Pakistan : State And Religion

Islam is the state religion in Pakistan but of which sect? If the answer is pure Islam then what could be the interpretation of this pure Islam keeping in view the various sects that dot Islam. The Sunnis and Shia interpretation of Islamic Shariah is divergently different from each other. During the last fourteen centuries, there has never been any convergence or consensus on an agreed, unanimous or unified code of Islam that should be acceptable to both the mainstream Islamic sects as well as the fringe denominations. Instead, these sects have been exterminating each others in horrendous massacres and bloody bids for conquering each other’s lands. This cleavage is glaringly manifest even in the present ages when Islamic fraternity is distinctly divided into two blocs: one headed by the radical Sunni Saudi Arabia and the other by Iran as the main citadel for the Shia branch of Islam. There is no way these two blocs can hammer out a format of faith that can eliminate their ideological rivalry and bring them on one common agreed platform of Islamic Shariah. The division of the Islam into two contrasting and confronting ideological blocs, has given birth to the regional conflicts and a frantic race for political or leadership ascendency in Middle East and elsewhere in the world. In the ongoing upheavals in the Middle East, in states like Bahrain and Syria, the popular uprising is being interpreted in terms of Shia and Sunni majority areas and demographic proportions. Alongside with the popular wish for liberalization of these societies with civil rights and democratic forms of governments, the underlying tussle boils down to the question as to the which sect is going to wield political power within the respective countries now steaming with the urge for a change. The same ideological conflict is rampant in Pakistan that is attributed to be an Islamic state. The animosity and hatred between divergent sects is manifest in the unremitting terrorist attacks and bombing of each others’ holy places and during religious festivals. The Muslim societies where the religion is the driving force behind their nationalism or is the raison d’être of their existence such as Pakistan, have remained vulnerable to the sectarian bad blood and ideological pulls and pressures. It would be an ideal situation if Pakistan turns a liberal state where all shades of religious faith are free to practice and worship in accordance with their religious traditions and teachings. In Pakistan with an Islamic nomenclature, while the majority sect is free to prevail, the minority sects and denominations feel themselves fettered and under pressure in regard to the unhindered performance of their religious customs and traditions. The cardinal cause of the religious discord in Pakistan is the lack of tolerance between sects and because of treating each other as infidels, heretic and out of the pale of Islam. The sects such as Deobandi, Wahabi, Ahle-Hadith, Qadria, Chishtia Naqshbandia and a whole lot of mystical bands, in fact, blur the fair and original face of Islam that was in vogue during the period of first four heads of Islamic states; called caliphs. The conflict and tussle for power that started between the governor of Syria Amir Muawiyah and the fourth Caliph Hazrat Ali ( 656-661 A. D.) laid down the foundation of fissures in Islam that has never been bridged nor can it be removed ever in the future. The accession to power after the demise of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) divided the Muslims into Shias and Sunnis. This ideological division is so hard and trenchant that both these sects do not pray in one mosque, say the same Azan (call for prayer). They observe different timings for payers, fasting and use different words in prayers. The Shias do not pay the Islamic tax (Zakat). Above all they consider that the first three caliphs usurped the rights of blood relations of the Prophet to succeed him in caliphate or Imamate. As such both these sects are poles part and can never agree on one Islamic code. They kill each other and deem it as a religious obligation to be sacrificing their lives for the sake of upholding their religious ascendencny. The other myriad sects that abound in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan simply help in shredding the monolithic ideological fabric of Islam with their diverse concepts and explanations of Islamic Sharia and by their violent feuding. For instance three conservative sects Qadria, Chishtia and Naqshbandia believe and promote the culture of shrines, the worshipping of tombs and graves. They sing hymns for eulogizing the saints and holy figures for their supernatural powers to heal and remove problems. Their opponents, the Wahabi discard all these practices as un-Islamic and sacrilegious. The Christians, the Hindus, the Ahmadis and other similar non Muslim sects cannot feel themselves at par or equal citizens of Pakistan because the majority sects would not treat them as such. The orthodox and radicals from the Sunni faith attack and harass and kill, at will, the faithful of other sects within Islam and the non-Muslims alike as a sacred duty. The rival sects when get chance pay back in the same coin. Therefore, to declare Pakistan as an Islamic state with so much sectarian animosity looks like a mockery because the tolerance and justice, the two pain pillars of Islam, are seldom practiced in any Islamic State all the more in Pakistan. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan is now clandestinely ruled and governed by the Islamic militants who brook no mercy nor tolerance for the dissenters or followers of diverse and divergent faiths. Wherever, the state and religions have mingled or blended by the writ of the state or under the force of the mighty and dominant religious sects, the state affairs and the good and peaceful governance have remained in a limbo. First of all, in the absence of a unanimous or agreed format of Islam, the faith based dissention or strife would always remain a lurking hindrance for the unity and peace of a society. The attacks on shrines in Pakistan have gained momentum. The destruction of Sunni and Shia places of worships are testament to the gory fact that it was impossible to eradicate the discords of creed between these colliding sects. It is, therefore, necessary that state affairs should be detached and made free from the religious domain as far as possible. The interference of religions in state affairs is detrimental to the overall advancement of a society and for the unhindered soci-economic progress, political stability and democratic culture to flower. There should be freedom of religion for all sects within the confines of the law and the constitution. Europe went through the turmoil between Catholicism and Protestantism and finally confined religions to the individuals to follow. The European societies have ever since been in peace. Pakistan is a geographical entity. Islam was here in these lands when Pakistan has not been carved out. Pakistan as a country is meant to serve and cater its citizens irrespective of their cast, color, creed, gender, religious inclinations, or being low or high, rich or poor. A country cannot be called an egalitarian state or a free society, if it remains hostage to the overbearing dictates of particular cults or sects. It would be a theocracy as Pakistan is. Absolute theocracies have never prospered as evidenced by history. For a theocracy, the citizens of a country have to be in vast majority with the same faith in order to maintain their hold on power as we can see in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Otherwise only brute power can keep the opposing sects or ethnic segments together as seen in Iraq during Saddam Hussain or presently in Bahrain. In the modern times when the nation states have emerged, the theocracy is unthinkable and to impose it would be sure recipe for sectarian war and social disharmony and dysfunctional political governments. During the British colonial occupation of 200 years and even during the 1000 years of Muslim rule in the united India, the society, by and large, presented a harmonious blend of religious pursuits for all sects and their peaceful cohabitation. The Shia-Sunni and Wahabi-Naqshbandia discord that in Pakistan has reached frightening dimensions was seldom on display during the British rule in India. The mushrooming of sectarian civil war began after the creation of Pakistan which is getting more violent and deadly with the time passage. It is indispensable to curb and rein in the religious extremism that may now be called religious militancy as it is becoming a constant threat to the writ of state and does not allow the society to be transformed into a civil pattern. The strident religious extremism hinders judiciary, press, executive and legislature to be free and independently play their respective roles for the benefit of the people. The religious extremism poses a constant challenge to the people and state so much so that the false cases of blasphemy cannot be adjudicated that merit release of the accused person. If someone is released by the court he or she is later killed. Moreover, these violent, hate-filled, rancorous and bigoted religious entities are exploited by the political forces and special interest groups to promote their respective agendas. The religiously motivated individuals are always ready to kill and create panic. General Ziaul- Haq cleverly and adequately manipulated the religious right in Pakistan to douse the spirit of social freedom and keep his opponents under control. His lurid legacy remains vibrant with every successive regime following the same tactic that is creating perpetual disorder and turmoil in Pakistan. The creation of Taliban for occupation of Afghanistan is now back lashing as this Frankenstein is now swallowing Pakistan with atrocious and disastrous ramifications happening every day by suicide bombing and sectarian clashes. The Islamabad religious seminary’s deadly episode with state troops demolishing that place with brutal force is a testimony as to how strong and defiant the religious outfits have become to create a srate wthin a state. If some can come up with a practicable model of an Islamic state in clear terms, which can fulfill the demands of the modern civil society, a nation state and with complete sectarian ethnic and communal peace in Pakistan, then he should hasten to unfurl it so that Pakistan can move forward as a stable and strong nation. The models of Saudi Arabia or Iran will not work in Pakistan as they have complete majority of their respestvie branches of Islam in their lands. Otherwise let Pakistan be a secular Islamic state.

