Why is it proper to have a united Pakistan when the Punjabis Pashtuns Sindhis and Balochis all have very different cultures and societal organization?

Answer 1

Answer 1

I could argue that people from every culture in the world have come to North America and formed two highly successful nations, the United States and Canada. I live in Canada where the ethnic diversity is considerably greater than that of Pakistan, and we are (pretty much) all happy to be here and getting along with each other. People of different cultures can live together, work together, and accomplish great things together if they so desire. And bear in mind, even if you do not share a country with people of different cultures, you will still be sharing a planet. If we cannot get along with people of different culture in our own country, we may not be able to get along with them in different countries, which is why countries go to war with each other. We already live in what Marshall McLuhan referred to as a "global village". Every country impinges on every other country, given the speed of modern communication and transportation technology. The time has passed when every little tribe could smugly regard itself as the only real people or the only true civilization in the world, relegating everyone else to the status of barbarian. Progress for the human race requires us to reach out to other cultures rather than barricading ourselves into our own little enclaves.

Answer 2

I disagree with the premise of the question. Pakistan, in my view, makes little sense as a united country with a federal system. Perhaps it could work along the lines of "Devolution Max" where the government in Islamabad gives autonomy to each of the four main regions (Waziristan or "Pashtunistan", Balochistan, "Sindhistan", and Punjab) but coordinates currency and international affairs. Basically, the lifestyles and general ideologies between these groups are insufficiently similar to create a unified body politic. Balochis cannot stand when Punjabis come to Balochistan and get jobs that Balochis should have. Large swathes of Waziristan are already controlled by the Taliban and are fighting with the Pakistani Armed Forces. The Sindhis are primarily urban whereas the Balochis and Pashto are more often rural. Government officials try to appropriate resources that belong to communities of different ethnicities, making general corruption much more anger-inducing. It makes for a very dysfunctional system.

There are two main reasons why people suggest that Pakistan remain united. Both are incredibly weak.

(1) Historical Inertia: This is the way it already is, so why exert effort to change it? -- Firstly, this gives no reason why the system is proper or desirable. Secondly, historical inertia can be used to support any argument regardless of merit. Preserving slavery in the USA was for many years protected by historical inertia regardless of its problems. This also fails to notice how Bangladesh revolted and became independent from Pakistan in opposition to this historical inertia in 1971 on account of the exact same issues faced by the Balochis and Pashto.

(2) Muslim State: The Muslims of South Asia need a country to protect their interests and values. -- This argument falls flat on its face. Indian Muslims are actually more numerous than Pakistani Muslims and enjoy greater rights than Pakistani Muslims. They have no issues in building mosques, creating political parties, representing their interests, etc. Additionally, Muslims are, on average, wealthier than those in Pakistan. While it is understandable that Muslims would fear a return to Hindu dominance on the subcontinent after nearly eight-hundred years of Islamic Rule, this fear is by and large unfounded. Muslims in Pakistan are also subject to odd blasphemy laws, curfews, and other issues created due to the problematic issues of combining Islamic Jurisprudence with wide-scale corruption.

In response to Answer 1: One of the fundamental differences between societies in the New World and those in the Old World is the idea of an intrinsic connection to the land and an intrinsic connection to history. The Natives in North America are almost forgotten and many were routinely pushed off of their land. The Europeans who did this could claim title to the land, but not a spiritual connection to it. As a result, there was never a strong claim that Britons were allowed to live in the USA or Canada whereas Frenchmen, Italians, Chinese, Arabs, Africans, etc. could not. Certainly there was racism and discrimination, but the idea that the dominant group had a connection to the land was lost. Additionally, in the case of Canada, there is an incredible amount of autonomy afforded to Quebec in recognition of its cultural distinctiveness from the remaining provinces, especially Ontario. Why should such a small difference have strong recognition in Canada while huge historical and sociological differences in Pakistan are brushed aside?