The crisis now rocking Pakistan springs directly from the disaster of
Partition 60 years ago. The cards that it scooped up, in the rush to carve
out a separate Muslim state, were not just inferior to India’s; they were
inadequate to build any kind of stable nation.
In this week’s commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the independence of
India and Pakistan from British rule, Pakistan’s desperate struggles have
often been treated merely as a foil with which better to display the shining
performance of its giant neighbour. India, revelling in its status as the
world’s largest democracy, has arrived at the memorial date at the crest of
a glittering boom, while Pakistan is a military dictatorship on the brink of
emergency rule.
Yet the shard of light for Pakistan is that the heat is draining out of its
obsessive dispute with India over Kashmir, and that its battles are now
internal ones and concern its own identity – the 60-year-old question that
it has failed to resolve.
To say that Partition left Pakistan in an almost untenable position is not to
say that it could have been avoided. Reams of historical analyses point out
that Muslims in British India had good reason to fear that rule by the huge
Hindu majority would never protect their rights or even their lives.
There is a clear lesson for the US in Iraq today from the British delusion
that the elections of 1937 and 1946, which Britain supervised, and were won
overwhelmingly by the Hindu-led Congress party, would be all that was needed
for stable democracy. Instead, they confirmed Muslims in their belief that
they needed their own state.
The first curse of Partition was that it defined Pakistan by religion (even
though many of its citizens had not, until then, defined themselves that
way). But it left unclear whether the country would be a secular democracy,
with equal rights for all, or an Islamic state with Islamic law. The death
of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, its founder, after a year, was a fatal blow to the
first vision; Islamist rhetoric was a tempting tool for his successors.
The crude assignation of territory, after just a few weeks of study by British
officials, may also have been too great a handicap to overcome. It left
Pakistan with no sense of nationhood. It was never likely that East
Pakistan, later Bangladesh, and West Pakistan, a thousand miles away, would
hold together as one country. But West Pakistan, the base of the army, had
the lion’s share of resources, while East Pakistan was shorn of Calcutta,
the glittering regional hub.
Even Pakistan as it is now, four provinces plus part of Kashmir, struggles to
have a sense of identity. Punjab, the richest province, was split with
India; the separatist hopes of the Pashtuns in what is now North West
Frontier Province and the Baluchis in Baluchistan were dismissed, but have
now erupted.
The unresolved row with India over Kashmir was the trigger for the 1965 war,
the first of three, which cut short an economic boom. That prevented
Pakistan from tackling a profound handicap: the lack of a middle class
between its feudal lords and the poor. The army and Civil Service were the
only institutions capable of running the country, an early salvation and a
later curse, blocking the emergence of a respected political class.
All these are still evident. The current turmoil is a contest over whether
religion or the State should have the upper hand, and whether politicians or
the army should represent the State.
But there are encouraging signs. The most extraordinary is that President
Musharraf has pushed forward peace with India, even though, in his army
career, he had helped to inflame the Kashmir row.
The example of India’s new wealth has helped, too, as the prosperity of the
Republic of Ireland helped to jolt Northern Ireland towards peace.
Pakistanis cannot pretend, as they could 30 years ago, that their country
had simply taken a different course. The US aid injected since September 11,
2001, a terror dividend, if you like, has helped to save Pakistan from sour
despair. This summer has shown that Pakistan has also got judges and media
who are not afraid to challenge the generals. What it still lacks, most of
all, are politicians.
There are a couple of glaring omissions from this entire debate.
Firstly, The only man to have saved his own people (Muslims of south Asia) from near certain complete annihilation and humiliation.
Secondly, created a country
and Thirdly, to change the map of the world-even though he was dying was the founder and leader of the Muslim league-Mohamed Ali Jinnah. The ideals of the great man were indeed breath-taking and a shame for Pakistan that he could not have been at the helm for 5 years.
In contrast Gandhi and Nehru were very devious. Nehru managed to have all 20 boundary commissioners being Indian and hence totally biased. Wanting Britain out Gandhi instructed all to not co-operate with British war effort unlike Jinnah.
There have been five leaders of Pakistan who were from a Indian background. The simple truth is that the ones who did not heed the chants by the mobs to leave were the ones who could not afford to go or were too rich to leave!
Yusuf Ola, Batley, West Yorks
I have read alot of emails on this page. I think the reason why many Indians say bad things about Pakistan is because they know we pakistanis ended up with the best land out of the whole of India . 82% of Punjab is in Pakistan compare to only 18% in India.
Pakistan doesn't have world's biggest slums like India has, according to the UN 800million Indians live in slums on less than 40 rupees aday. The only Indian who cares about Indians who live in slums is my favourite singer lata mangeshkar, who recently built a hospital so that people who live in slums could atleast get free treatment.
