India in disarray
The Persians had named their Eastern neighbour as 'Hindustan'. Later, the Britishers recognising that Hindustan had an implicit meaning, as the land of Hindus, decided to do away with this narrow association to a single religion that had peacefully coexisted with so many other religions; Islam being the predominant of them. Hindustan became India for Britain.
Till about the beginning of the 19th century, most of India was divided into individual principalities and distinctly different empires. From Maharajas to Nizams. The 1757 Battle of Plassey changed the course of the history of India. Through the betrayal by one traitor, Sirajuddula lost to Robert Clive. Most fiefdoms thereafter without any military engagement surrendered to become part of the Indian Union.
Until the arrival of the British to the court of Emperor Jehangir, the 'spice merchants' of King James I, led by Sir Thomas Roe, who sought to promote trade with India, the region then was largely diverse with numerous kingdoms and empires.
No ruler, inclusive of the Mauriyas, Guptas or the Mughal emperors were able to consolidate the region into a single nation in modern sense of our understanding today of what nation state means. So in reality, the concept of Akhand Bharat has been an illusionary absurdity. A deception of the narrow-minded.
The divide between northern India and southern India is stark and naked. They have no common culture, nor traditions or even eating preferences. The dissimilarity is more pronounced than similarity.
Recently, Narendra Modi alongside his cohorts has been planning to impose Hindi as a popular language of the common man in states like Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, where in reality Hindi is hardly spoken or understood — even its Urdu version of 'Hindustani' is not popular with the people in the South.
The mantle show-piece Muslim presidents of India, starting from Dr Zakir Hussain to Dr Abdul Kalam served as 'eye sores' for the militant Hindu dominant RSS, the forerunner of BJP. Stalwarts in their own right but were positioned to offices that were ceremonial, without teeth or bite. More as an advertisement to Indian claims of secularism. Modi has destroyed that fabric. Secularism has been crushed. India is today a fanatical state.
Modi is a communalist, a bigot and a die-hard hater of Muslims. Something that our Arab brothers and friends do not realise while opening their coffers to dole out dollars, or when they are head over heels while welcoming the 'Butcher of Gujarat', who initially only preyed upon Muslims, but has now gone beyond to slaughter Christians, Sikhs and Jains. Indians must stop this genocidal Hindu terrorist. He brings to the largely tolerant and peace loving Indians/Hindus a bad name. The country that prided itself as a secular state is now a hostage to Modi's fanatical Hinduism.
The creation of Bangladesh neither destroyed the two-nation theory nor did it give any meaning to the concept of 'Akhand Bharat'. Bangladesh is an independent country and continues to be one; the 15-year hiatus as a satellite state of India is now done and dusted. In a judicious historical analysis, it is not India that helped creation of Bangladesh — nay, it was the folly of Islamabad that led to East Pakistan's breaking away — the blame is on us; the credit cannot be India's.
In the 'seven sister states' in the North East of India, there is an active and simmering volcano of discontentment that will most likely blow up, leading up to declaration of independence from the forced Union with India. These states have nothing in common with India. Their languages, cultures and cuisines are different, with no semblance of to any part of India.
India is fragmented. All illusions of unity within diversity is a result of flawed thinking that is at best beset with delusional tendencies. The Marathas can't break bread with the West Bengalis. Their food, customs, traditions, etc., are different. They cannot converse with each other, except if they know English.
Even Bollywood is no exception to this diverseness and divisions either. The Assamese/Bengali music directors like, SD Burman, RD Burman, Salil Chaudhry, etc. preferred Bengali singers — Kishore Kumar being the prominent followed by Great Dutt; OP Nayyar from Punjab preferred Mohammed Rafi and Shamshad Begum, both from Amritsar/Lahore.
Today a handful of Indians subscribe to Akhand Bharat as a concept — it is and shall remain a pipe dream. The diversity is not a unifying factor but is more diverse. The burden of forced Union is already under strain.
Since 1947, India despite being the larger country hasn't been able to maintain good neighbourly relations with the countries in the region. The Indian quest for dominance and hegemony over the entire South Asia is the hallmark and cornerstone of its foreign and interior policy. India has problems with Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, the Maldives, People's Republic of China and Pakistan.
Bhutan and Sikkim, it swallowed without a burp. With Pakistan it has already fought five wars and countless skirmishes at the border. The country truly is a war monger. It has been more acute since Modi was saddled in New Delhi; having done RSS/BJP proud by massive genocidal killing of Muslims in Gujarat, he was rewarded with the premiership.
