Two Nations, Two Choices (long)

[Gambit]

Two Nations, Two Choices Ads By Google Vir Sanghvi, Email Author January 05, 2008 There’s been a lot about Pakistan in the Indian media over the last 10 days: obituaries of Benazir Bhutto; predictions about the forthcoming election; attacks on General Musharraf; and conspiracy theories about the assassination. I have no problems with much of the coverage, but I am disappointed by the unwillingness of most commentators to go further back in history. After all, Pakistan was once a part of India. Both countries secured independence within a day of each other in 1947. And both made many important choices in the decades that followed: choices that explain why Pakistan and India have developed so differently. And yet, there was a complete absence of historical perspective in much of the analysis. Even a decade ago, I suspect that we would have covered Pakistan’s tragic slide into anarchy very differently. It’s still fashionable for a certain kind of north Indian to say about Pakistan and Pakistanis, “we are the same country divided by politicians. And we are the same people.” But as the years go by and new generations take over, this sentiment is fading. Punjabis may feel a kinship with Pakistan — many belong to families divided by Partition — but the rest of India seems much less empathetic. I’ve been in Bombay and Bangalore since Benazir’s assassination and it was interesting to note how little people cared about events in Pakistan and how quickly even that interest has begun to fade. And if you follow the international press, you’ll note that the old equivalence, where India and Pakistan were always talked about in the same breath, has now vanished. If Pakistan is compared to any country, it is to Afghanistan. India, on the other hand, tends increasingly to be compared to China. Few foreign journos even bother with the clichés they once used when they referred to Pakistan — such as, for instance: “compared to its democratic neighbour India”. And rarely does the prospect of another India-Pakistan war (a traditional obsession with Western journalists) intrude into their analysis of events in that troubled country. I remind you of all this to make two separate points. One: we must not let the largely Delhi- and north Indian-dominated ‘national’ media blind us to the increasing irrelevance of Pakistan as a factor in determining India’s future. Punjabi journos may be fascinated by Pakistan; the rest of us are merely curious. But it is the second point that I regard as more significant. In the 1950s and in the 1960s, when India was ruled by a Nehruvian consensus, there were many critics — usually on the political right — who thought we had got it badly wrong. How did it benefit India, they asked, to follow some crackpot policy of non-alignment which involved a surreptitious tilt to the Soviet Bloc when we could so easily be friends with the US, the world’s most powerful democracy? Look at Pakistan, they said. Its rulers recognised that there was much to be gained from linking up with Washington and enjoying the benefits of American patronage. A steady stream of American aid dollars flowed into Pakistan. The armed forces had access to the latest weaponry. The streets of Karachi and Lahore were full of imported cars — not a Landmaster or an Ambassador in sight. Nor did Pakistanis have to put up with all this socialist nonsense. They valued free enterprise and were proud to say so. The America-Pakistan equation frequently annoyed Indians. It sent us into paroxysms of rage when Richard Nixon and Harry Kissinger backed Pakistan’s whisky-sodden General Yahya Khan while his troops were committing genocide in Bangladesh. And anti-Americanism reached a peak when Nixon sent the Seventh Fleet to the Bay of Bengal during the 1971 India-Pakistan war. (He wanted to warn us off invading West Pakistan). During the Zia-ul-Haq era, when Pakistan’s economy seemed robust and billions of dollars were pumped into the state treasury while we struggled to make ends meet, many educated Indians sincerely wondered whether we were paying the price for Pandit Nehru’s mistaken choices. Hadn’t Mohammed Ali Jinnah’s heirs got it right while we floundered? Wouldn’t India have been better off on America’s side? There was a corollary to all this. In the 1960s, the Jan Sangh and Swatantra parties, which wanted us to renounce Nehruvian non-alignment and rush into Washington’s embrace, also made the point that there was no harm in declaring that Hinduism was India’s state religion. If Pakistan could flourish as a Muslim country, then why should India be shy of owning up to its Hindu heritage? With the benefit of hindsight, we can today safely say that every single one of those propositions was flawed. There were only two major Asian countries that rejected the US prescription for development and foreign policy: India and China. And look where they are today. And look at America’s client states. The case of Pakistan is especially instructive. Because it believed all the American dogma about free trade, it never built for itself the kind of industrial base that India constructed at such huge sacrifice in the name of self-reliance. Because it tied itself so closely to US foreign policy, its diplomats did whatever America wanted, even helping pimp the first assignation between Kissinger and the Chinese in 1971. There’s no denying that Pakistan got many Sabre jets and Patton tanks (remember the 1965 War?) along with billions of dollars in aid. It also got away with genocide in 1971. And the US turned a blind eye while its scientists ran a nuclear black market. Treat those benefits as rent paid by America. Because Washington turned Pakistan into its largest military base, an entire country at the service of Uncle Sam. In the 1960s, it was used to keep a watch on Russia (the U2 spy planes took off from there); in the 1970s, it served as a back channel for China-US diplomacy; in the 1980s, it was used for the Afghan ‘jehad’; and now, it is a launch pad for a crucial part of the ‘War on Terror’. The Americans had no interest in developing Pakistan’s economy or in promoting the institutions of democracy. They preferred to deal with a succession of military dictators (Ayub Khan, Yahya, Zia and now Musharraf) because it was both easier and quicker. And they actively exploited Pakistan’s lack of secularism — its very raison d’être was its status as an Islamic nation — to launch the world’s first high-tech jehad, thereby unleashing the fundamentalist and terrorist forces that are tearing Pakistan apart today. Looking back, it is hard to see how any country could have got it more wrong than Pakistan did. Every single choice it made — foreign policy, economic, religious, political etc — seems, in retrospect, to have been a disastrous mistake. In contrast, Nehru created the modern Indian republic, one of 21st century’s potential superpowers. The same Americans who once dismissed India as a Russian lackey now throng our airports looking for investment opportunities. When their President comes to India, he talks to our Prime Minister on equal terms and discusses foreign policy. When he goes to Pakistan on the other hand, he merely instructs their President on which terrorists to hand over to US authorities. Of course, Nehru made mistakes. But can anybody really deny that the principal reason why India and Pakistan, once part of the same country, have followed such divergent paths is because of the choices both countries made in the years following independence? At first, India’s priorities may have seemed (from a middle-class perspective) wrong-headed and muddled. Pakistan’s may have seemed glamorous and instantly gratifying. But, in the long run, we ended up as the superpower. And Pakistan as the failed state. The divergent paths we have taken and the different destinations we have reached explain why, outside of the north, Pakistan seems like no more than a curiosity to most Indians. There is a historical legacy, but our presents are very different, and our futures have nothing in common. I respect Punjabi sentimentality about Lahore with its filmi notion of brothers separated by circumstances. But if our history was really a Hindi film and if we were brothers, then at this point in the plot, Pakistan is the brother who has gone astray, the mawaali for whom there is no hope. India is the good brother, working hard, respecting the law, and finding success. But, Punjabi sentimentality and Bollywood aside, how can one not feel sorry for the people of Pakistan, betrayed by a succession of incompetent leaders, seduced by a superpower concerned only with its own interests, and bewildered by the tricks that fate has played on their beleaguered country? History is full of ifs and buts. So who knows how things would have turned out? But just suppose there had been no Partition. Would these same people have lived a very different life? Would they have been part of the Indian success story? That’s a question for the ghost of Mohammed Ali Jinnah to answer. http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=a8954473-8d0c-423d-bd23-1716ae46b029&MatchID1=4617&TeamID1=3&TeamID2=4&MatchType1=1&SeriesID1=1163&PrimaryID=4617&Headline=Counterpoint%3a+Two+nations%2c+two+choices

