Skip to main content

View Diary: Pakistan Forfeits the Swat Valley to the Taliban (51 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The problem with Pakistan... (0+ / 0-)

    is that it really is not a country. Its about three or four countries with sometimes drastically different interests. The Taliban will always be able to operate out of Waziristan because they come from there. The region covers both sides of the Afghan/Pakistan border. Afghanistan is an independent country because the Brits could never really control anything beyond the Khyber Pass. Pakistan became a country out of British incompetence or malice (divide and conquer) in the their drawn out withdrawl from South Asia.

    You may find yourself in a beautiful house with a beautiful wife and you may ask yourself, "How did I get here?"

    by FrankCornish on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 07:48:55 AM PST

    •  Had it still been a whole undivided India (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clytemnestra, KenBee, FrankCornish

      it would have been better IMO.
      Because India had Gandhi to unify the nation and even attract almost the same following of Muslims than anti-pacifist Mohammed Ali Jinnah did .

      There was a guy called Khan Abdel Gaffar Khan who was called Frontier Gandhi who came up in the 50s. But he was crushed by the Pakistani military puppet gov.

      They never had a Gandhi figure.

      Wake me up...we won..

      by soms on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 08:03:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  really wouldn't have worked .. have you been to (0+ / 0-)

        both places?  there would have been more problems or have you forgotten Adhoya mosque

        "A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

        by Clytemnestra on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 08:12:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  There was ceratinly much friction between (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          soms

          Muslims and Hindus, but remember Ghandi saw partition as evil. There are also Sikhs and other religious minorities. If they stayed together they would have had to work out their differences into a functioning secular government. In the long run it would have worked better than what they have now. In addition, I believe that is was much more probable if the Brits had left after WW I. 20+ years later, religious tensions got worse.

          You may find yourself in a beautiful house with a beautiful wife and you may ask yourself, "How did I get here?"

          by FrankCornish on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 08:18:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  The Ayodhya-Babri mosque flare-up/riots (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FrankCornish

          was a long time in the making, longer than British rule in India.
          But since India is a democracy, as each day passes the party that came into power in 1998 which was supposed to rule with Hindu fervor was forced to rule   moderately by all standards.
          They initiated diplomatic talks with Pakistan after 15 years of diplomatic laissez-faire.
          Now that the same party is trying to foster the Hindu nationalism , they are being slowly but surely democratically marginalized by India.

          Wake me up...we won..

          by soms on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 08:24:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  the friction between the two groups (0+ / 0-)

            is a constant ..

            it is over naked holy men, animals, etc. etc. ... yes Ayodhya was stoked, but it was stoked over  frictions that already exist.  

            "A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

            by Clytemnestra on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 08:53:56 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  The Brits should have left in the 20s... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        soms

        the suffering of two more decades allowed Muslim/Hindu feeling to get raw. If they left in the 20s the whole thing might have stayed together and been a multi-cultural, multi-religion secular nation. The Brits sole gift could have been the unifying national language--English. After all there are also Sikhs, Zorastrians, and many other smaller ethnic/religious groups in India. The '47 partition directly caused the death of millions as they moved to areas where Hindus or Muslims were a majority--this accelerated resentment and hatred.

        I always thought that this was a predictable and KNOWN outcome. This is why the British did it that way. Better to have India and Pakistan separate and dependent economically on their former colonial master then united and less needy of any outside help.

        You may find yourself in a beautiful house with a beautiful wife and you may ask yourself, "How did I get here?"

        by FrankCornish on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 08:13:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site