In the second part of the article, we
continue with our study of
Pakistan
and cast a brief glance on the other nations of the subcontinent. Pakistan
today seems to be going through critical
times and all the recent events in
Pakistan, — the Lal Masjid incident, the
Supreme Court decision on the Chief Justice, the civil war in Baluchistan and
North West Frontier Province, the apparent rethinking by the United States
regarding its policy towards Pakistan, — are likely to have a tremendous impact on the country. Consequently, many political commentators and
political analysts are wondering and speculating about the future of
Pakistan
.
Is it heading towards becoming a failed State and ultimate disintegration?
In this
part of the article, we shall try to show that all these events were
inevitable, that they are symptoms of a deep malady and also that what is
happening today is only the tip of the iceberg; much more will follow. And all
these events are happening just because of one reason:
Pakistan
is an
artificially manufactured State, based on false concepts and furthered by
fraudulent and violent methods.
In the words of Sri
Aurobindo:
India
was deliberately split on the
basis of the two-nation theory into
Pakistan
and Hindustan with the deadly consequences
which we know.
(CWSA,
Vol. 36, p.500)
For
Pakistan
is not a nation in the true sense of the word and therefore will not and cannot
last. It will disintegrate and get dissolved by the sheer law of political
forces. Nature will see to it that
Pakistan
as a political unit will disappear. The only thing that has to be taken into
account is the speed with which it will occur. It is here that the human agency
comes in, more specifically, the attitudes of the governments of
India
,
Pakistan
and the Western nations, and particularly the
United States
.
It
must also be clearly understood that this is not to suggest that there is any
falsity in the religion of Islam nor even in the people of
Pakistan
, but that the events will be
simply the natural consequence of certain fundamental political principles. We
explain this in some detail now.
Political and real units
It is well known to all students of
political science that the mere creation of a political State, having a central
government is not enough to ensure its permanency and durability. A political
unit, in order to be viable and durable must be a real unit — that is to say,
it must be a unit with a deep psychological, cultural, spiritual unity and not
merely held together by a centralised authority. A centralised power can hold
together the different parts and components of a nation for some time but it
cannot necessarily ensure durability. To ensure durability it must convert
itself into the psychological centre and become the representative of the whole
nation.
In the formation of a nation, there are
many factors that play an important role; these are geography, race, language, religion, economic interests and
interdependence, a common aspiration, common dangers and suffering and even
sometimes a common enemy. Depending on the situation, one factor or another
could be prominent. In certain cases, race would count and enter in as an
element, but only as a subordinate element. In others, the race factor might
predominate and be decisive; in still others it could be a historic and
national sentiment overriding differences of language and race, partly by
economic and other relations created by local contact or geographical oneness.
Cultural unity would also count and play an important role, but need not, in
all cases, prevail; even the united force of race and culture might not be
sufficiently strong so as to be decisive. Religion could be an important factor
as in the case of
Pakistan
. We thus see that there are many powerful
factors that play important roles in varying degrees in the formation of a
nation and that the nation is a complex amalgam of forces. All these factors
have their importance, but the ultimate cementing factor is not any of these
but a dominant subtle and psychological element. This deeper psychological
element is not easily definable but is definitely perceptible and is often
referred to as the inner psyche or the soul of the nation. It is this subtler
force that really holds a nation together despite all the differences and
centrifugal pulls. All other elements, however restless they may be, must
succumb to this force; however much they may seek for free particularistic
expression and self-possession within a larger unity, they must subordinate
themselves to this more powerful attraction.
In the words of Sri Aurobindo:
Thus the nation is a persistent
psychological unit which Nature has been busy developing throughout the world
in the most various forms and educating into physical and political unity.
Political unity is not the essential factor; it may not yet be realised and yet
the nation persists and moves inevitably towards its realisation; it may be
destroyed and yet the nation persists and travails and suffers but refuses to
be annihilated.