[Gambit]

A slightly long article but a very good and pertinent one. While our nation went from strength to strength whilst at the same time battling our own problems, Pak was more concerned with our downfall rather than their own development. And the result of that approach is there for all to see. The mood amongst Indians vis-a-vis the recent developments in Pak and Bhutto's assassination is one of pity and slight bemusement.

[Lurker]

Good article there Gambo. A few of my observations: 1) The author is right on the money about a key difference between India-Pakistan today can be traced to the work of Nehru and Jinnah in the two countries. While it is debatable how much more Jinnah could have done considering he died within 1 year of Pakistan coming thru, it is not debatable that Nehru laid a solid foundation for India for future years. 2) The author is correct about Southern India not giving importance to Pakistan as such. In my stint at Bangalore and later down South I had similar experience with local populace not carrying stigma(nor goodwill) towards Pakistan. 3) The author is incorrect about Nothern Indian relation to Pakistan. Northern India(from Punjab to West Bengal) has a deep relation with Pakistan and the Muslims that effectively made Pakistan came from UP/Bihar/Bengal and NOT Punjab. Punjab carries closeness to Pakistan due to language but the cultural/lingual/traditional closeness of Pakistan is with the Indian heartland, and vice versa. Many literary fans of Bihar/UP lap up works of Pakistani artists, specially Urdu and according to most Urdu literateur Pakistan's vault is lot richer than India. 4) One point the author has not touched is the relationship of Pakistani with India. The author suggests that Pakistanis were obsessed with dismantling India. Not entirely true though the people that mattered(Army, Dictators, ISI) certainly wanted that. I can say on record that many Pakistanis, and definitely most Pakistani girls, have somewhat of a soft corner towards India. I am not sure if this is due to their affinity for Bollywood, or a country across the border where things are much better for women folks but it is true. I know the looks in the eyes of these females when they would lament how they could never so much as wear a skirt while their sisters in India could. Pound for pound I would say an Indian citizen travelling in Pakistan receives lot more affection than a Pakistani citizen receives in India. xxx