Pakistan doesn't have the religious tension that India has, eg when 1 Sikh man killed Indira ghandi in 1984 , thousands of Sikhs were killed and 75'000 were put in prisons, what for , for one man's crime. Only recently 2500 muslims were killed because they were muslims, it didn't matter the fact that they were Indians.
May Allah put love instead of hate in Indian and Pakistani peoples hearts.
mohammed, West Midlands,
The strain in relations between people of Pakistan and those of India is breathing on the hatred generated by people like Mr Ganapati. Every word that he speaks carries a message of hatred for muslims. I dont want to go on giving details of atrocities committed in State of Gujrat against Muslims and other minorities rather I would like to give an advice to people like Mr Ganapati, that, future lies in good relations between two countries, more people to people contact and in forgetting the past. Lets take a new start with no hatred or dislike for any religion or sect. Thanks
Omar, Karachi, Pakistan
to call muslims terrorists, seems to me amazing when one sees what the Indian army is doing and has been doing in kashmir now its 60 years...nobody can be as blind as Mr Ganapati living in US in comfort. HOw can you even deny the atrocities inflicted on a muslim majority state? done by people with God Knows what agenda...May you never feel the terror that the Indian Army inflicts upon these helpless people...
fate, jalalabad,
Pakistan was built on foundation of sand. Pakistan was always dominated by the military, therefore, democracy was never able to root itself in Pakistan.
Pakistan is a country, where lot of terrorist groups train and launch attack on non-Islamic countries. India has been severly affected by Pakistsani sponsored terrorism. Millions of Hindus and Sikhs were forced to flee Pakistan.
India is a peaceful country, because it is having the tolerant and secular minded Hindus.
Hindus have been subjugated to cruel and barbaric Islamic rulers, who destroyed, the ancient and rich Hindu civilization and culture, however, these rogues could not succeed entirely in their scheme.
The Islamo- Fascist terrorists are trying to do the same in UK.
Britain and other Western nations should closely monitor the activities of extremist muslims in their countries
Ganapati Hegde, Dallas, United States
I really don't understand how you can call India a booming country when 800 million Indians live in slums on less than 50 pence per day, according to the British news, India is not booming for them. Also, if India is such a rich country how come 10 million Indians live abroad, many of them, in muslim countries for example Dubai or Saudi Arabia. It would be nice if India was booming, so I won't have to see so much misery reported from the slums of Bombay, in the western media.
Mohammed, West Midlands,
Sharif has been ejected this shows the true colours of Pak dictatorship.When will the people of Pakistan wakeup and take power from the generals as the generals are in no hurry to give it away.Its time for sacrifices
Sayeda bibi, Isleworth,
...the point of the largely unsuccessful Siachin glacier foray was to gain a foothold and then branch out laterally to sever Pakistan's land links with its ally - China.
Paul Medhurst (former Political Assistant to the Chief Military Observer, UN Military Observer Group in India & Pakistan)., Vienna, Austria
What planet are you on? Please get your facts straight!
In 1999, PAKISTAN sent infiltrators to occupy vacated Indian posts across the Line of Control leading to the Kargil Conflict.
Maharaja Hari Singh chose to accede his Kingdom to India and the paper was co-signed by Lord Mountbatten. His mind was made up by the invasion of Pashtuns from Pakistan. ALL of Kashmir belongs to India legally under International The UN negotiated a ceasefire. This required Pakistan to withdraw its forces from Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, both regular and irregular. It was never done so a plebiscite could not be held. SInce then nearly 400000 Kashmir Hindus were killed or ethnically cleansed.
Rod Polisher, Scunthorpe, UK
Pakistan cannot prosper well while at war (a state of war exists with just a ceasefire in place). No peace is possible without first settling the Kashmir dispute - and the real issue underlying that dispute is the massive water flowing from the Himalayas that passes through Jammu & Kashmir and feeds much of Pakistan's agriculture.
Then there is the China question - the point of the largely unsuccessful Siachin glacier foray was to gain a foothold and then branch out laterally to sever Pakistan’s land links with its ally - China.
Then there are a number of senior people making a lot of illicit money (as in all armed conflicts – war is far more profitable than the astonishing amounts of money made by drug trafficking) from the present status quo - the dispute is considered by a number of politicians on both sides as a solution - the status quo is the solution – they will not be happy to see détente in a measure that might lead to a full and enduring peace.