(CWSA, Vol. 25, pp.309-10)
This is evident in the history of
India
. Here is a nation which has survived for more
than two millenniums keeping intact its ancient cultural roots. In the words of Sri Aurobindo:
But
the most striking example in history is the evolution of
India
.
Nowhere else have the centrifugal forces been so strong, numerous, complex,
obstinate. The mere time taken by the evolution has been prodigious; the
disastrous vicissitudes through which it has had to work itself out have been
appalling. And yet through it all the inevitable tendency has worked
constantly, pertinaciously, with the dull, obscure, indomitable, relentless
obstinacy of Nature when she is opposed in her instinctive purposes by man, and
finally, after a struggle enduring through millenniums, has triumphed… The
political history of
India
is
the story of a succession of empires, indigenous and foreign, each of them
destroyed by centrifugal forces, but each bringing the centripetal tendency
nearer to its triumphant emergence. And it is a significant circumstance that
the more foreign the rule, the greater has been its force for the unification
of the subject people. This is always a sure sign that the essential nation-unit
is already there and that there is an indissoluble national vitality
necessitating the inevitable emergence of the organised nation. In this
instance, we see that the conversion of the psychological unity on which
nationhood is based into the external organised unity by which it is perfectly
realised, has taken a period of more than two thousand years and is not yet
complete. And yet, since the essentiality of the thing was there, not even the
most formidable difficulties and delays, not even the most persistent
incapacity for union in the people, not even the most disintegrating shocks
from outside have prevailed against the obstinate subconscious necessity. And
this is only the extreme illustration of a general law.
(CWSA, Vol. 25, pp. 307-08)
Even after 1947, when
India
attained its independence from British rule
and was divided on the basis of the two-nation theory, there have been
innumerable forecasts of doom stating that
India
would disintegrate. Political commentators
have been churning out regularly the prediction of the dismal fate that awaits
India
. And yet today
India
stands out as a stable and progressive nation
destined to play an important role in the future of the world.
Pakistan
– an artificial unit
Let us now look at the history of
Pakistan
.
The so-called nation of
Pakistan
, which was created in 1947, claimed to be a homeland for the
Muslims of the subcontinent. The Muslims were supposed to be a different nation
with the religion of Islam as the psychological binding factor. All proponents
of
Pakistan
have claimed that
Pakistan
is bound by Islam and was in fact, created to bring the Muslims of the
subcontinent together into a strong and viable Islamic group; in other words,
the claim is that Islam was the cementing factor of
Pakistan
.
As a matter of fact, Islam has not been the cementing factor; indeed there does
not seem to be any cementing factor at all in
Pakistan
.
We
reproduce here an extract from an article written by Aryn Baker in Time magazine dated Aug. 02, 2007
Mohammed
Ali Jinnah, the Savile Row-suited lawyer who midwifed
Pakistan
into
existence on Aug 14, 1947, as
leader of the Muslim League, was notoriously ambiguous about how he envisioned
the country once it became an independent state. Both he and Iqbal, who were
friends until the poet's death in 1938, had repeatedly stated their dream for a
“modern, moderate and very enlightened
Pakistan
,”
says Sharifuddin Pirzada, Jinnah’s personal secretary from 1941 to 1944. But
mindful of the fragile and fractious consortium of supporters for the new
nation, whose plans for independence from both
India
and
Britain
were
only finalized on July
18, 1947, Jinnah rarely elaborated on his religious views.
“He was a very liberal-minded Muslim,” says Pirzada. “He rejected the idea that
Pakistan
would
be ruled according to the righteous caliphs of Islam; he did not want a
theocracy. At the same time he was very careful not to make a commitment one
way or the other so that Muslims would not be alienated.”
