Did India's leadership hope after partition that Pakistan will eventually rejoin India?

Status
Closed
Oct 2015
1,061
India
#91
Enemies of India, that's who!
Enemy of India is smart, very smart.

It has created two strategic assets in Pakistan. For building these it has made the latter country take loans from it, which is a potential debt-trap - ask Sri Lankans and Maldivians. Currency of the enemy country can be used in certain areas of Pakistan as cash medium of exchange.

Why will it want Pakistan to merge with India? Why not itself?

India and rest of the world grossly under-estimates the Dragon.
 
Likes: Futurist
Oct 2015
1,061
India
#92
Hindu nationalists are not going to like that ... at all. It will destroy their chances of winning political power in India.
"Akhand Bharat" (Undivided India) is not an electoral-platform on which any political party has fought elections. The idea is dead. What we hear about it in social or news media are stray /borderline comments.

Economic integration of South Asia is also not an electoral-platform but merely an agenda on which Govt of India is positive. For example, the company in which I worked executed construction projects in Nepal (hydro-electric dam), Bangladesh (thermal power station, roads, a 56 kms long conveyor), Sri Lanka (gas-based power plant, hotel) etc. Other countries too are economically getting

Pakistan is now out of India's economic integration efforts. Trade & talks with it were stopped because of its support to terrorist activities in India. Progress with Afghanistan is slow because access to it is difficult (via Arabian Sea/Iran). If state-sponsored terror activities abate, then economic integration could catch-up fast.

To summarize, Political integration of South Asia is a dead issue for Hindu nationalists. Economic integration is progressing because of mutual self-interest of countries but, in a part of South Asia, it is hampered by Pakistani extremists.
 
Sep 2012
9,019
India
#94
That would be quite understandable given the bloodshed that Pakistan has caused for India and given that it would become much harder for "Hindu nationalists" to get elected in India if India were to annex Pakistan and Bangladesh.
The victory of the BJP in 2019 elections to the Indian Parliament was because of a number of reasons but mainly because of the leadership of Narendra Modi, whom the Indian voters have perceived as a person capable of accelerating progress in many sectors such as governance, national defence, industrialisation etc. But the key point where he scored over the ineffective leader of the Congress party, Rahul Gandhi was that he was building up the nation as a cohesive entity though Gandhi accused him falsely of spreading hate and divisiveness. Voters saw through the lies being spread by Gandhi.
And the BJP is sure to be relected in 2024 also if they succeed in better performance of the Indian economy in agriculture, industry and employment.
Indian elections do not depend on whether Pakistan will at all survive as a nation or whether it will reunite with India ( an utterly impossible and nightmarish scenario. ) Indian people have stopped thinking about Pakistan after beating them decisively
in 1971. Our armed forces , of course, have to take all necessary steps to safeguard our security.
 
Sep 2012
9,019
India
#98
And Modi is different?

Also, what about Vajpayee? Was India also rudderless and full of looting under his watch?
Modi is nobody's rubber stamp, one can be sure of that. For example, his decision to cancel bank notes in Nov.2016 taken in total secrecy. And Modi has his own ideas about the Kashmir terrorists and their training camps in Pakistan.
Vajpayee was more of a compromise man besides not having a clear majority on his own. (Modi has enjoyed a clear majority of the BJP right from 2014 elections.)
Vajpayee's working could therefore never be decisive. But he was , like Modi, honest to the core.
 
Apr 2019
294
India
#99
And Modi is different?

Also, what about Vajpayee? Was India also rudderless and full of looting under his watch?
I can't provide critical assessment of Vajpayee's tenure but there is no reason to believe that system was free from every vice under his watch. Five years' time-period is too short to make any significant change in a massive country like India. Politicians fear that changing the prevalent tradition is akin to opening can of worms. In the absence of clear mandate parties make compromise with their ideology and accomodate most corrupt leaders from other small regional parties to form coalition government.
But still their party and ministers have much more cleaner image than their opponents. People dislike dynastic nature of Congress's leadership specially when their leader hasn't proven his worth in any field of life.

One of the main difference between Vajpayee and Modi is their image. Due to Vajpayee's image even his staunch opponents did not dare to drag his name through the mud but in case of Modi there is not a day when opponents don't attempt to smear his name.
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,491
New Delhi, India
And Modi is different? Also, what about Vajpayee? Was India also rudderless and full of looting under his watch?
Yes, Modi is different. Vajpayi allowed his son-in-law, Pramod Mahajan and Brijesh Mishra to amass wealth. Modi is a 'fakir'. If not for the love of his country, Modi can say good-bye to office and power any time without any regret.
 
Last edited:
Status
Closed

Similar History Discussions