A South Asian "EU" - supranationalism in the subcontinent

[MyPakistan1947]

How are Pakistanis and indians "more or less the same people"? Less than 5% of the indian population shares ethnicty with Pakistanis... to me ethnicity matters.

 

[MyPakistan1947]

Both india and Pakistan were created in 1947. Keep that in mind.

 

[Ironduke]

even we solve all disputes in south asia,it will be difficult to do so.

Europe has done it - there has been no World War III, because the European Coal and Steel Community launched a revolutionary way of thinking that culminated into today's EU.

There's no reason to fully replicate the full extent of the EU - adopt a more limited integration on the EU model, and devolution on the UK/Belgium/Germany model, and see where fate takes you.

There is nothing to lose by taking limited measures, carefully thought of, but practical and pragmatic in strengthening economic and political ties.

It would be suicide to rush into something like this overnight. Identify sectors, politically, industrially, agriculturally, socially, and move forward in a cautious but forward-looking manner.

 

[Ironduke]

Both india and Pakistan were created in 1947. Keep that in mind.

Isn't history ironic? As the Europeans laid aside their swords for what was all practical purposes, the last time, the problems they faced for centuries replicate themselves in the former British Raj. Britain shares a large share of the blame in creating this situation, btw, a situation that has been hijacked and steered by powerful outside players: the UK, the US, China, Wahhabi Saudi influenced factions, etc.

Time to rid yourself of foreign influence. Would you really have outsiders take advantage of the disorder and chaos that exists in the internal subcontinental political and economic framework, and be used as pawns to advance selfish outside interests?

 

[MyPakistan1947]

We need Pakistani nationalism. Not south asian nationalism.

 

[Ironduke]

How are Pakistanis and indians "more or less the same people"? Less than 5% of the indian population shares ethnicty with Pakistanis... to me ethnicity matters.

The Muslims invaded India after moving through Persia in the 7th century - however, they assimilated large portions of the Indian population, and assimilated themselves into the Indian population with a distinct self-identity that identifies itself with Islam, the Arabs, Persia, Central Asia.

The roots of Pakistan are double - both the above described self-identity, as well as native Indian. You eat the same foods, watch the same movies, speak languages that are mutually intelligible, often identify as "desis" when outside Pakistan or India (as Americans more closely identify with one another overseas than they do domestically).

Ethnicity does matter - but having a false pride in it is only self-destructive to one's own self and others. One should be mindful of their roots, but not use it to harm the rights and interests of people who do not share in that legacy and history.

---------- Post added at 06:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:20 AM ----------

We need Pakistani nationalism. Not south asian nationalism.

Yes, but you can project a broader sense of belonging that is inclusive of India's Muslim population, and rebuild bridges to Bangladesh that were torn in 1971.

 

[rockstarIN]

@Ironduke,

If you are explaining EU as a role model, then why the decentralization of power among our states? EU is the association of European nations not European nation's provinces, right?

This same model worked well when British Raj was there, it was called 'divide and rule'

The power of Washington will raise in South Asia, sorry we reject it..!!

 

[MyPakistan1947]

..............................

 

[MyPakistan1947]

Ironduke,

You need to put your indian flag on display buddy.

Have some dignity and accept this rejection already... we rejected indians and we will continue to reject indians.

Stop trying to tell us our identity comes from indians. india was created in 1947. so why not say indian's culture comes from Pakistan, and all these indians were Pakistani at one point.

 

[Ironduke]

@Ironduke,

If you are explaining EU as a role model, then why the decentralization of power among our states? EU is the association of European nations not European nation's provinces, right?

This same model worked well when British Raj was there, it was called 'divide and rule'

The power of Washington will raise in South Asia, sorry we reject it..!!

rockstar,

You misjudge my motives on the issue in question - you've missed the forest for the trees.

Again, by pursuing a third way, a different framework, you actually free yourself from the influence of Washington. Right now, there is an arrangement between the US and Pakistan that is counterproductive to Pakistani goals.

If the move toward another framework is indigenous, then it is not under foreign control. It is under the control of the domestic subcontinental actors who wish to pursue it.