Both
religious conservatives and secular liberals have appropriated Jinnah’s words,
actions and manners to prove their claims on
Pakistan
’s
identity. Clerics that once dismissed him as an infidel for his secular
leanings before partition now embrace him for his borrowings from the Koran in
his talks. Liberal newspaper editorials quote fragmented speeches to bolster
claims that he was an avowed secularist. Jinnah’s own wish was that the
Pakistani people, as members of a new, modern and democratic nation, would
decide the country’s direction. “There is no contradiction,” says Pirzada, who
has watched the debate rage for 60 years. “An Islamic state can be a fully
modern state, unless you say it should be ruled by a theocracy. Jinnah was
against theocracy. That is what matters.”
But
rarely in
Pakistan
's
history have its people lived Jinnah’s vision. The nation was barely a decade
old when President Iskander Ali Mirza declared martial law in an attempt to
save his presidency from growing unpopularity. “That was the blackest day in
our history,” says Senator Khurshid Ahmad, the deputy chief of
Pakistan
's
largest Islamist party. “Even our elected rulers became despots.”
Pakistan
has
been cursed ever since. Only twice in its 60- year history has
Pakistan
seen
a peaceful, democratic transition of power.
Pakistan
considers itself a democracy, but its governments have rarely had a mandate
from the people. With four disparate provinces, over a dozen languages and
dialects, and powerful neighbours, leaders — be they Presidents, Prime
Ministers or army chiefs — have been forced to knit the nation together with
the only thing Pakistanis have in common: religion.
It is
our contention that
Pakistan
is an
artificially manufactured political unit, a unit manufactured and carved out
partly by the accident of circumstances and deliberate planning by a section of
the Muslim leadership, the British government and the short-sightedness of the
Congress leaders.
We thus see that
Pakistan
is not a real and viable unit; it has no life from within and owes its
continuance to two factors. These two factors are:
- A force
imposed on its constituent elements from inside, by the Army
- The
political convenience felt by the world outside, namely the
United States of America
.
The history of
Pakistan
shows that it has not been to evolve a stable
democratic system and that for the greater part of its history it has been
under military rule. It is being held together by the Army.
Secondly, the
Western world and the
United States of America
in particular need to keep
Pakistan
going in their own self-interest and to
further their own geo-political strategies, despite the patent fact that it has
hardly ever been a democratic state.
Pakistan
is needed for the convenience of
America
.
As soon as the
constituent elements of Pakistan reject
Army rule and are drawn more powerfully by a centrifugal force, and if at the
same time, the world outside — in this case the United States of America — no
longer needs or favours the existence of Pakistan, then force alone will remain
as the one agent of an artificial unity. It is difficult to see what this force
could be.
History of
Pakistan
When
Pakistan
was formed in 1947, it is said that Jinnah wanted to make it a
secular state, although in the run up to the formation of
Pakistan
the most violent methods were used. This is what he said just before the
formation of
Pakistan
on 11 August 1947.
If we want to make this great State of Pakistan happy
and prosperous we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the
people, and especially of the masses and the poor… you are free — you are free
to go to your temples, mosques or any other place of worship in this state of
Pakistan
.
You may belong to any religion, caste or creed that has nothing to do with the
business of the state… in due course of time Hindus will cease to be Hindus and
Muslims will cease to Muslims — not in a religious sense, for that is the
personal faith of an individual — but in a political sense as citizens of one
state.
However,
Pakistan
never became a
secular State as Jinnah wished; it is quite probable that if he had lived
longer the history of
Pakistan
might have been
different. The reality however is that
Pakistan
became an Islamic
State and has remained so right through its history; neither has it been able
to evolve a sound democratic polity. For the major part of its history, it has
been under military rule. Whether the military intervened in the affairs of the
State to save
Pakistan
from anarchy as is
claimed by them or whether they have a vested interest in seizing power is often
debated by political commentators; but that is not the point that we are
discussing now. The fact remains that for more than 40 years of its history,
Pakistan
has been under
Army rule without any democracy.
The second point to be noted is that the principle of jihad has been
used as an important component of its foreign policy by the Government of
Pakistan right from its inception.
