
I'm not sure that's still the most likely scenario but it's still very plausible, and high on the list.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 2:31 PM on April 19, 2015
But not how you expect. Dunnigan's scenario was that the war is initially fought with conventional weapons, and Pakistan gets stomped. With Pakistani ground forces routed and Indian forces well into Pakistani territory and headed towards major cities, Dunnigan postulates that Pakistan uses one or more nukes in its own territory to wipe out a major part of the invading Indian force.
Then the countries start a city-swapping duel, and it gets really ugly.
I'm not sure that's still the most likely scenario but it's still very plausible, and high on the list.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 2:31 PM on April 19, 2015
It should be noted that while this article is nominally a review of a book, it does not appear to represent the book's contents. Almost all of it is the reviewer's depiction of the history which the book covers, and only in the last paragraphs does he address what the book does and does not do in the service of this narrative.
It's a good read and doesn't disagree with what little I already thought I understood about the topic, but its nature is misleading: it isn't really a book review and in point of fact doesn't even purport to characterize what the book actually says.
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:55 PM on April 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's a good read and doesn't disagree with what little I already thought I understood about the topic, but its nature is misleading: it isn't really a book review and in point of fact doesn't even purport to characterize what the book actually says.
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:55 PM on April 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
as late as 1946, the Muslim League (Jinnah's party) was on board with the Cabinet Mission Plan, which envisioned a unified India, and was essentially scuttled by the Indian National Congress.
Relevant passages from Ramachandra Guha's India after Gandhi, ch 2 'the Logic of Division':
posted by Gyan at 12:58 AM on April 20, 2015
Relevant passages from Ramachandra Guha's India after Gandhi, ch 2 'the Logic of Division':
The world over, the rhetoric of modern democratic politics has been marked by two rather opposed rhetorical styles. The first appeals to hope, to popular aspirations for economic prosperity and social peace. The second appeals to fear, to sectional worries about being worsted or swamped by one’s historic enemies. In the elections of 1946 the Congress relied on the rhetoric of hope. It had a strongly positive content to its programme, promising land reforms, workers’ rights, and the like. The Muslim League, on the other hand, relied on the rhetoric of fear. If they did not get a separate homeland, they told the voters, then they would be crushed by the more numerous Hindus in a united India. The League sought, in effect, a referendum on the question of Pakistan. As Jinnah put it in a campaign speech, ‘Elections are the beginning of the end. If the Muslims decide to stand for Pakistan in the coming elections half the battle would have been won. If we fail in the first phase of our war, we shall be finished.’Seems like if Jinnah did still harbor a sincere desire for a united India, the League's campaign and subsequent election results made that, in practice, a no go.
...
The election results were a striking vindication of the League’s campaign. Across India, in province after province, the Congress did exceedingly well in the general category, but the Muslim seats were swept by the League, fighting on the single issue of a separate state for Muslims. In the province of Bengal, for example, the League won 114 out of 119 seats reserved for Muslims; since the strength of the assembly was 250, it required little effort to cobble together a majority. In the United Provinces the Congress won 153 seats out of a total of 228, and so formed the government. But within this larger victory there was a significant defeat, for of the 66 Muslim seats on offer in the United Provinces the League won a resounding 54. Even more striking were the results in the southern province of Madras, which even the most devoted follower of Jinnah would not claim for a prospective Pakistan. Here the Congress won 165 out of 215 seats, but the League won all 29 seats reserved for Muslims. Overall, in the general constituencies, the Congress won 80.9 per cent of the votes, whereas in the seats reserved for Muslims the League garnered 74.7 per cent.
After the results had come in, the League’s paper, Dawn, proclaimed that ‘Those who have been elected this time to the Legislatures have been charged by the voters with the duty . . . of winning Pakistan. Within and outside the Provincial and Central Assemblies and Councils that and that alone is now the “priority job”. The time for decision is over; the time for action has come.’