India gains appreciation for its status as the largest democracy in the world. That's a farce. It is untrue. Under the guise of democracy the various rights and privileges available to the electorate are stripped. The people are pulverised and stunned. Indian democracy is a sham. To cite only one case, the Kashmir issue still burns alive.
The people stand disenfranchised. The Indian Constitution was mutilated on August 5th 2019 by the revocation of Article 370, depriving Kashmir of its special status. So much about freedom and democracy.
Donald Trump has mentioned again in confirmation to the reality that six Indian planes were brought down from the skies in just a few minutes. Modi is furious. Rahul Gandhi has rightfully demanded a wily Modi come clean and admit or dare to refute. Indian leadership is suffering from an illusion of grandeur of invincibility. Pakistan recently punctured this hot air balloon.
As a deeply wounded fox or wolf (cannot use Lion because that will raise his stature in the animal kingdom and the kingdom may feel repulsed, revolted and insulted by this comparison) Modi is licking his wounds from the misfired misadventure at Pahalgam. He is biding his time. Pakistan beware.
India is in disarray.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
12 minutes ago
- Business Recorder
Sindh Assembly's historic role in paving the path to Pakistan
As a proud descendant of Sardar Allah Bakhsh Gabol, the first Deputy Speaker of the Sindh Assembly in 1937, I hold a deep personal connection to a defining moment in our nation's history: the Sindh Assembly's pioneering endorsement of the Pakistan Resolution in 1943. As one of the signatories of this landmark resolution, my great-grandfather played a key role in setting the stage for Pakistan's creation, a legacy that fills me with immense pride. The Sindh Assembly's bold action was not just a legislative milestone — it was the spark that illuminated the road to Pakistan's birth in 1947. The Pakistan Resolution, adopted by the All-India Muslim League in Lahore on March 23, 1940, envisioned a sovereign homeland where Muslims could thrive free from marginalization. Transforming this vision into reality required resolute action, and the Sindh Assembly, with leaders like Sardar Allah Bakhsh Gabol and G.M. Syed, rose to the occasion. In 1943, it became the first provincial legislature to formally endorse the creation of Pakistan, a courageous act that reverberated across British India. At a time when the future was uncertain, with British colonial rule firmly entrenched and the idea of partition fiercely debated, the Sindh Assembly's resolution was a defiant declaration of intent. Sardar Allah Bakhsh Gabol, as a signatory, lent his voice to a movement that dared to dream of a separate nation. His signature on that resolution was more than a formality—it was a commitment to a future where justice and self-governance would prevail. This historic vote was a roadmap, drawn in the halls of Karachi; it guided the Muslim League's strategy and inspired other provinces to follow. The Sindh Assembly's pioneering spirit galvanized the Pakistan Movement. Its 1943 resolution emboldened Muslim League leaders in Bengal, Punjab, and beyond, culminating in the overwhelming mandate for Pakistan in the 1946 elections. Sindh's strategic position and vibrant political culture, exemplified by figures like my great-grandfather, made it a linchpin in this struggle. Their foresight turned aspiration into momentum, proving that great nations are built through decisive action at critical junctures. Today, as we reflect on Pakistan's journey, I am honoured to celebrate the Sindh Assembly's role—and my great-grandfather's contribution—as a testament to unity and determination. Sardar Allah Bakhsh Gabol's legacy, intertwined with this historic resolution, reminds us that Pakistan was forged through the courage of its provinces, with Sindh leading the way. Let us draw inspiration from this moment to strengthen our nation, honouring the vision of leaders like my great-grandfather who dared to sign their names to a dream that became Pakistan. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
19 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Doctrine of spectacle, optics of defeat
Narendra Modi may have thought May would bring his finest hour. After successively upping the ante with Pakistan each time militancy revisited Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK), his regime had a playbook ready. Pakistan, scapegoated for its own failures in the disputed territory, would be 'taught a lesson'. So what if the last time had brought an Indian jet or two down - for his right-wing constituency, surely lessons had been learnt, 'strategic costs' exacted. Pakistan, wracked with its own issues, political and economic, surely couldn't keep up with the doctrine of disproportionate response that Modi's government had so carefully cultivated. And so India's military brass was given carte blanche and Operation Sindoor was launched. Within hours, however, or minutes rather, it was clear it would hang like an albatross around the Modi government's neck. This week, as India's Parliament reconvened for its monsoon session, the government faced its moment of reckoning. Far from a victory lap, the debate on Operation Sindoor unfolded under a cloud of unease. Home Minister Amit Shah doubled down, telling lawmakers that the terrorists responsible for the April 22 Pahalgam attack, which sparked the crisis, had been 'neutralised' in a separate mission dubbed Operation Mahadev. But the timing of the announcement, conspicuously aligned with the parliamentary session, raised eyebrows. Was this a genuine update or political theatre crafted to retake control of the narrative? Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi, who has shown increasing comfort playing disruptor, wasn't buying it. He demanded transparency about the costs of the operation, questioning why, if the mission had truly succeeded, India had to rely on external mediation to stop hostilities. Mediating an end to hostilities and saving South Asia from 'nuclear catastrophe' is something US President Donald Trump has relished taking credit for at every visible opportunity in the weeks since Operation Sindoor. To the point that some might wonder if he's deriving some kind of childish pleasure at rubbing the Modi regime's nose in the fact that, despite all the nationalist bluster, it was Washington's call, not Delhi's directive, that drew the curtain on this act of brinkmanship. Trump has crowed about it in back-to-back press conferences, lauded the 'excellent cooperation' from Pakistan, and all but issued a mid-crisis scorecard where Modi's government came off as the reckless actor in need of supervision. That narrative hasn't gone unnoticed by India's commentariat either, many of whom are beginning to ask uncomfortable questions about the costs of strategic adventurism in a multipolar world. This wasn't how Modi's third term was supposed to begin. The BJP's electoral dominance had promised continuity, certainty and a no-apologies foreign policy. Instead, barely two months into the new term, the headlines are saturated with words like 'escalation,' 'de-escalation,' 'backchannel,' and 'restraint.' And while New Delhi insists Operation Sindoor was a "necessary corrective" to Pakistan's "intransigence," the emerging consensus — even among India's own national security elite — is that the operation failed to deliver anything close to a strategic reset. More telling is the emerging discourse in Indian op-eds. Writers sympathetic to the BJP have pivoted from triumphalism to tactical justification. The more independent-minded, however, are not pulling punches. In The Wire, author and analyst Pushparaj Deshpande laid bare the contradictions in the government's own account. 'Prime Minister Narendra Modi claimed in Parliament that 'Indian armed forces were given full freedom (operationally to attack Pakistan)'. Yet, this assertion was contradicted by a former Defence Attaché who revealed that the Indian Air Force suffered avoidable losses due to political instructions barring strikes on Pakistani military installations and air defence systems,' he wrote. Likewise, Deshpande pointed out, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh's claim in the Rajya Sabha that 'Pakistan could not cause any damage on the Indian side' was directly contradicted by India's Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), who confirmed the loss of IAF fighter jets during clashes with Pakistan. 'These collectively suggest a deliberate attempt by the BJP government to obfuscate the true costs of the operation, presumably to protect Prime Minister Modi's strongman image,' he concluded. An editorial in The Hindu struck a similar note: 'The Narendra Modi government's strident approach seeks to change [what India claims is] the behaviour of Pakistan and reassure its domestic audience… A demonstrated willingness to use force against Pakistan in the event of a terrorism incident is a definitive turn in India's strategy… But there is no evidence yet that it is working, though there has been chest-thumping around it by the ruling party… The success of this approach is debatable.' The piece went further, interrogating the government's conflicting claims: 'The government claimed success in meeting its objectives of launching a military operation and denied that it had acted under pressure in ending the war. Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi demanded a pointed response to repeated claims by US President Donald Trump that he mediated the ceasefire but the Prime Minister evaded a direct response on it.' The editorial didn't mince words in its closing assessment: 'The [Indian] government contradicts itself when it says that the operation was a success, and that it is continuing… There was little self-reflection regarding the lapses that led to the terrorism incident, and whether and how the government plans to address them.' Outside India's borders and increasingly within them, the perception right now is this: India gambled on a quick, decisive action to reassert regional dominance and instead found itself walking back under international supervision, explaining away unverified kill counts and avoiding questions about the downing of its own aircraft. And it's not just editorial writers raising the alarm. Retired military officials and policy analysts — many once aligned with the strategic assertiveness of Modi's vision — are now questioning the long-term viability of what they call 'performance deterrence': the idea that visible, punitive strikes can substitute for sustainable strategy. This course correction seems to be taking place even as official channels try to project confidence. India's External Affairs Ministry insists that Operation Sindoor sent an 'unmistakable message,' and BJP-aligned commentators have tried to reframe the operation as a success precisely because it avoided wider war. But that sleight of hand is unlikely to hold for long. The unanswered question — why initiate an escalatory doctrine if it must be abandoned mid-act under diplomatic pressure — is now echoing not just through think tanks and newsrooms, but also among voters who expected their government to dictate terms, not negotiate ceasefires via foreign capitals. The irony is bitter. Modi's strongest claim to geopolitical heft had always been his ability to align nationalist sentiment with realpolitik calculation. But this time, Washington and Beijing — both eager to preserve regional stability — appeared more in control of the crisis calendar than Delhi did. And Islamabad, far from being 'taught a lesson,' emerged with diplomatic points scored and international credibility strengthened by its restraint and readiness to engage. Whether Modi's government will learn from this episode remains to be seen. But one thing is already clear: the playbook that brought him to this moment may not carry him much further. Not without reckoning with the limits of spectacle, and the growing costs of overreach.