Here is an extract from a book written by B. V. Raman, a senior
intelligence officer in Research and Analysis Wing, regarding the use of jihad.
This is what he writes:
The use of jihad as a weapon against
non-Muslims was… the brainchild of the religious leaders and military officers
of
Pakistan
ever since the day
Pakistan
became independent on August 14, 1947.
Pakistan
's
jihad against
India
did not start in 1989. It started in 1947.
Even Jawaharlal Nehru — despite his strong
secular credentials — had repeatedly been drawing attention to the jihad based
on hatred for
India
being waged by
Pakistan
since 1947.
Between 1947 and the 1980s,
Pakistan
was waging this jihad mainly with the help of its nationals infiltrated into
India
.
It could not find many supporters in the Indian Muslim community. From the
1980s onwards, it started getting the support of some Muslim youth in J&K.
Some Messages from the Mother
It will
be quite appropriate to see some of the messages given by the Mother in regard
to
Pakistan
.
In 1965, a war was fought between
India
and
Pakistan
over Kashmir. During the war, Mother sent this
message to the then Prime Minister of
India
, Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri. This
is what she wrote:
It is for the sake and the
triumph of truth that
India
is fighting and must fight until
India
and
Pakistan
have once more become One because that is the truth of their being
(CWM, Vol. 13, p.367)
It should be evident that this message does not demand any appropriation
of land or assets for their own sake, but simply states that the two nations
have one soul and therefore they should be united.
Similarly, in June 1971, Mother had written in a letter to a disciple:
La disparition du Pakistan est inévitable;
elle aurait pu déjà se produire, mais l’ignorance humaine l’a retardée.
The English translation is as follows:
The disappearance of
Pakistan
is inevitable; it could have already happened, but human ignorance
has delayed it.
It is
this ignorance that is the cause of the delay in the process of unification and
also the root cause of the problems, both in
Pakistan
and
India
.
However, there is today a realisation that the creation of
Pakistan
was a mistake. We
are giving some extracts from some well-known writers below.
Pakistan
– an idea that has failed
Here are
some extracts from an article by K. P. S. Gill in The Pioneer. He
writes:
Pakistan
is an idea that has failed - abysmally and comprehensively…
This failure was evident in the very first
years after the birth of the country out of the falsehood of the 'two nation
theory' and the bloody slaughters of Partition.
Within six year of Independence, the
poet Faiz Ahmed ‘Faiz’ wrote, in his poignant and evocative Subh-e-Azadi (The
Dawn of Freedom):
This tainted light, this gloom-smothered dawn
This is not
the dawn we had hoped for...
The despondent night still lies heavy upon us
The moment
of deliverance from bondage is yet to come...
Faiz
spent years in Pakistani jails and in exile, reviled, excluded and marginalised
by successive regimes, till his death in 1984. The tragic destiny of one of the
greatest lights of modern Urdu literature is symbolic of all the good that may
have survived the catastrophic creation of
Pakistan
in
the crucible of communal hatred….
The Pakistani identity is based on
irreducible opposites, an adversarial ideology that initially saw the Hindu as
the enemy, but that has thereafter added a multiplicity of ‘hostile others’ —
Ahmedias, Shias, internal regional minorities, the West — in its expanding
circle of strife. Much of the violence in the South Asian region — and indeed,
a large proportion of Islamist terrorism across the world — finds its roots in
this psyche, rather than in any concrete and coherent strategic objectives or
interests. Unless the institutional basis of this ideology, the power structure
and sections of society that have historically profited from it, are
dismantled,
Pakistan
’s pathologies will continue to compound
themselves, only occasionally tempered by objective external circumstances and
a loss of capacities.