This time, there is no foreign invader - I believe the subcontinent needs to get its own house in order on its own terms, and quit looking outside for support which in reality undermines your ability to govern yourselves (foreign aid, military aid, wasted dollars that need to be reinvested into your own economy).

Your questioning of my ideas is at its roots, cynical and baseless.

 

[klklkl]

Can you clarify your positions for me?

I'm unfamiliar with the term "Bharat Tantra".

Could you also present your ideas regarding what you feel is the proper form of governance in the subcontinent (and the wider world?)

The idea I'm proposing is an inclusive, pluralistic model.

I may be going off an a tangent:

I believe Islam has a role to play in the governance of majority Muslim states. The nation-states of Europe have Christian Democratic parties that are very successful (Germany and several other countries retain the medieval tithe (9%) which is used to fund hospitals, weddings, nursing homes, funerals, and a multitude of other services that are taken for granted by the people of these stated, but almost universally used.

I do not see any reason my Muslim Democratic parties cannot exist. There is some fear that they are a trojan horse for radical Islamist elements, but I think it is a fear that is based on a subjective blowing out of proportion by Western thinkers and policy makers.

To me, religion is like a hammer - you can use a hammer to build a house where everybody is welcome, or you can use it to build a house where everybody is welcome.

The criticisms of the role of Islam in governance of Islamic nations is hypocritical - they most often come from the same people who advocate a role for Christianity in Western nations. To advocate one's own religion at home in governance and social institutions, and deny that role of religion abroad is a dangerous hypocrisy.

However, I believe if Islam is to play a role in governance, it must at least be tolerant and positive to the broader population. One attracts more flies with honey than vinegar. Allow Islamic democratic parties to flourish (the ideas of Shura - consultation) from the Quran, institute Zakat on an official basis, and use Zakat to fund hospitals, weddings, social institutions, nursing homes, and funeral homes.

Exiling Islamic principles in states where they are ingrained into the population's practices and wishes encourages radicalism and is a dangerous policy.

The Muslim Democratic practices can co-exist and thrive within such a framework, as Christian Democratic principles do in Europe.

The United States is rather unique in separation of church and state - however, religion plays a larger role in governance than it does in nation-states such as Germany where is it officially allowed. The United States is in a rather unique position, however - it is the most religiously diverse nation in the world. In Scandinavia, it is simple: Lutherans (with growing religious minorities). Move to Germany, it's a little more complicated (Catholics and Lutherans). Move to England: largely Anglican and Catholic. France, Spain, Italy: Catholic. Netherlands: Reformed Calvinist and Catholic. Belgium: Catholic.

Europe is more of a model for Islamic countries with regards to the role of religion in governance (which is often unrealized/dismissed by outside analysts, but is in actuality hugely important). The religious divisions in the Islamic world are much more simple than those in the United States, and are more in line with regards to the level of complication as they are in Europe.

The western model of understanding of Pakistan and Afghanistan is from the their own understnading of their desert religion Christianity and their Western-barbaric history.

Yes Islam might be the majority religion of Pakistan and Afghanistan but there there are a few undeniable facts:

1. The type of Islam followed in these 2 majority Muslim states is much different to the type followed in Saudi Arabia and other extreme Islamic states.

2. Undeniably even today there is an inherent presence of Indian culture in their variety of Islam. I will not call it as a Hindu presence because Hindu in itself is not a religion but just a combination of traditions and culture native to the Indian civilzation of which both Pakistan and Afghanistan were a part.

i can cite you several examples where their variety of Islam is very much in coherence with Indian culture. For example: The Sufi tradition is in coherence with Indian culture. Also AFAIK tolerence for other cultures and faiths is an integral part of both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

3. Thirdly, I want to say that the lack of success of USA and previously Russia in occupying Afghanistan or instruducing their democracy is testamony of the fact that the Western countries hardly understand the culture of subcontinent and they view it in their narrow prism.

Further, Hindus and Muslims had lived together with each other with relative amicably and peace for over 1400 years before the British arrived here. I cannot agree that any American presence in Afghanistan can survive for 1400 years.

