are (estranged) children of the same mother. One would expect them to have a lot in common, and if you look hard, you will be amused at how much they share in culture, food, traditions and societal/national issues. What you don’t have to look hard for, however, is the blaring similarity is their mutual hatred for the other. With both countries going nuclear in 1998, turning a blind eye to resolving this blatant hatred and concentrating on differences is playing into the hands of cynical political agendas on both sides of the border. Here is a RADICAL proposal that might actually work!
Look at the European Union. The unthinkable is “working” there! A communist East Germany unified with the West. France and Germany, the epitome of hatred decided to put aside their differences and work for the good of a greater Europe. Underdeveloped countries of the East merged with the developed West. The result: a win-win situation for all parties involved. So what if the Euro is not as powerful today as the founders of the EU had hoped it to be, it is still the second most powerful currency in the world, far more powerful than the Mark/Lira etc were or ever would be. Most of all, the human impact of the unification is alarming. Virtual borders have created a wealth of opportunities to the Eastern nations, while the Western conglomerates enjoy much cheaper costs. In a way, outsourcing to India has suffered from the formation of the EU!
What if, we had a unified India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. A subcontinent union? While we are at it, why not think of a unified country as against just an economic zone? Have a strooo…ooong urge to dismiss it as being non pragmatic? Brace yourself, for it has happened in Deutschland and the EU and as preposterous as it seems, its potential to alleviate a number of problems on both sides of the border, like the nuclear standoff, is gargantuan. Sure there are hurdles, but are they impasses?
I am no economist, and don’t want to go into the micro-differences in each countries’ economies. But at the macro level, differences seem minimal. Per capita income of
Pakistan and
India is not very different (128th vs 122nd position!) but
Bangladesh is a little (not too far) behind at the 143rd position.
Bangladesh and
Pakistan may have a lot of state control in the economy, but hey,
India only got liberated in 1990. If the EU can integrate economies of varied strengths, integrating those of three similar ones doesn’t require an Einstein.
Religion and minority rights were pawns used by the British in a classic example of the divide and rule policy for the creation of
Pakistan and thereby a weak subcontinent. I am of strong conviction that the overwhelming sentiment of oneness between the Hindus and Muslims after the Dandi march would have carried over into the new united
India if not for the Nehru-Jinnah power struggle and the British exploitation of the same. The seeds of Hindu-Muslim hatred might have been sowed by Mughal tyrants, but its fortification was in the 1947 riots. Sure the Koran preaches death to polytheists, but the Bible holds polytheism in the same light and Christians and Hindus don’t seem to “hate” each other like Hindus and Muslims do. And as has been stated before, the events of 1947 have a lot more to do with it than actual ‘religious’ differences. What is needed however is a ‘reform’ in Islam, the same way that Hinduism was reformed in the 1880-1947 (Undesirable elements like the caste system, sati and polygamy were abolished). A reform in Islam would preach tolerance and deplore extremism, would not take the Koran verbatim but would preach its significance in the MODERN WORLD and work towards abolishing practices undermining women.
Fact is, the religious problems faced by modern
India would continue as is in a unified greater
India. And why is that still NOT a reason for Muslims from
Bangladesh and
Pakistan to oppose unification? Because there is widespread (illegal) immigration from
Bangladesh into
India (which seems to suggest that life in
India, irrespective of religion is better) and if the Pak-India border were not a militarized zone, the case would have been the same there. Pakistani Muslims claim that their condition is better than the average Indian Muslim. They cite literacy levels and per capita income of Indian Muslims to be lesser than the Pakistani national average. That is NOT true!
Pakistani national average is 54% as against
60% of Indian Muslims!! I could not source information comparing per-capita income of the Indian Muslim community, but I do suspect it to be VERY close to the Pakistani average.
Let me make the case for unification stronger for
Pakistan and
Bangladesh. Free speech, free press, freedom of religion (especially for their minorities), free and prosperous economy (fourth largest in the world) with extremely high growth rates in the service sector (white collar jobs!), a liberal rendition of
Islam and a STABLE democracy are unimaginable feats in the near future for either of the two nations.
What is in it for
India? A lot. Geographies which were Indian since eternity shall once again be a part of the mother land. In fact, the Sindh valley was the birth place of Hinduism! By land area, Greater India would be the third or fourth largest in the world and by human capital, numero uno! And no more defense spending on the LoC!! No nuclear standoffs!
I am certain that the extremist factions on both sides would vehemently pursue a partitioned India. But how long should/will we let religion get the better of the state and humanity? How long will vested political interests blind the masses? What we need is a prosperous, democratic and secular Bharath (Greater India), not a Hindustan or an Islamistan. I have only presented the benefits of getting there, how to get there against religious extremism is for a later post, or audience interaction.