The attack on the
United States
and the Western world
As the natural and logical consequence of this policy
not only in
Pakistan
but in the Islamic world, the attack on the
United States
took place on 11 September 2001. As a
consequence of this attack,
Pakistan
came under tremendous international pressure to act on the Islamic fundamentalists
within
Pakistan
. Facing intense pressure from the
United States
, the Pakistan Government took the position of becoming a leading
ally of the
United
States
in combating
terrorism. However, even after 6 years, terrorism thrives in
Pakistan
itself and all indications seem to point to the conclusion that terrorism is
indeed emanating from that country to different parts of the world.
Today, the Pakistan Government is
facing severe criticism and even threats of being attacked by the
United States
for its policy of non-engagement with militant groups in the tribal
areas which is now considered a complete failure. Washington is
demanding that the Pakistan Government do more to rein in terrorists,
extremists and religious fundamentalists.
But if the administration of
Pakistan
decides to take a firm line against the religious fundamentalists, it is likely
to face an internal revolt from within the Army. Here is an extract from a
report of an interview by Hamid Gul former head of the Inter Service Intelligence.
In an
interview, Hamid Gul, former head of ISI, has warned that if Musharraf does
take both gloves off in tribal areas, it would just increase the likelihood of
a split in army. “The officer cadres are liberal, secular, they come from the
elite classes. But the rank and file of the army were never secular, they were
always religious,” Gul said. “If there is a face-off between the army and
people, the leadership may lose control of the army. The army does not feel
happy. They are from the same streets, the same villages, the same bazaars of
the lower and middle classes, and they want the same thing (Islamic law) for
their country.”
The
latest news says that serious thinking seems to be taking place in the higher
administrative circles and in the various think tanks in the
United States
regarding
Pakistan
. As a matter of fact, a bill has been put forward in the Congress.
Here are some points of the bill:
The bill then enumerates the “problems” that have cropped up in US
relations with
Pakistan
. (1) Curbing the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology; (2)
Combating poverty and corruption; (3) Building effective government
institutions, especially secular public schools; (4) Promoting democracy and
the rule of law, particularly at the national level; (5) Addressing the
continued presence of Taliban and other violent extremist forces throughout the
country; (6) Maintaining the authority of the government of Pakistan in all
parts of its national territory; (7) Securing the borders of Pakistan to
prevent the movement of militants and terrorists into other countries and
territories; and (8) Effectively dealing with Islamic extremism.
These steps are supported by many
think tanks in the
United
States
which have
been advocating a very strict policy towards
Pakistan
.
Here is an summary of the ideas from one of the think-tanks in the
United States
:
In a report on
Pakistan
by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a clear
case has been made for a distinct change in policy by the
United States
towards
Pakistan
. This
report makes the case that the Pakistani state bears responsibility for the
worsening security situation in Afghanistan, the resurgence of the Taliban,
terrorism in Kashmir, and the growth of jihadi ideology and capabilities
internationally. At the core of the problem is the Pakistani military, which
has dominated
Pakistan
’s
politics since 1958 and has developed over the years nationalism based more on
its own delusions of grandeur rather than on any rational analysis of the
country’s national interest. Inheriting a highly divided polity, the Pakistan
Army has tried to muster solidarity by stoking
religiosity, sectarianism, and the promotion of jihad outside its borders, particularly in
Afghanistan
and Kashmir….
This
report shows that … Pakistani priorities reflect the specific institutional
interests of the military and therefore cannot be fundamentally changed unless
the army gradually cedes its political role to representative civilian leaders
and limits itself to defending borders. …
The report concludes:
Many analysts concur that
Pakistan
’s situation is not sustainable. Islamabad will not be able to play double games eternally
without creating at some point a major problem for itself, the region and the
world. Even if it is accepted that
Pakistan
plays an indispensable role in the war on terror,
it can be seen that policies toward Islamabad have consisted of a mix of bribery in the form of
financial, military, and technical assistance and pressure at the margin. Islamabad’s preference that its local activities be kept
separate from its effect on global security has been accepted by most
countries.
This report proposes a middle way.
It addresses some of the challenges that the
Pakistani military regime’s regional policies create for the international
community, arguing that none can be resolved in isolation from the others.