[Guest dada_rocks]

How a country shapes up doesn't depend on which camp it joins.. South Korea too was in USA camp .. Author is giving too much credit to these foreign masters. Being closer to USA doesn't mean country turns into a Pakistani style satellite state. We are closer to USA these days but are anythign but satellite. Democracy BTW is the best bullwark against any foreign intervention more so when it's as big as India's. Pakistani was doomed from the start itself.. JInnah its father had no conviction for pakistan in early days sensed the opportutnity joined the bandwagon. When a country comes to fruition with this kind of opportunism rest assured the leaders there aren't ready for the conviction it takes to see it through the early days of ideological tumult....... Take Jinnah out u got nobody there. Liyaqat Ali Khan was just a landlord like many others who joined the Pakistan bandwagon sensing Nehru's socialism cutting them to size. With consternation of this kind of opportunistic players nothing more was expected.. Just lokk at the roster of their independence leaders you will find it's basically landlord class. For pakistan there was no popular support among pesantry class till the religious fire was fanned. OTOH for India there was public support at the lowest of level witout any religious fervour. Only leader who could have been their saviour Frontier Gandhi was sidelined because he was against partition.

[CC1981]

How a country shapes up doesn't depend on which camp it joins..

It is a big part of the equation.

South Korea too was in USA camp .. Author is giving too much credit to these foreign masters.

South Korea also had a pretty big base of intellectuals and industry (developed by the japanese during japanese occupation period) that gave them a large amount of control over their own destiny. South korea was also a direct flashpoint for USA vs USSR battle for world power and not a proxy like Pakistan was. In a direct flashpoint situation, its much easier to play off one side to the other or even hold the big bully for ransom some of the time.

Democracy BTW is the best bullwark against any foreign intervention more so when it's as big as India's.

Correct. Democracy AND population size dictates the level of independence in international affairs.

[Guest dada_rocks]

It is a big part of the equation. South Korea also had a pretty big base of intellectuals and industry (developed by the japanese during japanese occupation period) that gave them a large amount of control over their own destiny. South korea was also a direct flashpoint for USA vs USSR battle for world power and not a proxy like Pakistan was. In a direct flashpoint situation, its much easier to play off one side to the other or even hold the big bully for ransom some of the time. Correct. Democracy AND population size dictates the level of independence in international affairs.

Example of South korea says it doesn't have to to turn into Pakistan... Pakistan is Pakistan because of Pakistanis all other bogeys notwithstanding.. Their war-like culture spilled over from afghanistan I guess, their religius views too, basically whole package.. others exploited them because they wanted to be. Precisely South korea turned different because south koreans were different .. Similarly India turned different because indians were different.. ..

[CC1981]

Example of South korea says it doesn't have to to turn into Pakistan..

Different situation, different socio-political circumstances, etc. meant it didnt turn into Pakistan. Its just that simple.

Precisely South korea turned different because south koreans were different .. Similarly India turned different because indians were different.. ..

People are people. Not very different at all. I know it is a hard concept for a guy who is a straight-outta-india-to-Canada to comprehend, but i have travelled the world a lot and there is hardly any difference between the average arab,indian,chinese or white-guy. Its different situations, different political structure and different socio-political conditions that lead people into different directions. If the Hinduvta nazis are allowed to go unchecked, it won't be long before India turns into another Pakistan. But thankfully, most Indians know better than to support Hinduvta Nazis like RSS/VHP/SS etc.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Different situation' date= different socio-political circumstances, etc. meant it didnt turn into Pakistan. Its just that simple. People are people. Not very different at all. I know it is a hard concept for a guy who is a village-idiot-straight-outta-india-to-Canada to comprehend, but i have travelled the world a lot and there is hardly any difference between the average arab,indian,chinese or white-guy. Its different situations, different political structure and different socio-political conditions that lead people into different directions. If the Hinduvta nazis are allowed to go unchecked, it won't be long before India turns into another Pakistan. But thankfully, most Indians know better than to support Hinduvta Nazis like RSS/VHP/SS etc.

