A couple of friends and I were have an interesting discussion about the history of South Asia, especially partition. We were all Pakistanis, mostly Punjabi and a couple of Sindhis.
With partition it seems the debate usually boils down to - do you believe in the Two Nation Theory - and the corollary - should partition have happened?
I thought that discussing the Two Nation Theory as well as whether partition should have happened or not are moot points - and we should look to the future.
I see three distinct possibilities:
1- Disintegration of India
2- Disintegration of Pakistan
3- Status quo
4- Regional integration
Lets make the time frame for this discussion around 50 - 100 years - i.e. around about the times that you and I will be in our graves - or perhaps a lucky few will still be alive.
The world seems to be heading towards regional blocs, the European Union (notwithstanding the current crises its facing) is a great example of what the South Asia region can look like in the future. We already have SAARC - but that organization is poisoned by the perennial India Pakistan cold war.
The EU example is interesting - for a good part of the last 1000 years the countries that presently constitute the EU fought numerous wars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_England_and_France
The French and the English still might not like each other - but it seems they stopped fighting each other a while ago not counting the Vichy vs Britain in WW2), what remains is perhaps just cultural snobbery.
World War 2 is of course the last major war between the larger constituent members of the EU.
So the questions are - do you think that SAARC can move from an economic to a political union?
How long do you think this would take?
Do you WANT SAARC to move from what it is now to something like the EU?
It would be great if you could mention what ethnicity you belong to.
I dont think there is any future for SAARC, the organization is already more than 20 years old but still non functional. Unless the long standing issues between the countries of the region are resolved the organization will remain a dead horse.
I dont think there is any future for SAARC, the organization is already more than 20 years old but still non functional. Unless the long standing issues between the countries of the region are resolved the organization will remain a dead horse.
Well exactly Kashmir issue needs to be solved and also India needs to stop supporting Tamils in Sri Lanka and also should stop its actions in Nepal
In the OP I mentioned the English French conflicts - which span a much longer time span that our 50 years of Indo Pak war history. I also mentioned WW2 - in which Germany literally destroyed much of Europe - India and Pakistan have not done anything remotely similar to each other.
@ Ali - Syed - you're right SAARC hasn't accomplished much in its history - the Vajpayee Musharraf handshake is all that comes to mind.
@ Sharabee - you say you would like SAARC to turn into the EU some day - this implies common currency - common political bodies (European Parliament) - freedom of movement (no passport requirement). Are you sure you want this? You also mention that you don't see this happening in the next 50 - 100 years - do you think it will take longer - or never happen at all?
I do see this happening and I think it will happen in the next 100 years - of course we need to make some big steps to get there - India needs to give a little on Kashmir - we could perhaps not be as supportive of our militant organizations that wreck havoc there. Small steps - its only been 60 years - hopefully we'll get there. And when we do years of bickering will look like a complete waste of time/money.
The day South Asian govts implement democracy in their countries and uphold justice, that would be the day when SAARC will be functional, otherwise it will remain Get-together meeting for the ruling families of South Asia, where they each promise each other to not to come up with any policy which can benefit the common man in long run...
Biggest Democracy in World = India? how? the biggest party in India, Congress- I is family affair, this tells us that one ruling party takes its turn to rule India, whatever the head of the party thinks is the law... whoever he thinks is right should be president or prime minister or minister... is it democracy? may be to some but in reality it is not... and it is not limited to Gandhi family, almost all parties have same structure...
Pakistan is the same case, families controlling the parties calling for democracy just to get in power.. and once in power, they live and do what kings does...
^ I guess you didn't get the irony - the Indian example was meant as a joke
In all seriousness though do you think in comparison to Pakistan - Indian democracy - democratic institutions are stronger than Pakistani democracy/democratic institutions?
^^ i not only missed that but also missed the important question you asked, sorry for that here is answer on it,
[QUOTE]
what are the requirements for democracy then - and do you think they are achievable in South Asia
[/QUOTE]
We don't have to look deep down nor it is rocket science, let the people decide is all what is basics of democracy, and to provide people with better decision skills, they need to be develop better civic sense which is derived from better and object oriented education, they should be knowledgeable enough to differentiate between right and wrong, what is good for them and their generations and what can harm them and their generations... no country in South Asia pays any attention on it, all they care about is about cosmetic issues.. and unless this happens ( the very basis of democratic system) there won't be any democracy in South Asia...
[QUOTE] In all seriousness though do you think in comparison to Pakistan - Indian democracy - democratic institutions are stronger than Pakistani democracy/democratic institutions?