Arguing that the nature of the regime is the main source of trouble for the
region, it urges a return to a civilian government according to
Pakistan
’s own constitution.
The Government of Pakistan is thus caught on the horns
of a dilemma. Should it give up the policy of terrorism and jihad to toe the
line demanded by the
US
administration or should it continue the policy of jihad which has
been the backbone of its existence? Either way, it is a catch-22 situation. If
they support the American plan, the resistance to this will come not only from
within
Pakistan
itself — from the fundamentalists, and also from sections of the
Pakistan
army — but also from many parts of the Islamic world. On the other hand, if
they continue the policy of jihad and terrorism, the
United States
will come down heavily on
Pakistan
.
The question that arises: What is the way out?
We have quoted all these extracts
from different sources, only to show that
Pakistan
as a State is not viable. It is also evident that
Pakistan
is facing a serous crisis, a crisis of its very existence. The root of the
problem lies as one might put it, “in the original sin”, that is to say in the
two-nation theory and the violent methods used for that purpose. This is the
ignorance that Mother referred in her message of 1971.
Unfortunately, it is the same mentality and psychology and ignorance
that is driving
Pakistan
to this day. Also it is the same ignorance that is blinding many other
governments in the world and thus making them incapable to see the real truth.
All the problems of
Pakistan
whether it be poverty, terrorism, the absence of democracy or civil war, are
due to this original cause. The direction needs to be reversed and the sooner
it is done, the better it is for
Pakistan
,
the subcontinent and the world. The question is whether
Pakistan
will do it of its own accord or whether circumstances and external intervention
will be needed. It is our sincere hope that
Pakistan
will take the right steps on its own, for otherwise there will be huge problems
not only for
Pakistan
but for the whole subcontinent and even the world.
In 1971, immediately after the war in
Bangladesh
, on 18 December,
the Mother said:
Again
it won’t be for this time.
It
won’t be done that way. I’ve seen how. It won’t be done through a battle: the
different parts of
Pakistan
will demand separation. There are five of them. And by separating,
they will join
India
— to form a sort of confederation. That’s how it will be done.
And She added:
One
of the things in the offing is the conversion of
America
,
the
United States
, but it will take time.
…
So the things in the offing are a federation of all the states of
India
,
and another one in the offing is the conversion of the
United States
. A federation of the states of
India
along the lines of The Ideal of
Human Unity, as conceived and explained by
Sri Aurobindo.
Later, She said:
We
are plainly heading for the disintegration of
Pakistan
.
Pakistan
's
Existence: A need or a burden?
Syed Jamaluddin is from
Pakistan
and is now living in Europe. He has
written a book Divide
Pakistan
to
eliminate Terrorism dealing with his personal views on the subject of
Pakistan
. He was asked, “What made you write the
book?” We reproduce here some passages from his response. These illustrate the
thought process that is now taking place.
Regardless
of the fact that the advocates of the two-nation theory have finally realised
after half a century that the division of United India was not a good idea for
international peace, there is a need to correct mistakes.
India
’s democratic
strength for the last 59 years has proved that its existence was fully
justified. On the contrary,
Pakistan
emerged as a failed
state for one single reason — that a country which was founded by assembling
almost eight different nations in the name of Islam was unable to justify its
existence. Since its formation,
Pakistan
has been a country
full of conspiracies, discrepancies, controversies and corruption.
Pakistan
could not prove its
worth as a state and remained just a piece of land occupied by certain
opportunists who turned the entire country into their personal property. …
Today's
Pakistan
has turned into a
typical Fascist regime without any ideology. …
The
whole world has become vulnerable to terrorism. The question is who is
masterminding such terrorism? Who is providing all possible support to
terrorism? Who is creating terrorist minds? Who is a threat to international
peace? The answer is very simple............
Pakistan
….
A country which is possessed by forces which
are not answerable to any one and which is beyond any legal system is indeed a
great threat to the entire world.