Good basically they decided what they will become nto someone else.. Nope u moron not all are same those socio.culture/religion thing ensure they all are different.. Given the moorn u are u negate urself withtin couple of sentences.. U will claim different culture diffeerent this and that then next lline they are all same...:haha:

[maggot_brain]

Good basically they decided what they will become nto someone else.. Nope u moron not all are same those socio.culture/religion thing ensure they all are different.. Given the moorn u are u negate urself withtin couple of sentences.. U will claim different culture diffeerent this and that then next lline they are all same...:haha:

CC is no moron. What is arguably moronic though is your grasp of the English language and your failure to understand rational discourse. CC didn't contradict himself, he argued that while people are essentially similar, socio-economic factors et al determine one's outlook and how that influences the course of events individually and as a nation.

[CC1981]

Good basically they decided what they will become nto someone else..

Not that they decieded, but that the prevailing socio-politican conditions were different.

Nope u moron not all are same those socio.culture/religion thing ensure they all are different.. Given the moorn u are u negate urself withtin couple of sentences.. U will claim different culture diffeerent this and that then next lline they are all same

Sorry chump, you have ZERO authority to say that to me. When you travel as much as i have, live in as many different countries and cities as i have, then talk. Till then, you are nothing but a parrot of your own cloistered upbringing. A two-bit village-idiot straight outta India into Canada has zero authority to lecture me on this topic, bandhu. My notion of people of the world is based on living in half a dozen countries, visiting over 2 dozen countries and having friends,girlfriends and relations across ALL human spectrum. Your's is simply from hinduvta propaganda and what you've observed in your little cloistered existence. Don't be presumptuous enough to lecture me on this, for this is an area you are nowhere as qualified as i am (or many here are) to talk about. Clear ? And yes, cultures are different but when it comes right down to it, the PEOPLE on average are essentially the same. The same kind of stuff gets them mad, makes them happy, gets them depressed, its not a difference with the PEOPLE but its a difference in the top brass/socio-political influences prevailing in various parts of the world.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Newsflash: Human being is not just bone and flesh it involves its surronding too and they themselves assiduously make or mar that surrounding. Any idiot if claims even that was forced by somebody he is clueless.. I guess I have made my point Point being India wud be India no matter what joinign some camp is not going to change anything.. Pakistan will be pakistan by the same token end of story .. Circular BSing ka time nahin hai mere pass

[CC1981]

Any idiot if claims even that was forced by somebody he is clueless..

Can you attend English classes first, so that we don't have to put up any longer with your incoherent posts ?

Point being India wud be India no matter what joinign some camp is not going to change anything..

your point is false.

. Circular BSing ka time nahin hai mere pass

In that case, take your own advice and shut up.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Veer Sanghvi there is talking from his rear end it never happened.. and his GOd who he is eulogizing was big fan of RSS in the evening of his lilfe reason when his backside was on fire communazis were fighting along side chinese while RSS was violunteering on border.. NOne of thes psec morons will dare to do that even after getting paid let alone selflessly.. Hail RSS and down with psecs and communazi:two_thumbs_up:

[CC1981]

truth is india is where it is despite the multiple fack ups by the Gandhi dynasty stretching back over 50 yrs.

The Gandhi dynasty facked up a lot- but still is largely responsible for the successes India is enjoying today.

I guess the author has never heard of a certain Modi' ?

not even your pyaare Modi will dare proclaim India to be a hindu country. It is a SECULAR country.

[CC1981]

"Jaisi murgi waisey aanda"

Same can be said about Hinduvta nazis too who are all about 'lets kick all muslims out of india by force'. Jaisi murgi, waisey aanda.

[Guest dada_rocks]

The Gandhi dynasty facked up a lot- but still is largely responsible for the successes India is enjoying today. not even your pyaare Modi will dare proclaim India to be a hindu country. It is a SECULAR country.

GAndhi family presided over the eventual bankrupcy of India in 90, that's damning whichever way one looks at.. The turn around happend in days of PVN RAO and Vajpayee:two_thumbs_up:

[CC1981]

GAndhi family presided over the eventual bankrupcy of India in 90, that's damning whichever way one looks at..

Long after Gandhi is dead...Gandhi bears no culpability for what his 'adopted family' has done later.

[Guest dada_rocks]

I totally forgot about that minute detail ... khsama kare . :D But if one can describe the situation of Pak in one line its gotta be : "Jaisi murgi waisey aanda"

:hysterical::hysterical: Mast phrase hai baba Precisely, they are fcuked not because of USA or anybody else but themselves.. If India is better of then not because of anybody else but themselves.. :two_thumbs_up:

[CC1981]

If India is better of then not because of anybody else but themselves.

Because of the choices made by the politicians and the prevailing socio-economic conditions. Not because of difference between the people. There is no difference between hinduvta genociding fanatics and muslim al-qaeda fanatics.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Despite choices made by Nehru.... His choice saw that india eventually goes bankrupt Nehru's policy and his other choise is there for everyone to see in Kashmir....