Bangladesh Probe Found No Wrongdoing Of Nobel Winner Muhammad Yunus

Bangladesh said a government probe body did not discover any wrongdoings of the Grameen Bank, founded by Nobel laureate Professor Muhammad Yunus. Finance Minister AMA Muhith on Monday admitted that the interest rate of the Grameen Bank is lowest among the micro-credit lenders in the country. His comments was made came after the government appointed probe body, to look into activities of Grameen Bank submitted its report to the finance minister. Controversy about the bank began in November 2010 when the Norwegian state television NRK ran a documentary titled 'Caught in Micro Debt', that accused Yunus, the bank's managing director, of transferring funds to Grameen Kalyan, a sister concern, from the bank, breaching the agreement made with the fund's donor, Norwegian aid agency Norad, writes wire service bdnews24. com. The government constituted a committee on January 12 in the wake of controversy about the pioneering micro finance institution, which shared the Nobel Peace prize with its founder Muhammad Yunus in 2006. The probe report was submitted when French president Nicholas Sarkozy special envoy is visiting capital Dhaka to understand the development about the dismissal of Grameen Bank's managing director Muhammad Yunus. The French envoy Martin Hirsch told journalists on Monday that he finds it 'surprising' and 'difficult to understand the difficulties' between the government, the Grameen Bank and Muhammad Yunus. The envoy admitted that his mission to Bangladesh was to explore any scope for mediation for an amicable settlement to the issue, dispelling notions of interference in state affairs. The primary objective was to bring the government and Prof. Yunus together in the upcoming G-20 meeting. He handed over a letter of president Sarkozy to prime minister Sheikh Hasina on Sunday, said bdnews24. com said. The content of the letter was not disclosed. Meanwhile, the largest circulated independent daily Prothom Alo in a first page article on Monday published a news article which says that government has decided to launch a campaign against Prof. Muhammad Yunus, pioneer of microfinance globally. In a meeting at the Prime Minister Office attended also by security and intelligence services chiefs it was decided to inform the public that the bank’s founder have violated laws, ignored official norms and charging exorbitant interest rates from the poverty- stricken village women. The unknown sources told the daily that an official memo on March 13 has been circulated to the Special Branch of police and police headquarters to take necessary action. However, the newspaper did not mention what kind of action by the police has been initiated. Political scientist and economist Dr Hossain Zillur Rahman on Monday said such attempts by the authority would be suicidal. The government should take steps to save the most talked about micro-lending institution Grameen Bank should, he suggested.

India's Transit / Corridor : Delhi For Extending Agreement To Seven Years

Bangladesh Government Site New investment proposals have been tabled to the tune of $7 billion to put into effect appropriate transit infrastructures facilities through Bangladesh for the benefits of India.The new investment requirement has been flashed through expert reports at a time when India has advanced a proposal for a seven-year agreement with Bangladesh to formally put the transit through. With the new Indian move the transit issue has again come to the forefront with the Indians seeking new routes and bringing pressure on Bangladesh to put investments to building new infrastructures projects to effectively put the transit services functioning. Informed sources say Dhaka is not opposed to such Indian demands but it is giving priority to work out a ‘reasonable transit fee’ agreement. Latest development shows both sides are moving towards a negotiated settlement to the issue which had created jitters late last year on refusal of the Indian government to pay such fees. The Indian refusal at that time to pay transit fees on commercial goods on board two Indian cargo vessels at the entry point to Bangladesh inland waterways from Kolkata had forced Dhaka to take away the government gazette notification causing embarrassment to decision makers here. The stand off continued until recent communication by the Indian government indicating its readiness to find a negotiated settlement to the issue. India was so long denying payment of transit fees saying in the first place that such obligation was adequately covered under the Inland water protocol signed by both countries in early 1970 s. Moreover, they argued that the World Trade Organization (WTO) protocol does not authorize member states to collect customs duty or transit fees on movement of goods to a third country destinations. Advocating the Indian line of argument Dr. Moshiur Rahman, adviser to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina on the ministry of finance and her conduit to Delhi on transit issues recently said, demanding transit fees from India will be an ‘ uncivilized act’ and Bangladesh can’t project itself as such. The comment invited sharp public reaction. However the new move to find a negotiated settlement on the issue seems to be a fresh breakthrough and both Bangladesh and India will not only be able to burry public misgivings on the issue, they also will stand to reciprocally benefit from it. Nepal and Bhutan will also find a common framework agreement to resolve transit fee issues in sharing of financial benefits from such