Paul Medhurst (former Political Assistant to the Chief Military Observer, UN Military Observer Group in India & Pakistan)., Vienna, Austria
Pakistan has it's problems but comments made by some are really misleading. Khan from London states that "top businessmen, showbiz personalities, politicians, office workers etc they are all Punjabis. The partition only helped Punjabis and Mullahs." Well I then wonder which group Musharraf belongs to. Or for that matter Bhutto. And when have the Mullahs been in power. In free elections, they never poll more than 5% of the votes. Punjab is by far the largest province and is it really surprising that Punjabi's occupy a greater proportion of positions than others. The so-called Muhajir's represent a disproportionately large section of top civil positions and have done so since independence. I am not critical of any group and expect each to be represented based on ability. Divisive comments achieve nothing. I agree that we have a culture of blame in Pakistan and the Muslim world in general and blame US, UK, India etc. for every problem and rarely hold our hands up and admit our mistakes.
Dar, Odessa, USA
This is my message to most Pakistanis who have written anti-Indian and anti-Brtish comments.
Firstly I was born and brought up in Pakistan and am now settled in UK. The only people the creation of Pakistan has benefitted are the extremist and bigoted Punjabis. They influenced Jinnah to fight for partition because they themselves did not possess the acumen and willpower to do so. Most Muslims on the Indian side did not bother about Partition- even renowened leaders like Sir Syed Ahmed Khan etc. That is why only a few million actually migrated to Pakistan and why 130 million still remain in India.
Muhajirs, Sindhis and Baluchis are still discriminated against. Muhajirs especially are not even considered by Punjabis as "Pakistanis". The top businessmen, showbiz personalities, politicians, office workers etc they are all Punjabis. The partition only helped Punjabis and Mullahs.
Khan, London,
Bronwen Maddox - You should see successes that Indian muslims have achieved in India versus Pakistan in Politics, Sport and Commerce.
Yes, they have faced many hurdles - but are more successful than their counterparts in Pakistan. Despite being Muslims, the Mohajirs, Sindhi's, Baluchi's have faced many more inequities than Indian muslims.
Hardip Bains, San Francisco, USA
Who blew up the Pakistani train in India?
Finaly between Mountbatten, Gandhi and Nehru a plan was hatched to handicap Pakistan by unfair partition that it would have no chance of surviving but their extreme dissapointment it survived and with the possesion of nuclear capability it is certainly outside the Indian abilities to destroy it.
Arshed, London, Uk
Pakistan is an irrelevance to most Indians. India is looking to the global stage whereas Pakistan is still trying its best to get one over on India. Frankly, Pakistan and its leadership cannot be trusted. This includes people like Benazir Bhutto, who I recall on Panorama flatly denying Pakistan was developing nuclear weapons or had any interest in doing so. I use the word "developing" loosely as it is well documented that AQ Khan stole the blueprints from Urenco when he was working in Holland!
As for "NAB Coventry" assertion of an evil neighbour, if he recalls his history correctly, all 3 India-Pakistan wars were started (and lost) by Pakistan over Kashmir, a land it has no legal right to. If it was so concerned about Kashmir, it wouldn't have ceded some of the territory to China in an attempt to internationalize the dispute. Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is squalid in comparison to the rest. So much for Pakistani concern and development.
Rod Polisher, Scunthorpe, UK
BTW, why was the recent earthquake appeal called the "Asian" earthquake appeal? Simply because if it had been called the Pakistani earthquake appeal, far less money would have been donated. The term "Asian" is usually used by Pakistanis or politically correct organisations whenever something negative happens such as the 7/7 bombings. Carried out by Pakistanis but blamed on "Asians'. Indians are proud enough to call themselves Indian and don't want to be tarred by the "Asian" Pakistani brush!
Rod Polisher , Scunthorpe, UK
When u say that "Pakistan’s desperate struggles have often been treated merely as a foil with which better to display the shining performance of its giant neighbour."
Why dont u mention the aid that India is abt 7 times the size of Pakistan. India didnt allow the transfer of funds when Pakistan came into being. India had 65 industries whereas Pakistan didnt have a single factory since the areas that came under Pakistan unfortunately were not developed under the British rule.
Isnt it mentionable that Great Soviet Union was supplying a barrage of destructive weapons to India for free and all that Pakistan was getting from its Cento and Seato so-called allies were just void assurances.
Pakistan had to destroy itself and fight the war for US in Afghanistan. What did it get in result?? PRESSLER Ammendment !!!
INDIA CONDUCTED NUCLEAR TEST IN 1974, why did the World part. FREE World ignore this for 25 yrs. However Pak was badly sanctioned when it conducted in the late 90s.
NAB, Coventry, UK
The biggest Success for Pakistan is to survive in a Geo-political such a dangerous area as well as despite a evil neighbor. Inspite of this Pakistan economy is growing fast and is one of the seven nuclear states.
