By David Frawley
28 September 2016
Pakistan has a deep-seated doubt in its ability to endure as a nation. As such it permanently suffers an existential crisis.
A product of India’s partition, not of its own natural identity, Pakistan suffered another major partition in 1971.
It remains afraid of further divisions and so to keep itself together; Pakistan has to manufacture a perpetual war against India.
Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif addresses the 71st session of United Nations General Assembly at the UN headquarters in New York
Pakistan’s only real identity is negative, not being Indian, not being Hindu, not even being tolerant to Islamic minorities like Shia and Ahmadiyya, being the land of the Islamic Pure, which has drawn it into jihadi violence on a massive scale.
Pakistan was constituted from disparate states of British India. Balochistan was an independent kingdom.
The Northwest Frontier provinces were historically part of Afghanistan.
Punjab, though the homeland of Pakistani nationalist sentiment and Islamic identity, was under Sikh rule before it came under British rule.
It had to be partitioned to remove its large Hindu and Sikh population.
Yet Pakistan Punjabis still share more of a heritage with Hindu and Sikh Punjabis, than with other groups in Pakistan.
Sindh was part of Bombay Presidency under British rule.
While it initially opted to join Pakistan on religious grounds, many Sindhis including its main leader GM Syed soon regretted the decision.
Balochistan, which became an independent nation in 1947, was soon annexed by Pakistan, which many Balochis do not accept and actively challenge; resulting in an extensive and enduring insurgency that Pakistan has ruthlessly tried to crush, though so far without success.
Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and Gilgit/Baltistan were taken by Islamabad after its invasion of the Kashmir in 1947.
Yet they hold very different cultures than Punjab, and have been suppressed accordingly.
Pakistan was formed by the demand of Indian Muslims mainly in Uttar Pradesh, the majority of which never migrated to Pakistan.
Those who did migrate become another disparate group, the Mohajirs who mainly displaced Sindhis, creating a further division in Sindh and an unclear identity of their own.
After 1971, Pakistan remains afraid of further divisions and so to keep itself together; it has to manufacture a perpetual war against India
Pakistan’s dominant language became Urdu, a language none of its provinces had as their mother tongue.
So, Pakistan is not a nation but a conglomeration of contrary elements moving in different directions, held together only by a state-enforced religious fanaticism and military aggression.
Pakistan reminds us of the sad state of affairs in the Middle East where the British and French created artificial nations by drawing lines on maps according to their convenience.
Modern Iraq and Syria were created in this manner. Some regions that had an historical unity like Kurdistan were partitioned among the new nations.
Iraq and Syria share a same Islamic religion, divided into Sunni majority and Shia minority groups, like Pakistan.
Their common Islamic background has not resulted in any internal unity, but instead now a Sunni-Shia civil war is devastating the region. It has given rise to the brutal Islamic State (ISIS).
Pakistan is facing similar divisions but is becoming its own Islamic State.
Pakistan was created by a religious demand. Since Muslims and Hindus existed throughout India, it required an artificial division of the entire country and a displacement of millions that could only remain incomplete.
But India as a country and a culture has a millennial existence honoured since ancient Greece and ancient China.
It has a great influence, extending to Indochina and Indonesia, now worldwide with the spread of its yogic and meditation traditions.
Indian army personnel in action inside a camp during a terror attack in Uri, Jammu and Kashmir
In spite of having a larger population and separatist movements notwithstanding, India has sustained a greater national unity, democratic rule and economic development than Pakistan.
This is because of its Dharmic roots that promote tolerance and respect.
Yet many Indians have wanted to undo Partition. This has sadly made India soft on Pakistan, like a long lost brother.
Others feel that if Pakistan broke up, the resultant instability would be worse for India.
Pakistan has emphasised the Kashmir issue to sustain its national identity as an Islamic state against India.
Under the pretext of reclaiming Kashmir, it has tried to create a common cause with its different provinces that are only kept together by religious motivations.
But even so, its Kashmir jihad has not been sufficient to calm the separatist feelings of Pakistan’s different regions.
India has strangely ignored these separatist movements within Pakistan, though Pakistan has continued to blatantly foster separatist and terrorist movements in India.
Such a policy did not help India or restrain Pakistan.
Only this year did Prime Minister Narendra Modi first raise the cause of Balochistan. His statements sent shockwaves through Pakistan, forcing it to see its own inherent contradictions.
The conclusion is clear: Indians should stop trying to excuse Pakistan, feeling that its break-up would be dangerous, and face the fact that since Independence, Pakistan has only become increasingly jihadist and now it has nuclear weapons.
Pakistan is already the most dangerous country in the world and is not likely to get better.
Pakistan as a terrorist state now threatens the entire world.
Most terrorists visit Pakistan, are trained in Pakistan or are associated with Pakistanis.
Arising from its original identity as a jihadi state, Pakistan has made itself into the centre of global terrorism.
Pakistan must be dealt with accordingly, not with Gandhian sympathies but with Arjuna’s resolve.
David Frawley is the director of the American Institute of Vedic Studies and the author of more than 30 books on yoga and Vedic traditions