negotiated settlement, analyst here say. They held the view that the reference of WTO protocol by India or by Dr Moshiur Rahman to avoid payment of transit fees was based on an evasive proposition and why the Prime Minister’s adviser toed the Indian line was a big question. They say, WTO does not allow realizing transit or customs fees on movement of goods to a third country destination, but in this case India is carrying its goods from one end of its territory to another part using Bangladesh territory as a corridor. In this case, Bangladesh has the right to charge fees for using its facilities. Some analysts referred to Suez Canal Authority in finding a parallel example saying the Egyptian government is legitimately charging fees from the users of the canal and it is not treated as a breach of the WTO protocol. The fact of the matter is that the Suez Canal Authority has made huge infrastructure investment and also running a giant administrative set up to provide services to users and ship owners and if one does not pay for it, how these services could be provided and keep the waterway navigable. Bangladesh Tariff Commission made a similar case in a study prepared by its Chairman Mr Mujibur Rahman and handed over to Finance Minister AMA Muhith and some other senior ministers of the cabinet recently. It said Bangladesh should charge service fees from the users of the transit facilities and additional charges can be levied as cost of polluting environment. On top of it the country should realize fees for using roads, railways, waterways, ports and other facilities to recover the investment and also to keep them running. The study reports said Bangladesh would require an investment of about US$ 7.0 billion or Taka 50 , 000 crore in the next two to three years in roads, rail, waterways and ports to upgrade them to serve the transit requirement for India, Nepal and Bhutan. Besides, the report suggested that for initial two-three years only limited transit could be provided while the infrastructure facilities were being built. Full-fledged handling of cargo will be available from around the fourth year. Keeping this in mind, India has proposed signing a transit agreement for the next seven years, news report said covering the tenure of the next government whoever comes to power in the next election. Study reports further said Bangladesh would earn about $50 million during the first five years after appropriate corridor infrastructure have been put in place for use by India. From a list of sixteen routes recently proposed by India, study report prepared by the Bangladesh government has essentially focused on seven such routes. From the sixth year, Bangladesh may fetch $500 annually to go up to $1 billion when the services will be utilized by all parties to its maximum level, the report pointed out. This report was prepared by regional transportation experts Dr M Rahmatullah, who said it would bring robust benefits. “This steam of benefits, albeit partial would more than justify investment accounts.” The Tariff Commission report however, failed to mention the financial benefits that Bangladesh would derive from the transit/ corridor exercise, although Rahmatullah made a very illuminating forecast of the financial benefits. Finance Minister AMA Muhith receiving the Tariff Commission report on the issue has asked the committee members to recast the report, incorporating the details of projections and especially the financial benefits that may accrue to Bangladesh. Any investment decision to transit infrastructure essentially requires short, medium and long term revenue forecast and the report should have clear projections, analysts here say. Moreover, Bangladesh should think seriously how much it should open up its interior taking into consideration its health, environmental or many social factors, in addition to rate of economic returns and the recovery risks of such investment. Analysts say that there should be a national debate to find a consensus on how much risk the country should take to bear on such issue.

BAULS : The Guardian Of Mysticism In Bangladesh

The news came as a shock; in fact at first it seemed like a fabricated story aimed to create social disruption. Some Bauls – the spiritual wanderers of Bangladesh, who have, over centuries, enriched the philosophical aspect of our culture and have thus become integral to our identity---had come under attack in Rajbari where their practices were deemed ‘un-Islamic’.  Reportedly the ‘crusade’ on behalf of religion against the Bauls was led by an Imam of the local mosque who was also aided by influential local leaders.  The music loving philosophers, who espouse a more liberal outlook on religion and love for mankind as the true basis for any faith, were humiliated further when their long hair was cut off. We also hear that the law enforcers were lethargic in reacting and this is worrying because if hardliners can physically harm a section of society which has enriched the mystical side of our culture then, in the future, any social exercise can come under the wrath of the so-called Puritans.  The mystics are under fire today, and tomorrow the rural culture of having all-night open air musical shows and jatra (stage theatre) may also be slammed for going against religion.   