NAB, Coventry, UK
A very fine piece by Mr.Bronwen. It may be implicit in his article,however something which may deserve specific mention is the crisis of identity of Pakistan, particularly since the separation of East Pakistan in 1971.Prolonged periods of military rule have deprived the people of the smaller provinces of any sense of participation in the governance of the country. Their identity, felt needs and aspirations find no place in the sham ideology concocted by semi literate persons with dubious intellectual and other credentials. National security with an overdose of religiosity interpreted exclusively by the army and its fellow travellers is what constitues patriotism.Any dissent is considered tantamount to treason.Mr. Jinnah's foundation speech of August 11, 1947, declaring all citizens to be equals and religion having nothing to do with business of the state have been conveniently removed from his much touted tradition. One ray of hope may be the growing independence of the supreme court.
Afzal A. Neseem, LIncoln, Nebraska
I am sure Ms. Maddox would be happy to provide the evidence supporting this sweeping statement:
"Reams of historical analyses point out that Muslims in British India had good reason to fear that rule by the huge Hindu majority would never protect their rights or even their lives. "
Perhaps the 120M muslims in India today living not under but as one with majority hindus will find this comment interesting. Perhaps also the last Indian President, current Indian Vice President, numerous bollywood stars and numerous muslim industrialists who take pride in being Indian first and muslim second will particularly agree with Ms. Maddox's sentiments.
Of course I am sure Ms. Maddox will also find evidence, which reflects similar levels of successes of Hindus in today's Pakistan.
Prabhat, UK,
yes and iraqq a nightmare sixty years on,but pakistan/india had no oil, can we assume we have found the reason why britain left the jewel,some say britain was told to leave by america.
michael joseph heavey, cahersiveen/adams town, MADNESS
Really? Religion was not an accidental unfortunate factor, it was the very driving force of this fanatical move by Jinna to create a Muslim state. It was his fault, and Islam globally is proving before our eyes daily that it does not, without much modification, have the resources to base a stable free state. When such modification is attempted, eg by Attaturk using the army to enforce non clerical rule, it is gradually eroded by the power of the mosque as is now happening. Sorry, Pakistan has able people, lots of motivation, goodwill, but it is Islamic - there is the root of its instablity, since moderate or secular Muslims are always having to fight off the hard liners. Politically incorrect I know, but irrefutable?
Hildebrand, Abingdon, UK
"Reams of historical analysis (in the pre-1947 era) show... Hindu majority will not protect muslim rights..." says Ms.Maddox. I am not sure what sort of analysis she may be referring to or whether the "reams" were all British pink or Islamic green !! Whatever, India's muslim minority is doing a lot better than minorities in Pakistan, such as the Ahmadias, Shias, Christians, Sikhs and Hindus or, for that matter, the Hindu minority in Bangla Desh - the other "Islamic state".
Non-Muslim minorities' proportion of Pakistan's population has been coming down, while the muslim proportion of India's population has been going up and up, since 1947 to date.
Proof of the pudding.... after all the "reams of historical so-called analysis ".... !!! It won't be too long before British treatment of her muslim minority could spawn calls for partition - amazing chickens come back home to roost . List the countries with muslim minorities waiting to be partitioned ?
Kris iyer, Wellington, NewZealand
G Tingey, as an English man, I'm afraid you have no say.
See, the English left the sub-continent. Before doing so, they split the sub-continent. Conveniently, they forgot to allocate Kashmir to either side. This resulted in 3 wars. Over a million dead, villages looted, women raped, children murdered.
Thank you Pink Englishman - when we want to shoot ourselves in the foot, we'll give you a call.
India suffers poverty, Pakistan suffers political turmoil. Big problems, but nothing we are unable to overcome. India is growing at 9%, Pakistan at 7%.
In the meantime, the British have lost Hong Kong, your stock market is a shambles, the surge in your house prices is being driven by our money, and you can't even play cricket.
What do they say about people in glass houses?
Hassan, Birmingham, UK
A much balanced article except that I find the comments on Politicans, not based on research into causes of such a failure. Successive Military rules have consciously promoted the psychophants and the compromising type. When someone sells his political stature to a dictator it has to be for material benifits. The mother of all evils has been the military rules but it seems pakistanis now realize this more than ever before. Successive honest elections (not supervised by army) will be the only way to cleanse the system. Pakistans future success and progress lies in convincing the army to do its own job only and provide secure borders. Once borders are secure politicians can take a while learning. It is my belief that with independent judiciary and media they will surprise the nation. The will is there but good people are shy to enter politics. No Parents want their child to become a politician in todays Pakistan since the future is so insecure and the path so dirty.
M. Afzal Khan, Faisalabad, Pakistan
some valid points in the article...had the Military not intervened in Pakistani politics the country would have been far more democratic and its institutions would have been far stronger.