Business Recorder
a day ago
- Business Recorder
Iran seeks to boost trade to $10bn level
LAHORE/ISLAMABAD: The President of Iran Dr Masoud Pezeshkian was accorded a warm welcome upon his arrival here Saturday, on a two-day visit to Pakistan. On arrival, he was warmly received by PML-N President Nawaz Sharif and Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz. Two children presented bouquet to the visiting president, who was leading a high-level delegation. Quetta chamber highlights obstacles to trade with Iran, Afghanistan During his stay, Dr Masoud Pezeshkian will meet President Asif Ali Zardari and hold delegation-level talks with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. These meetings will include follow up discussions on trade agreements, joint border markets and other matters which were discussed during the visit of late Ebrahim Raisi to Pakistan in April last year. It is first official visit of Dr Masoud Pezeshkian to Pakistan as President of Iran. Elaborate security arrangements were made for the visit of Iranian delegation. Later, President of Iran, Dr Masoud Pezeshkian accompanied by Punjab Chief Minister visited the mausoleum of Pakistan's national poet Allama Dr Muhammad Iqbal. He laid a floral wreath at the mausoleum and offered 'Fateha.' He paid homage to great philosopher and Poet of the East. On this occasion, the Khateeb of the Badshahi Mosque, Maulana Abdul Khabeer Azad offered special prayers for the strengthening of Pak-Iran relations, prosperity and development of Pakistan and the well-being of Muslims. Iranian President Dr Masoud Pezeshkian recorded his impressions for Allama Iqbal's literary legacy in the visitors' book. Earlier, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, prior to departure to Pakistan, said that the trade relations between Tehran and Islamabad are strong, emphasising the plan to elevate their annual trade exchanges to $10 billion. He said that Tehran and Islamabad have enjoyed good, friendly, and deep-rooted relations since the establishment of Pakistan. The two countries cooperate in economic, scientific, cultural, and border areas, and a deep bond exists between the people of both sides, he said. Pezeshkian highlighted that during the recent aggression by the Israeli regime and the US against Iran's soil, Pakistan was among the countries that strongly condemned this aggression and declared its readiness to provide any necessary support for Iran's territorial integrity, as well as for the government and people of Iran. The Iranian President identified boosting border trade with Pakistan via land, air, and sea as priorities for this trip. Through Pakistan, Iran can connect to the Silk Road linking China and Pakistan, and the route can then extend through Iran to Europe, he said. Emphasising that security and border issues are of great importance to both Iran and Pakistan, he said that regional security must be achieved through mutual cooperation. Pezeshkian also noted that the enemy plans to create divisions among Muslims, but Iran will thwart the enemies' plots, adding Tehran aims to maintain unity and solidarity with Islamabad. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian arrived here on Saturday on a two-day official visit aimed at strengthening economic ties and expanding bilateral trade with Pakistan. Pezeshkian was received at Nur Khan Air Base by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar, and Information Minister Attaullah Tarar. 'This important visit will pave the way for stronger Pakistan-Iran ties,' PM Sharif said in a post on X, adding that he looked forward to 'substantive engagements' with the Iranian delegation. Earlier in the day, Pezeshkian landed in Lahore, where he was welcomed by Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader and ex-prime minister Nawaz Sharif and Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz. The visit comes amid warming relations between the two neighbours, with Islamabad recently expressing solidarity and a desire for deeper cooperation with Tehran. The officials say that regional coordination is becoming increasingly vital amid shifting geopolitical dynamics. During his stay, President Pezeshkian is scheduled to meet President Asif Ali Zardari and hold delegation-level talks with Prime Minister Sharif on Sunday. Security has been tightened across key venues in Islamabad to safeguard the visiting delegation. Pezeshkian is the second Iranian president to visit Pakistan in two years. His predecessor, late Ebrahim Raisi, visited in April 2024, shortly before his death in a helicopter crash. PM Sharif and Pezeshkian previously met in Tehran in May during the Pakistani leader's regional tour to express gratitude for support during tensions with India. Both the countries are set to sign a number of agreements aimed at bolstering the trade between the two sides, and further strengthen the economic relations. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