This was written on 7 April 1946. Three days later Jinnah convened a meeting in Delhi of the 400 legislators elected on the Muslim League ticket. This convention reiterated the call for an independent Pakistan. However, in early May Jinnah attended a conference in Simla, where attempts were being made by the Cabinet Mission to find a unitary solution. Through the next two months various drafts were passed round, allowing for one nation-state but with provinces having the option to leave if they so desired. The Congress and the League could not agree on the conditions under which provinces would join or leave the projected union. Another sticking point was Jinnah’s contention that the Congress could not nominate a Muslim as one of its representatives to the talks.
posted by Gyan at 12:58 AM on April 20, 2015
Canada recently announced that we're selling uranium to India, because hell - we need the money now.
posted by sneebler at 6:30 AM on April 20, 2015
posted by sneebler at 6:30 AM on April 20, 2015
This discussion always reminds me of an anecdote from a decade ago:
"There's a huge amount that's known and published about the counterinsurgency," acknowledges Brad Adams, the Asia director of Human Rights Watch. "I was just in Amritsar [in Punjab] a few months ago, pursuing these very same subjects up to the present. There are still people being attacked." But how does this happen under a democracy, the largest in the world? "The first thing I would say is that one should not confuse democracy with human rights," Adams continues. "Political pluralism, government succession without violence—India does have that. It has an independent election commission. [India] is a very contradicting place. In Punjab thousands were killed; in Kashmir; in northeast India, thousands of people are being killed. But then, you have a very sophisticated [electoral] process. When the BJP lost an election this year, they walked away immediately. There was not even a whiff, not even an idea of them clinging to power through extraconstitutional means. That makes India hard to understand. ... Let's talk about New Delhi after Indira Gandhi was assassinated. Her party was the Congress Party. Leading members of the party got together—and they are identifiable—and decided to avenge her death by sponsoring riots and pogroms against Sikhs. And this is the party that just won the most recent election, to the glee of most liberals of India, but has never reconciled its own past. I'm not sure what lessons to draw from that."
Democracy guarantees nothing.
posted by Apocryphon at 12:07 PM on April 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
"There's a huge amount that's known and published about the counterinsurgency," acknowledges Brad Adams, the Asia director of Human Rights Watch. "I was just in Amritsar [in Punjab] a few months ago, pursuing these very same subjects up to the present. There are still people being attacked." But how does this happen under a democracy, the largest in the world? "The first thing I would say is that one should not confuse democracy with human rights," Adams continues. "Political pluralism, government succession without violence—India does have that. It has an independent election commission. [India] is a very contradicting place. In Punjab thousands were killed; in Kashmir; in northeast India, thousands of people are being killed. But then, you have a very sophisticated [electoral] process. When the BJP lost an election this year, they walked away immediately. There was not even a whiff, not even an idea of them clinging to power through extraconstitutional means. That makes India hard to understand. ... Let's talk about New Delhi after Indira Gandhi was assassinated. Her party was the Congress Party. Leading members of the party got together—and they are identifiable—and decided to avenge her death by sponsoring riots and pogroms against Sikhs. And this is the party that just won the most recent election, to the glee of most liberals of India, but has never reconciled its own past. I'm not sure what lessons to draw from that."
Democracy guarantees nothing.
posted by Apocryphon at 12:07 PM on April 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
Having studied Indian history and geography, and having studied the events leading up to the 1947 partition, I am still most intrigued by the civilizations that developed in the Indus River valley. I believe that what happened there approach what happened in Mesopotamia in their significance.
Regarding partition, it is a study in causation. Hindus, Muslims, and British all contributed to the disaster. Years after the slaughter of millions by the hands of their neighbors, Viceroy Mountbatten is recorded as having said to playwright Noel Coward "I fucked it up."
posted by rankfreudlite at 9:26 PM on April 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
Regarding partition, it is a study in causation. Hindus, Muslims, and British all contributed to the disaster. Years after the slaughter of millions by the hands of their neighbors, Viceroy Mountbatten is recorded as having said to playwright Noel Coward "I fucked it up."
posted by rankfreudlite at 9:26 PM on April 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
In India, the desire to have a past outstrips the desire to know anything meaningful about it.
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:14 AM on April 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:14 AM on April 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
Fascinating review, G.E., thanks. I was struck by this passage in particular:
To me “classic” means precisely the opposite of what my predecessors understood: a work is classical by reason of its resistance to contemporaneity and supposed universality, by reason of its capacity to indicate human particularity and difference in that past epoch. The classic is not what tells me about shared humanity — or, more truthfully put, what lets me recognize myself as already present in the past, what nourishes in me the illusion that everything has been like me and has existed only to prepare the way for me. Instead, the classic is what gives access to radically different forms of human consciousness for any given generation of readers, and thereby expands for them the range of possibilities of what it means to be a human being.posted by Johnny Wallflower at 10:47 AM on April 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
« Older Poor internet for poor people | Opting out. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Nevin at 12:45 PM on April 19, 2015