The last para sums up the whole situation in that country.
The Politicians have yet to prove their mettle in the current struggle. That country is far ahead of the its politcal leaders sitting in London or Dubai.
Those who are reading and following the pulse of that nation deserve leadership
abrar, Ontario,
After India gained independence and Partition took place, 7 million Hindus and Sikhs had to flee Pakistan, over 25% of the Pakistani population, of the part that is Pakistan today.. 7 million Muslims went the other way but they were not fleeing India. they were the ones that wanted. 30 million or about 9% remained.
Today less than 2% of Pakistan is Hindu. Muslims in India grew to 13%. The richest man in India is a Muslim, owner of an IT firm. Muslims dominate the furniture and tanning industries and making headway into pharmaceuticals. All this success does not suggest oppression. Today hardly any Muslim in India will want to go to Pakistan even though to most India is less dear than beloved Pakistan.
Regarding Kashmir, the only dispute is how soon can or will, Pakistan and China vacate the parts of Jammu and Kashmir that rightfully belong to India. J & K acceded t India according to the rules in place at Partition. The referendum proposed by the UN is now a moot issue.
Jai Khosla, New York, USA
The artificality of borders, division of peoples and ethnic splits in this unfortunate state may best be resolved by the collapse of it as a functioning country. The consequent division of its territory by the neighbours could be the last best hope for a stable and peaceful future for all the peoples of the region. Punjab and the Thar desert to India, the tribal areas to Afghanistan, and Balochistan to Iran ?
Watch and wait....
T Hunter, Aylesbury,
Pakistan has made enormous economic progress considering that it was the most underdeveloped part of united India in 1947 with very little infrastructure and virtually no funds that were all grabbed by India. Current GDP growth is similar to India and the country also has a higher per capita income than India. Pakistan does not have the wealth of India but also does not have the same level of dire poverty. I agree that the country has now to decide between state and religion and follow or discard the vision of its founder for whom religion was a personal matter. Pakistan had had 35 years of military rule and India had the Nehru family to rule over the country for majority of the 60 years. The Congress Party still needs a family figurehead to attract votes in the so called biggest democracy in the world.
asad, London, England
New nations require time to develope identity, culture, economy, education, defence. In 1947 we were given independance reluctantly, handicapped to fail. Mountbatten & Nehru had convinced themselves that they had fooled, and forced Jinnah to take worthless pieces of land with poorly educated people, poorly armed defence forces.
Pakistan was never expected to survive. If British & Indian plans had worked it would have been a still birth of a nation.
American aid only came as trade for support against USSR, and later support against Al Qaeeda from Pakistan. Our Army reflects our people. Yes there is corruption, by there is also loyalty, Our defence forces have invested, we did not become Nuke power for free, we have well equipped air force, well equipped navy, well equipped army. well able to defend our people, Yes it is not equipped to kill innocents in other countries, Yes we did dishonurable acts in Bangladesh may Allah forgive us, We will learn from our mistakes and not copy others
Sajad Ali Khan, London, United Kingdom
It is interesting to see that most of us are talking about the same few lines of the article. Before I get to my point, I'd like to add that is a well written article and sums up quite beautifully the current state of Pakistan in its historical context.
Now with regards to this:
"Reams of historical analyses point out that Muslims in British India had good reason to fear that rule by the huge Hindu majority would never protect their rights or even their lives."
It is not just the fear. It has been proven true if you remember the Gujarat pogroms of 2002. Over 2000 innocent muslims were killed by a hindu terrorists in India. No one has been brought to justice. The Chief Minister Narendra Modi who oversaw the massacre is still in power in the state of Gujarat. Now if this is "revelling in its status as the world’s largest democracy", then the west can keeps its democracy. We don't want to be part of any of it.
Ahsan Hussein, San Francisco, United States
Mike Bibby, are you from Mars and what are you talking about. Hindus in Pakistan are landlords, industrialists, members of national and provincial assemblies, ministers, a few weeks back chief justice of Pakistan was a Hindu, doctors, engineers, lawyers, traders and heads of universities, engineering institutes and superintendents of hospitals etc. my university's engineering institute's is a Hindu and chairman of my department is also a Hindu. Two other teachers in my department are Hindus. If you ask me the reality, a few days back out of the 18 doctor's selected, from the interior parts of Sindh province, to serve in Karachi, 14 were Hindus. If you again go to the Sindh province you will find that Hindus are dominant in trade, teaching and medicine. Look at things from an unbiased eye. As a matter of fact, although it is usually asked about the religion before selection in public service departments, but on merit Christians, Parsis, Hindus are selected without any discrimination.
