1947 was not a revolution. Is this what they are now teaching in Indian history lessons? August 1947 was about a political process that was about exactly how to dissolve the British Raj and what form it's successor/s would look like. It was a constitutional and legal process. India and Pakistan were born from a act in Houses of Parliamant. You can access this 'birth certificate' for both countries. Read below.
What does revolution even mean then? 1947 was just a conclusion of something far longer.
the action by a celestial body of going round in an orbit or elliptical course; also : apparent movement of such a body round the earth; the time taken by a celestial body to make a complete round in its orbit; the rotation of a celestial body on its axis… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com
The one I was going for:
2a
: a sudden, radical, or complete change
b
: a fundamental change in political organizationespecially
: the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed
You are free to read up more on this definition.
Or you can simply search the word "revolution" through this:
Does it? Pasting some terrorist act here will do nothing to advance your argumant but merely shows your desperation to disparage Pakistan at every step. I mean can find dozens of such 'rocks' to through back. But does it serve any purpose? I could easily trip off about the fact that India not only has terrorism [only it's Indian on Indian] as opposed to the variety Pakistan has which fits in the the wider War on Terror that America began thus making it attention of global media. Killing of a poor Dalit or some Aborginal in Chattisgarh jungles rarely makes it to CNN. Or that India actually has more exteme poor than all of Sub-Saharan Africa combined.
The specific bit I was referring to and highlighting was this:
Yes, this is the slippery slope. It is why I feel any country ought to do away it...esp at modern nationstate formation. Israel is only other one (though there is a large ethnic definition w.r.t "Jew" that overrides the religion one), and their's is very specific case that is not comparable imo (and they also have attracted major problems externally and internally by doing that).
Pakistan if it was proper separate nation historically should have defined so geographically (eg. indus river basin), and postulated that as being concept for nationhood...and just accepted every identity (religion-based or otherwise) within it as is....and simply religions/identities within it exist in whatever % they do.
There would have been no need for partition migrations...and unnatural union with Bangladesh. But it raises uncomfortable questions in the present time for most people, given now its all done and done w.r.t the defined original conception basis (with Jinnah who's mother tongue is Gujarati).
Instead religion just become something to keep defining as you said....and over time people get left out (and targetted later) simply by political expedience precedence....because cleaving and hewing across whatever seam consolidates majority or a plurality like nothing else does. Extreme majoritarianism is a politician's best situation....but a country's worst one (it entrenches into top-down collectivism at cost of bottom-up civic nationalism and the individual's inherent rights).
It is not my fault if you cannot or will not see what I mean by "first principles"...and how Pakistan has hemmed itself in by going for religious setup.
The argument I am making here is religion is not a 1st principle to form a country on. If it was, the massive partition violence would not have happened and all subsequent violence and further revolution within Pakistan on the non-first principle set up. Maybe religion is 2nd, 3rd, 4th or a non-valid principle altogether, but it certainly (by evidence of result) is not a 1st one....not for this region anyway. That is for further debate. The lack of a 1st principle led to what happened in 1970-1971 in the eastern half, and also what was done under the remaining half by Zia (which segues into the hazara topic, Qasim textbooks and Salam headstone among many other things that afflict Pakistan on this religious majoritarian principle that needs "further definition" all the time inevitably)
Then you again go on to conflate with misapplication or non-application of the stated principles of sovereignty found in the respective constitutions. That is a different subject we can get into ...but I am veyr much talking about the narrow scope of foundation that has taken its toll on Pakistan from the constitutional/foundation-narrative level.
I also find it disturbing that you seem to be addicted to Bangla 71 and Pakistan's alleged infamy but ignore or choose to sleep on the FACT that the British just two decades before that in 1942 starved to death 4 million of your people? Is genocide by British less startling to your conscience?
What has that got to do with what I am saying? British admin misrule and atrocity during colonial era is a long subject to get into.
That has no connection to what you specifically asked me (to launch into this off-topic stuff) about USA founding first principles. (Reply 186)...at which point there was no mention of Pakistan and India (which you again bring up for first time in reply 196) at all in this thread.
There was no independent nation state operating on a constitution it had set for itself during the worst British atrocities and misrule. It was colonial era "charter" inherited (And then repackaged) from British East India Company.
That is
far different to foundational nationstate aegis done under the
Muslim League and Jinnah for Pakistan as it was formed in 1947....that led in large part to what happened in the Eastern Wing eventually (i.e it was NOT a bedrock 1st principle for foundation).
I would prefer if our posts could be moved to British Raj, German Reich' thread where the matter could be taken further. Many thanks to all.
Sure if
@Kartal1 could do the honours, as he has moved previous OT replies to more relevant threads already in this one.
Replies:
186
187
188
196
218
223
228
230
and this one if possible. Thanks.
I assume this is where Kaptaan wants these moved:
Okay gentleman [ladies all the more if we are so privilaged] this is a thread to compare and contrast two beasts from history. One the British Empire in Asia/Middle East often called the British Raj and the German Empire in Europe/North Africa often called the German Reich. While the major...
defencehub.live
Fair enough since its in neutral forum ground...but choice is yours (a new thread can also be started something like "political formation and revolution debate in South Asia" etc)
If you could mention in here where the OT replies have been moved to so anyone else wanting to participate can do so there.
www.newsweek.com