 

[Ironduke]

Ironduke,

You need to put your indian flag on display buddy.

Have some dignity and accept this rejection already... we rejected indians and we will continue to reject indians.

Stop trying to tell us our identity comes from indians. india was created in 1947. so why not say indian's culture comes from Pakistan, and all these indians were Pakistani at one point.

MyPakistan1947,

You are looking to establish motives in a very cynical nature that do not exist in myself, and are casting the falsest of judgments. I'm sure there are those on the Indian side of the debate who accuse me of the exact opposite of what you are saying.

You are, however, entitled to your opinion.

My position is that of a neutral, outside observer.

I will address your replies no further.

 

[Paan Singh]

rockstar,

You misjudge my motives on the issue in question - your post is a personal attack.

Again, by pursuing a third way, a different framework, you actually free yourself from the influence of Washington. Right now, there is an arrangement between the US and Pakistan that is counterproductive to Pakistani goals.

If the move toward another framework is indigenous, then it is not under foreign control. It is under the control of the domestic subcontinental actors who wish to pursue it.

This time, there is no foreign invader - I believe the subcontinent needs to get its own house in order on its own terms, and quit looking outside for support which in reality undermines your ability to govern yourselves (foreign aid, military aid, wasted dollars that need to be reinvested into your own economy).

Your questioning of my ideas is at its roots, cynical and baseless.

sir,
i think u invited flames by starting this thread.look at post of pakistanis,soon they will take the thread to kashmir issue,then to afghanistan,
now they are asking u to choose ur indian flag.

with regards

 

[MyPakistan1947]

Ironduke,

You are not an outside observer. You are an indian.

 

[Spring Onion]

Honestly - utilizing the term "revival the legacy of the Raj": is just a cliche. It is a counter that is based on the most superficial actualities. What I'm discussing isn't the "revival of the legacy of the Raj" - it's a reminder to be mindful of your own history and look forward to the future. Muslims and Hindus once lived in peace in the subcontinent, and there is no reason they cannot put aside there differences, as the Germans and French have, the US North and South have, and so on.

With US supporting Sudan style division on the basis of religion and Cyprus like division i see little faith in such ideas coming from them.

It's not used to "counter" China - it can be used to replicate the success of China, because the current framework does not allow India, Pakistan, and the rest of the subcontinent to effectively compete in the world market as they should be able to.

China is currently an ally of Pakistan - there is a saying by the Colonel on the WAB (his words, not mine) China will fight India to the last Pakistani.

To be able to rise and become a fully modern, integrated part of the world economy, a different framework is needed.

Don't think of it in terms of overused cliches - think of it in a different framework.

in the current framework its India who is either competing or trying to compete with China. And the current framework is creating some hurdles for India . We are in different race.

So all in all its more Indian specific suggestion.

There are extreme advantages in such an approach, as I and no doubt countless others proposed - think of the reintegration with the Muslim populations of India and Bangladesh (both equal or exceeding slightly the population of Pakistan).

If at all reintegration of Muslim population then why under Indian umbrella why NOT Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Indian Muslim Population integrate into a strong block to be in a position to negotiate their interests with Bullies in the region

So basically, by swallowing one's pride - you can effectively triple Pakistan, in a positive-sum arrangement with the states of and nation of India.

Like it or not - the differences between Pakistan and China are extreme. The differences between Pakistan and India are based upon religious differences that are historically-based, but at the core, you are more or less the same.

Sometimes it takes an outside onlooker to make the correct observation. Look at the Croats, Serbs, and Bosniaks, for example. They view themselves as separate nations - they are the same people, influenced by the Catholic Hapsburgs, Orthodox Byzantines, and Islamic Ottomans, respectively.

India has its policy, Pakistan has its policy. However, there is a third way that is to the mutual benefit of both.

More than the ancestral roots as you are trying to convince us of as binding factor we feel its more to do with our interests .


and third way can be we including India, Pakistan, BD, even SL, Nepal, Afghanistan, can unite under CHINA and get benefited in terms of economy as well militarily against outsiders and compete with US and other non-asian Blocks.