Mehmud, Karachi,
"Reams of historical analyses point out that Muslims in British India had good reason to fear that rule by the huge Hindu majority would never protect their rights or even their lives"
The above is not true. As a case in point, why dont you look at the Indian Muslims since freedom? There have been riots but the muslims in India have greater rights and safety than the muslims in pakistan. This despite being less than 18% of the population. In an undivided India, muslims would have been 40% of the population. It is ridiculous to say that 400 million muslims in an undivided India would have to fear for their lives.
S Prasad, San Jose, USA
The prosperity in Pakistan is indeed evident on every visit. Even visiting Indians who come by the thousands every year, thanks to better relations, show their great surprise. Pakistan has a higher per capita income than India and does not have the same degree of abject poverty. The country has come a long way since 1947 when it was carved out of British India, inheriting the least developed part of the country. Depite being labelled a "failed state" by some, the country continue to advance economically and its media is as free as India's. It needs better politicians rather than the merry go round of BB and MNS.
asad, London, England
I was born in Pakistan, Like millions , at five I have to leave my birth place. My parents had lost every thing. We had no money, no place to live, no land and no hope. At the stroke of midnight when Pakistan was born and India got it's independence, we were besotted from well to do family to zero. Should I applaud or congratulate the fathers of two nations, namely Gandhi and Jinah...? In 2005 I was able to visit my village. The village I had pictured in my thaughts was a shanty image, only some faded signs I was able to depict. But the people I met, very simple fox, knew my parents. They were overwhelmed to see me. Entering Islamabad young man proudly pointed to me toward the poster of young Jinah "there is a poster of the father of Pakistan." During this journey, out of the conversation he asked me,"why we have the borders.? Which confirmed my belief that partition was a wrong idea for the indian sub-continent. No argument please, very wrong was done to us.
Kashmir Singh Bains, Duncan,B.C., Canada
Indians on this forum seems quite reasonable in their opinions. But let me add some more. People like Gul Agha, despite the fact that they are highly educated, are the ones really responsible for the ills of Pakistan, defaming it and jeopardizing it's existance. I have no second thought over my comment.
Economic boom is as much evident in Pakistan as it is in India. The difference is, India is a much big market as compared to Pakistan and the consequences are evident. Indian's leads in IT sector while Pakistan has a much better Telecommunication infrastructure as compared to India. Infact GSM association's recent report on market singles out Pakistan as best. Higher in quality and technology as compared to its immediate neighbors.
Consider the fact that when pakistan came into being, there were hardly two factories in this whole area while Indian's already have an atomic reactor at Tarapur. Considering this fact and a recent look at Pakistan's economy tells a good progress story.
Shiraz , Blekinge,
I guess you could say - paradox, the General is the victim of his own success. Musharraf came to power espousing essence of democracy - free media, rule of law, state institutions. He encouraged these forces, tried to overstep the mark. They bit back for the first time in Pakistans history. Is this the last time the Generals will be in power.
Pakistan has enjoyed boom - property prices in Lahore, Karachi, Islamabad, parts of Kashmir are higher or equivalent prices to UK. Pakistanis over there, are now enjoying relative better standards of living than many immigrant UK Pakistanis.
Indias boom - no more poverty or 600 million below the poverty line. Have they no more caste system, have they no ore Nagaland, Tamils, Sikhs. Have 700000 troops been withdrawn from Kashmir or is this the democracy the West forgets
Both I&P are booming, it is just that most Western media are unbalanced about Pakistan, repeat the cliches, without actually doing the research - but more anti Muslim.
Shaffiq Mahmood, Halifax, UK
Its indeed balanced. Problem with most western commentators is that they do "table analysis" and end up bashing Pakistan. Maddox has experience in world politics and follows knows journalistic ethics in letter and spirit. Indian bloggers are thronging it with their hatred. From a country that did not have pen and paper and furniture , no clerks and no roads, has stood up to India in however way it could. India, a country that continues to live in bitter relation with literally all of its neighbours -- Pakistan remains a point of annoyance. Good Luck Indian friends.
Sajjad Hafeez, London, UK
There are comparisons to be made between the situation in Iraq, at present, and that in India in 1947 but it is is wrong pretend that the British were 'deluded' in thinking that the elections of '37 and '46 were 'all that was needed for stable democracy'.
The British had no such delusion. They were greatly concerned at the potential consequences of partition and were, in principle, against it. To pull out appeared to be the best of a number of bad options, of which the worst would be to stay to mediate between warring factions.