Pakistan
has, therefore,
become a burden. This burden needs to be off-loaded by way of its
disintegration.
Pakistan
should be divided
into 5 parts or more to crush the terrorist network which has gained its deep
roots in present geographic form of
Pakistan
. My book titled Divide
Pakistan to Eliminate Terrorism advocates the necessity of
Pakistan
's disintegration. An
Independent Pakhtoonistan, Baluchistan, Sindhudesh,
Jinnahpur and Punjabistan will prevent the current nourishment and spread of
terrorism from the soil of
Pakistan
.
Conclusion
Let
Pakistan
give up this double game that it is playing and befriend
India
.
They will get a tremendous response of good will
That is the ultimate solution. Give up
the two nation theory and work with the Indian people in the subcontinent.
We paraphrase here a passage taken from
an article written by M. V. Kamath in Samachar. This will give a clue to the possible
solution to the problems of
Pakistan
and the subcontinent.
He says:
An Indo-Pakistani
confederation is the only answer to
Pakistan
’s present woes. It is pleasant
to hear that a three-member team of archaeological experts from Pakistan had
come to India in search of Hindu idols to be restored in temples in Pakistan,
that Islamabad has budgeted Rs.100 million to complete the Katasraj Temple
Project and that last November Musharraf had even visited a Shiva Temple in
Karachi and declared that “historical places of all religions including that of
Hinduism are integral part of Pakistan’s cultural and geographic history”.
All that is in the
right spirit.
India
and
Pakistan
must undo partition, not
territory wise but emotion wise….. Learn from
India
’s past history. Together
India
and
Pakistan
can make South Asia great.
The Subcontinent
As a consequence of the partition of
India
,
the nations in the subcontinent of
India
are
also facing serious problems. We shall briefly touch upon some of the problems
facing these States —
Bangladesh
,
Nepal
and
Sri
Lanka
— in the
subcontinent.
We have already seen in the first part
of this article that all these States rank high in the list of Failed States.
All are facing demographic, social, economic and political problems in varying
proportions.
In
Bangladesh
, in addition to the problem of poverty, unemployment, chronic
floods, Islamic fundamentalism, and a poor human rights record, the democratic
system has collapsed and military rule has been imposed.
In
Sri Lanka
,
there is a civil war going on for the last two decades and there seems to be no
solution in sight. This has created refugee problems for
India
and
great tension in the country.
In
Nepal
the
monarchy has been overthrown and there is great disorder with the government
not having full control over the different parts. In addition, there is acute
poverty, unemployment and a serious threat from the Maoists.
Inevitably, all these problems in the
neighbouring States of India are affecting her in different ways.
India
will have to face up to these challenges.
However, it is our firm belief that if
India
and
Pakistan
come together, the problems of the subcontinent too will get
solved. We can then move gradually towards creating a confederation of South Asia.
In the words of Sri Aurobindo:
The partition of the country must
go, — it is to be hoped by a slackening of tension, by a progressive
understanding of the need of peace and concord, by the constant necessity of
common and concerted action, even of an instrument of union for that purpose.
In this way unity may come about under whatever form — the exact form may have
a pragmatic but not a fundamental importance.
(CWSA, Vol. 36, p.476)
In the next article, we shall discuss
the physical and psychological conditions that are needed to be fulfilled to
create an atmosphere of peace and concord in the subcontinent leading
ultimately to the formation of a confederation of South Asia.
Kittu Reddy
Books by Kittu Reddy :
History of
India
- a
new approach
Standard Publishers of Inda,
Rs 850/-
A Vision of United
India
-
Problems and Solutions
Standard Publishers of
India
,
Rs 850/-
Rs 550/-
Bharat ke itihaas - ek naya drishti kon
Gyan Books Private limited, 5 Ansari Road,
Daryaganj, Delhi
Rs 890/-
Bravest of the Brave
Ocean Publishers, New
Delhi
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 