[/QUOTE]
both are more or less same, In Pakistan it is more obvious, whereas in India it is hidden... the army establishment have more than needed influence major issues such peace with in and with neighbors... the Courts are used to protect govt. if they issue decisions against govt's interest, then those decisions are not implemented... these are few examples, rest, both countries are suffering more highly incompetent or corrupt people managing their day-to-day affairs...
Education is seen as key - but democracy in the west which is far more educated - isn’t exactly perfect either - albeit better than ours. Or did you mean something else by object oriented education?
You’re either giving too little credit to Indian democracy or too much to Pakistani democracy. Our democratic process is a farce compared to India, not that India is an example to look up to - (in which case imagine what we are). Not one, not two, not three, but FOUR army dictators compared to 1 civilian dictator in India.
I don’t know much about Indian democracy - but with the BJP being able to gain seats on hate speech, with a culture of land grabbing going on in India, it doesn’t seem like democracy for the common person means much over there either. This seems like an excellent article:
Object oriented education system requires detailed reply, i am not sure if this thread is good for it or not
The democracy of India, means the fate of over a billion people is driven by the mood swing of a family or by feeling of hatred towards muslims or Pakistan.. if that is democracy to you, then surely India is biggest democracy. Where the development of the masses is confined to install a water-tap or a bathroom, where even after 60 years of continuous democracy, masses still suffer from all the ills any non-democratic govt can offer.. anyway, this is not the subject matter…but ofcourse are the reasons SAARC is a failed institute.
congress dictatorship is total BS,even bigger bs is gandhi family.
gandhi or his family never took any official position in adminstration,this people belong to nehru family with gandhi surname
india is a very big country.people tend to give more importance to state politics then central,every state has it's own budget.except in few states every state has non congress government :)
and my state has congress government ,if gandhi family runs from any constituency they have no chance of winning.
it's more to do with local leaders and particular community supporting the political parties :)
Object oriented education system requires detailed reply, i am not sure if this thread is good for it or not
The democracy of India, means the fate of over a billion people is driven by the mood swing of a family or** by feeling of hatred towards muslims or Pakistan..** if that is democracy to you, then surely India is biggest democracy. Where the development of the masses is confined to install a water-tap or a bathroom, where even after 60 years of continuous democracy, masses still suffer from all the ills any non-democratic govt can offer.. anyway, this is not the subject matter...but ofcourse are the reasons SAARC is a failed institute.
this is even bigger BS.
may be in cities,but in town and villages no one cares about this issues,BJP winning is more to do with local leaders of those particulars states and their strong community votes plus anti for current government,best example is southern state of karnataka they have nothing to do with religious issues
^^ Hanibal I agree with you as far as saying Indian democracy is flawed - the link I shared is an article by Vandana Shiva a prominent intellectual in India says as much.
However Hanibal you must believe that Indian democracy is much better than ours. In the life time of an Indian who was 20 years old at the time of partition - he/she has had numerous opportunities to take part in regular elections which institutionalize accountable democracy. The fact that India can have a cross part dialogue about corruption and attempt to table a bill which does something about it - speaks to the strength of Indian democracy. Sometimes us Pakistanis should call a spade a spade - however flawed and ugly Indian democracy might be - it is much better than ours.
^^, If 70% people are living in poverty, if there are dozens of separatist movements running in country then there is something terribly wrong with the system and the democracy, either people are blind enough to not to see all this and keep electing the loosers or this whole democracy saga is just an illusion...
Yes if common Indians have lived in ( Ok not as good as US) but lets say in lot more better state, where they don't have to suffer, where they don't have to commit suicide just to benefit other family members, where they are not subject to caste/religious division, yes i would believe that there is democracy in India... but after 60 odd years of independence, we still see that majority of common Indians are deprived of their basic right to have access to clean water, health and better education and we call it democracy....
I am not going to compare it with Pakistan... who have its own set of problems, where Generals have ruled for half of its life... but being the biggest democracy in the world, one should have some clear goals and goods delivered to its people... and if the welfare of the commoners are not the subject or priority, then democracy or no democracy... won't make any difference...
and this is the basic reason for SAARC to fail, the rulers of South Asia, wears the mask of democracy ( even generals in Pakistan says that they are elected... now beat that) but do very little or nothing to deliver the fruits of democracy to the peoples... doesn't which country you pick in south asia, common people share same plight and lack access to the basics of the life... the purpose of SAARC was to have prosperity in the region, but when the priority of the govts in South Asia is not the prosperity, then how can SAARC succeed...