Personally, I believe this is where we stand today; The original objectives have been met, ie; WMDs dispersed or destroyed and UN mandate enforced. Now, as various groups settle old scores and Ikeda use this opportunity, we should pull out and consider, very carefully, what the West should be doing, on the broader scale, to ensure ongoing peace and prosperity.
john Cullen (ex Liverpool), Cork, Ireland
partition ws a crime second only to the Holocaust. Al our troubles now stem from government ineptitude in Post Ottoman Empire, Mesopotamia; Versaiiles afterr World War One and Yalta and the rushed abandonment of Empire after World War Two
ian skidmore, march, cambs
I have a very simple rule of thumb to distinguish betwen warring factions - how do they treat their minorities.
The Hindus in Pakistan who survived partition have effectively been eliminated. The Moslems in India have prospered (one a Prime Minister) and multiplied (on some accounts there are more Moslems in India than in Pakistan).
Try the same rule on other trouble spots, for example Jews in Palestine versus Arabs in Israel; Protestants in Eire versus Catholics in Northern Ireland - and you will recognise the truth!
Mike Bibby, St Albans, England -not EU
Pakistan was created based on the idea that Muslims of India could not be a permanent minority in Hindu dominated united India. So demograpic situation then played a decisve part to divide the India in two states.
However, see what has happened since then. Presently, Pakistan has population of 160m, Bangladesh 140m and India has 200m Muslims, the total Muslims in three countries are half billion. So Muslim population in 3 countries is same as HIindus' in India.
The fear that Muslims would have been a permanent minority in united India has despair. The question which arise is, whether there was need of an independent Muslim state? Has division proved beneficial for the Muslims of Indian sub-continent? I welcome any comments in this regard.
Tahir Shan, London, UK
It would be pertinent to remember that the provincial elections of 1946 in the Muslim majority North West Frontier Province were won by the Congress on an explicit anti-Partition platform under the leadership of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan or Frontier Gandhi.
Abhay Datar, Pune, India
poor reporting, without any indepth analysis. Simple put a shallow reporting style, with no conclusive evidence to support arguments the author was making
omar quli, Mumbai, India
Whats a good book (or books) to read about the emergence and political/economic history of Pakistan. Anything I know about its history is the Gandhi/Nehru/Jinnah/Mountbatten negotiations. I know almost nothing about Pakistan 1949-1971 and only bits thereafter.
hugh claffey, Kildare, Ireland
The uniting force for Pakistanis is hatred towards India. The Pakistani army understood well and using it to stay in power with out any responsibilities. Most of the time the leaders /imams do India baiting instead of talking what is good to Pakistan. . Pakistan is drifting towards anarchy and fanaticism and it is going to be one more Afghanistan
KHA, London, U K
Interesting but there are a few errors. The 1965 war was the second of three wars with India, not the first.
As for identity. When a country is formed on the basis of religion, that becomes its identity. Secularism would have been a contradiction. And that was the folly of Jinnah.
It is true that some of the seeds of today's problems in Pakistan were sown at the time of Partition, but 60 years is not that short a time. Surely it could have done something to reduce the stranglehold of feudalism, to eradicate poverty and illiteracy, not promote fundamentalism or jealousy and hatred of India and other regional neighbours, nor waste money on expensive wars when that could have been used for development?
Pakistan could have been fairer to its majority population and main source of revenue - East Pakistan, instead of trying to dominate and crush its culture.
Religion can't be the means of existence for a state.
B Jamil, London,
the author is either biased against Pakistan or simply does not know much about the topic. To talk about an Indian economic boom and in the same breath talk about emergency rule in Pakistan is stupid, compare like with like. Pakistan has its own economic boom as it happens (in 2005 it actually grew faster than India).
as for the reasons of Pakistan's present status, it is more to do with the status it was in in 1947, India inherited the tools of state, a civil service, an army, a judiciary etc. Pakistan had to create everything from scratch.
To compare the two is such a superficial manner is a favourite past time of people who have never set foot in the region, yet want to lecture others about it.
akram, London,
Why Pakistan has no right over Kashmir? Why should Kashmir be part of India or an Independet State? Have people of Kashmir no right over their own future?
Liaqat Hussain, Bradford, United Kingdom
Balochistan, 40% of the land mass of what is now Pakistan, never voted for Pakistan, rather it voted for its independence.
Balochistan was forcibly occupied by Pakistani troops less than a year after its independence and those fighting for its freedom have since been brutally suppressed.
The 30 million plus Sindhis in Pakistan, are predominantly sufi. Sindh was a land of religious harmony. The only time a majority was secured by pro-Pakistan forces in Sindh's parliament was with roughly 40% of the popular vote, 60% of the vote going to opponents. British support for Pakistan was evident in this vote--not only by gerrymandering the electorate, but in the use of its vast bureaucracy. That vote in Sindh was secured by promising, in what is now known as the "Pakistan Resolution" two guarantees: "sovereignty and autonomy to constituent units" such as Sindh, and "protection of minorities."