With valid reason there is widespread condemnation but while the general society, which is still not swayed by bigotry, denounces such a philistine act, this incident also works as a warning that within the rural social structures there are elements which can threaten the secular image that Bangladesh strives to achieve. In fact, we have always been secular and Bauls were never deemed a threat to Islam and their ways of living never created a conflict with the general population. Filled with praise for the creator, their music, culture and practices advocate trust and belief in the spirit and the power of truth. And Bengal society opened its arms to the mystics because the wanderers not only showed a different path to fulfillment but also gave our culture a much needed mystical side.  Call it a variant of Sufism if you will, the Baul philosophy exalts the position of songs and music and at the same time regards physical union as an ultimate human expression through which spiritual enlightenment can be achieved. As noted earlier, these rural mystics are not bound by any social template. Though they go beyond the banalities of mundane life, there is always a place for the creator in their credo and so, there is no reason to believe that Bauls are going against any religion. In point of fact, this could be the right time for us to revel in Baul philosophy since it speaks of tolerance and not about extreme moves. Going back a few years we remember that a statue of the Baul was vandalised by hardliners near the airport on the grounds that it was against the principles of religion to have statues.  Today the actual mystics were assaulted. Will it be the shrine of Lalon Faqir, the iconic Baul philosopher, in Kushtia next? But leaving aside the arguments of religion and principles of philosophy if we look at Baulism from the perspective of history, we feel that it needs to be safeguarded because it has evolved not over a period of fifty years but over 500 years. And so, this is irrevocably intertwined with the cultural fabric of Bangladesh which has always accommodated a wide variety of beliefs. Baulism developed in a crucible of openness and history tells us that this philosophy attracted both Hindus and Muslims alike. Hence it’s safe to say that this mystic trend reached out to people of both faiths and acted as a uniting factor.  So, what is wrong with the Bauls? Maybe the moral brigade feels that the preaching of physical union as a way to find satisfaction of the soul erodes society’s image. If so, then they must also storm some exclusive locations. But obviously it’s always easy to raid a meeting of mystics because they are poor and do not believe in material possessions but to do the same in posh hangouts would definitely be quite another story. Be that as it may – Baulism came under fire in Rajbari and the same act could be replicated in the future and, so, there needs to be a directive from the government identifying the philosophy of the mystics as an indispensable part of our cultural identity.  When foreign visitors come to Bangladesh and visit the rural areas they are enchanted visually by the natural beauty of the villages but when they seek some spiritual stimulation they always look for the Bauls – the guardians of the earthy and rain- drenched mysticism of Bangladesh.  Kill that and we kill the mystique of our culture to become pathetically prosaic. 

On Nehru's Vision Of A United India

A video is making rounds on YouTube. It is a speech of a well known and well respected retired bureaucrat at a seminar in the city. He wanted people present at the seminar to know that India has not accepted the partition of 1947 and that they have a plan to reunite Bharat Mata. He spoke of a resolution that Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru helped adopt at a meeting of the Central Working Committee of the Congress party a month after the 1947 partition. When he was charged for the failure of the Congress to protect Bharat Mata, Pandit Nehru found a way out of a tight spot by adopting a resolution that described the 1947 partition as “ temporary” and that India would be united again. The retired bureaucrat gave a range of examples from his official and personal life on the Indian intent.  In one of these examples, he revealed that Bangladesh had given India permission for running the Farakkha Barrage on a trial basis during Bangabandhu’s time for seven days only that India unilaterally extended permanently till the 1997 treaty was signed.  Facts clearly prove that the bureaucrat is correct about India. The way India handled the issue of Teen Bigha is a shame. The way India constructed the Farakkha Barrage and unilaterally withdrew waters of the Ganges was an unfriendly act. India’s failure to be fair to Bangladesh on trade issues is equally unfortunate. Their decision to construct a dam on the Tipaimukh and indiscriminate killing of Bangladeshis on the border are unfriendly and insensitive acts. However, to conclude from these examples that India has a plan to annex Bangladesh to undo the 1947 partition is farfetched.  Lots of water has gone under the bridge that has thrown many new factors into the equation that has changed the way Pandit Nehru and his colleague’s viewed India’s destiny in 1947. For one, Pakistan has since emerged as a nuclear power and thus has a rock solid insurance against Bharat Mata. Bangladesh has emerged in blood. People have tasted freedom. It is not just that; Bangladesh now has a population of 150 million highly politically conscious people. The country has done well all around except in politics. Seven million Bangladeshis live abroad. The country’s GDP by 2010 estimates was over $100 billion.  