Pakistan survives by denying both the right to self-determination to these nations.
Gul Agha, Champaign, Illinois, USA
A reasonable but simplified analysis.
Pakistan's history starts in 1947 but the people's history has been forged for thousands of years. People's history, culture and belonging cannot be partitioned. Punjabis on both sides of the border share the same language, as do Gujaratis, and there is natural bond despite the politicall derived hostilities.
Perhaps it is the realisation that people on both sides of the border belong to the same ancient civilisation whatever their religion, that will bring eventual peace, trade and prosperity.
For those not historically minded there is tendency to throw the odd phrase based on assumption or even a lrather than fact. In this article it was - 'reams of historical analyses point out that Muslims in British India had good reason to fear that rule by the huge Hindu majority would never protect their rights or even their lives'. I would like the author to give evidence of a single ream. let alone 'reams', that made this statement true in 1947?
Raju Kumar, Stavanger,
The problem with Pakistan is that it is obsessed with army rule and Mullahs. It can only stabalise if it empowers its women, educate the masses and keep them away from hoping God will come for aid. God does not help, as it is. Either the world is ruled by Satan or god is on leave. Or he helps only those who help themselves. Achieving a rule of law and secular ways will help.
Sharlone, Nidderau, Germany
Being the student of Mass Communication here in Pakistan, I would like to contribute my openion after reading this article.
Firstly, Pakistan is the only country on this globe which came into being on a true philosophy and ideology and no other country had such kind of beliefs as the Muslims had in British India
Secondly, question is that if Pakistan is struggling with its internal horrible circumstances, who is in the background to initiate all this? Pakistan played a very vital role in war against terrorism and paid a disastrous price for its own integrity and solidarity. I have no hasitation in saying that Pakistan has fought this for US putting its own nobality on cost, but what reward we get after such a aching effort that US presidential candidates are openly uttering to attack Pakistan's northern region without Pakistan's permission. AMAZING ! Isn't it?
Thirdly, Our help to US cost us a severe and horrible resistance by Suicide attacks across Pakistan. This is what we got
Raja Umar, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
Bronwen Maddox says : "Reams of historical analyses point out that Muslims in British India had good reason to fear that rule by the huge Hindu majority would never protect their rights or even their lives. "
This seems rather contradictory as, by definition, in Britsh India neither Muslims nor Hindus ruled. Even more so "reams of whatever'" would also show that Hindus never did rule over Muslims since the time the country fell to Muslim invasion and rule. So if anything it was the fear of the imagined retribution (after 400 years !) that motivated Muslims to ask for a seperate state.
Some of them got it - at a great price to both communities - and they made the best they could. The results are there to see. The rest of the Muslims in India have seen what it is to be a minority in a democratic state. The results are also there to be seen - good and bad.
Fear of the "unknown unknowns" is always someting to be afraid of.
Gautam Pingle, Hyderabad, India
BUT Pakistan has no right to any of Kashmir - that statelet should either be independant, or part of India.
BTW - I am a pink Englishman ......
G. Tingey, London,
Unless i was seeing things, there is plenty of evidence of an economic boom in Pakistan, it just isn't reported by anybody. All the focus seems to be on India.
As for the troubles in the North West Frontier, its like defining all of Britain by the troubles in Northern Ireland.
What Pakistan does lack as Bronwen has highlighted is a vigorous middle class that can temper the excesses of the feudal class.
Pakistan wont have better politicians until the make up of the political classes changes - currently mostly landowners and their lackeys.
It is changing. New money, the internet, people returning back to Pakistan are slowly breaking the grip of the ruling minority. I'd still give it another 10 years before this will happen, but it will happen. What is needed however, is an alternative to the corrupt duopoloy of Nawaz Sharif & Bhutto. These two individuals have done nothing except loot and pillage for their own personal gain. Humza - maybe you want to consider setting up your own party!
Arif, Sheffield, UK
Nice to see a balanced view regarding Pakistan than is often the case in English newspapers.
It is depressing that the main politicians in Pakistan today are the same dull and self-serving and indivduals that have been around for the last 20 years. This is as to win elections in Pakistan you need lots of money as especially in the rural areas votes need to be bought from the local feudal leader. It is hoped that as the population becomes more educated and media savvy a more representative political class will emerge that will not have to compete with votes being bought.
Nevertheless the vast majority of Pakistanis who actually live in the country are very grateful to Allah and appreciate immensely the sacrifices that the 1947 generation endured for the founding of the country. This is particulaly so in light of the regular communal upheavals that occur across the border.
Finally, while there may be no glittering boom there is no shortage of employment or trade in the country.
Humza Anwar, Gujrat, Pakistan