Its homogeneity could be the envy of nations that suffer ethnic, religious, regional or rich-poor divides .If only it could set its politics in order, Bangladesh could someday become the most successful country in South Asia. Pandit Nehru’s vision did not take any of these facts into consideration. He could not because these facts have emerged after his death. Nevertheless, these facts have altered the dream of Nehru and many like him who took comfort in the belief that Pakistan would not last and India would again become one. However, there are still many in India who believe in the vision that Nehru had left in their psyche. Bharatiya Janata Party’s concept of Hindutva that it espoused while in power is Pandit Nehru’s vision of 1947 by a different name. But the BJP’ dream of Hindutva was a manifestation of its irrational beliefs that millions of Hindu fundamentalists hold that partition allowed the Muslims to escape the clutches of an independent and united India under Hindu domination that would have allowed the majority Hindus to settle the score of  Muslim domination for 800 years. India, looking into the future at this stage of its history, knows too well that such a desire would stand between India and its vision to emerge as a regional leader of world stature with permanent membership in an expanded UN Security Council. One must also think about what India would gain by fulfillment of Panditji’s vision. For one, India would, with Bangladesh a part of it, have to accept all of Bangladesh’s demands made to it over the last four decades. It will have to take care of 150 million people who can be very restive. Indians would also have to consider nearly 300 million Bengalis of Bangladesh and West Bengal uniting under Bengali nationalism which could start the process of India’s disintegration. Equally dangerous to India’s unity would the prospect of 150 million Bangladeshi Muslims uniting with an equal number of Indian Muslims that would make India the largest Muslim nation on earth. If Indian leaders are sensible there is no good reason for India today to believe in Panditji’s vision in the physical sense. India has already achieved more than it bargained for in 1971. When it entered the Bangladesh war of liberation, it was not sure whether it would be able to break Pakistan. Having done that, India has relieved itself of Pakistan’s pressure from the East. The value of this, given the nature of problems in India-Pakistan relations, is fantasy becoming a reality. Nevertheless, the retired bureaucrat’s apprehensions were right about Bharat Mata. There is a genuine problem for Bangladesh with Pandit Nehru’s vision. This is coming less from India but more from amongst us. All of a sudden, some of us---and the number is not small---have woken to the fact that those raising apprehensions about India are wrong; that India is our friend in need. These Bangladeshi friends of India do not see any harm in Farakkha or in trade deficit or the Tipaimukh dam. Nor do they care how generations of Muslims on either side of the 1947 partition have suffered from the Zamindari system overwhelmingly dominated by the Hindus or from their Hindu neighbours. Strangely, they say that the problem then and now is with us; that we are fundamentalists and that Islam makes us that way. The video of the retired bureaucrat is a must watch for these friends of India. While they watch it, they should spare a moment and think about India that they admire for its history; its democracy and its secularism. Our history is as rich as is India’s and our democracy, conflict-ridden as it may be, has made significant strides.  India has hundreds of millions of active members of the RSS and the Hindu Mahashava, both stridently Hindu fundamentalist organizations who support the BJP that had formed government at the centre. The BJP has a chief minister in Gujarat, who has serious aspirations of becoming an Indian prime minister, who stands accused by the United States of personally supervising killings of Muslims in Gujarat. In the context of religious fundamentalism, we are still in the minor league because the overwhelming majority of our people have kept the religious fundamentalists parties insignificant. In India, the BJP with hundreds of millions of its supporters is in the super league and espouses Hindu fundamentalism proudly and has no qualms with Hindutva that proposes to make India a land of the Hindus. Panditji was right about Pakistan being temporary though but not the way he envisioned or the retired bureaucrat concluded. Pakistan was the need of history arising out of the British policy of “divide and rule.” Having taken power from the Muslims without firing a single shot, the British ruled us for 200 years by playing the Muslims against the Hindus. To the Hindus, they gave education, job, and commerce. When the Muslims became politically conscious at the turn of the 20 th century, they found that the British had given the Hindus a head start and had prepared for them a second class status in an independent India. Pakistan allowed the Muslims to escape such a predicament. Everything else about Pakistan was illogical.  West Pakistani leadership ended the illogical state by its genocide in 1971 , although its destruction was embedded in its creation in 1947.   Bharat Mata in the physical sense or the way Panditji visualized it is a myth because India was united only under the British in the sense we understand an independent country today. Nevertheless, Bharat Mata is in Indian psyche; the urge to dominate the Muslims of South Asia for reasons of history. That is what India has manifested in all these four decades with Bangladesh.  Our only chance to escape the grasp of Bharat Mata is to unite. The spirit of 1971 demands of us that unity.