Pakistan's Geography

[TSA321]

 

[Varun]

This is all old news.

The British better take a bow for this khichdi to happen to Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.

 

[Syed1]

Still surviving despite all odds stacked against it.

Pakistani quam ki resilience ko ikhees toppon ki salaami

 

[ElRaja]

most important thing is that the a significant fraction of younger pakistanis identify with their pakistani identity before their ethnic identities. this reduces the likelihood of external actors stoking sectarianism to destabilise pakistan.

and whilst pakistan may have terrible geography, it still has a huge population, which makes any potential war with pakistan a messy affair for anyone involved.

in the long run these geographical challenges present opportunities too, pakistan is at the crossroads of central asia, india and the middle east, its strategically beneficial for everyone for pakistan to be stable and prosperous.

 

[Nostalgic]

I’ve always felt our geography to be more asset than liability. There really must be very few locales as strategic as Pakistan: straddling the divide between Central Asia, South Asia and the Middle East; the Persian Gulf bottleneck right under our noses; bordering the four countries that we do, each one important at the international stage in one way or the other, and likely to remain so. I particularly like the fact that being at the crossroads of South and Central Asia fittingly mirrors our cultural heritage.

 

[Sirris]

At 1:27 the narrator claims that before leaving the British decided to divide the colony when actually it was the wish of the Muslim population of that area that it be divided. Yes, the British could have done the partition in a better way but it wasn't their idea to divide.

Before Britain's illegal occupation of the subcontinent, a unified country consisting of modern day Pakistan, India and Bangladesh never existed like that.

 

[Nostalgic]

As for the video, it was overly simplistic, which I guess is the nature of the beast, given how it’s only 11 minutes. But take the idea that the Humsaaya Mulk and Afghanistan could somehow find a common foe in Pakistan for instance. What a ridiculous proposition, one that would’ve happened already had it been such a bright idea. I’m sure neither Afghanistan nor the Humaaaya Mulk harbor any such intentions.

 

[Nostalgic]

The discussion on official Afghan sentiment over Pashtun lands in Pakistan fails to take into account so much of recent history, beginning at least from the early 70s. Had the video been summing up the state of affairs in the 60’s, it would’ve done a passable job. Knowing what has transpired in the last forty odd years, not so much.

 

[Nostalgic]

Oh, and while speculating on the liability that the geography supposedly is, there could’ve been at least a grudging acknowledgement of the erstwhile West Pakistan having survived the supppsed odds for over seventy years.

When it comes to national cohesion, of people increasingly associating more with country rather than ethnicity, of a burgeoning composite culture, there have been rousing successes since 1947. This, in spite of the several own goals, colossal errors of judgement and questionable decisionmaking by officialdom.

I would venture to say that the likelihood of the country splitting along ethnic seams is far less likely today than ever before. Fifty years ago, the loss of East Pakistan could’ve had a domino effect on the western wing, with a full-blown insurgency in Balochistan erupting soon after. As little as twenty years ago, the state was insecure enough to consider the demand to rename NWFP as a prelude to separatism. Not too long ago, Altaf Hussain ruled the roost remotely, and the TTP had established a de facto state in Swat.

This is not to suggest that rifts and fissures do not exist, that there are no rumblings beneath the surface, or there is no way the fabric won’t unravel. But haven’t the supposedly disparate ethnicities bought into the Pakistani project more than ever before?

 

[Nostalgic]

@KB, as always, your insight would be invaluable.

 

[MenInG]

Still surviving despite all odds stacked against it.

Pakistani quam ki resilience ko ikhees toppon ki salaami

Its a beautiful country and it will survive like it always has. Jalnay wallay jalain.

 

[KB]

I would follow the lines of critique already made here. There is a danger of geographical determinism, of focusing too narrowly on the ‘facts’ of geography and too little on the ‘acts’ of humans. The view presented of Pakistan is too static. So as [MENTION=56933]ElRaja[/MENTION] and [MENTION=22846]Nostalgic[/MENTION] point out, the nature of the Pakistani identity has evolved and is stronger now than it was at the inception of the state. While Pakistanis are cognisant of the manifold problems that afflict the nation, there is an underlying pride and identification with the country. The discussion of Afghanistan vis a vis Pakistan is similarly not historicised as noted by [MENTION=22846]Nostalgic[/MENTION]. The focus on the geographical outcome of 1947 also leads to a simple view of history which ascribes it to the actions of a Perfidious Albion when in fact there were many hands involved in the partition of British India as hinted by [MENTION=144682]Sirris[/MENTION].

Yet, there is some value in the exercise. It provides a useful starting point in understanding how anxieties and insecurities shaped the centralising impulses of the Pakistani state in its initial years and provides some clues as to why the military gained an upper hand soon after 1947. The search for security against a background of anxiety also provides a context for understanding Pakistan’s relationships with its neighbours.

 

[Nostalgic]

Yet, there is some value in the exercise. It provides a useful starting point in understanding how anxieties and insecurities shaped the centralising impulses of the Pakistani state in its initial years and provides some clues as to why the military gained an upper hand soon after 1947. The search for security against a background of anxiety also provides a context for understanding Pakistan’s relationships with its neighbours.

In addition to the military emerging to the forefront, there’s the old debate regarding faith being a tool the state has readily exploited as a battering ram to achieve multiple objectives, some more reprehensible than others. I wonder though if coaxing national cohesion is one of the more nobler objectives faith has been put to work for. The question is, was the state forced into doing so by circumstance, if we are to acknowledge the premise in the OP as valid at least in the early years? Or could the goal of national cohesion also have been achieved without resorting to it? Perhaps the primacy of faith wasn’t a cold, calculating measure after all, and just the default, inevitable primary identity in our region, one which our eastern neighbor is belatedly settling upon after what is now being claimed was an artificial secularism imposed from the top?

 

[Nostalgic]

By the way, one national entity that has perennially fascinated me is the former Yugoslavia. In some ways, it was the mirror opposite of Pakistan: whereas we are multi-ethnic but with a common faith, they were all ethnically South Slavs, but religiously Orthodox, Catholic and Muslim. Pakistan lives on to fight another day, but Yugoslavia is no more. The countries are too far apart to draw too many credible parallels, but sometimes I can’t help but wonder why it took forty years of Marshall Tito to keep a lid on separatist sentiment in Europe of all places? Perhaps faith is just as valid a marker of identity as ethnicity after all, and the canards about artificiality stand debunked?

 

[Knight_Rider]

most important thing is that the a <b>significant fraction of younger pakistanis identify with their pakistani identity before their ethnic identities. </b>this reduces the likelihood of external actors stoking sectarianism to destabilise pakistan.

and whilst pakistan may have terrible geography, it still has a huge population, which makes any potential war with pakistan a messy affair for anyone involved.

in the long run these geographical challenges present opportunities too, pakistan is at the crossroads of central asia, india and the middle east, its strategically beneficial for everyone for pakistan to be stable and prosperous.

How do you know that? Any studies, research, Facts to back this claim?

 

[Nostalgic]

Also, identity being complex, evolving and forever in flux, how long is long enough for a national identity to be deemed to have fully and indelibly morphed from what it was into what it is? How long before we cease being who we used to be, and commence being who we are? Is seventy odd years long enough, generally speaking?

 

[Knight_Rider]

National identities are Artificial, man made constructs. These are just some lines drawn on the map. If you think about it, it doesn’t really mean anything.

Whereas ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious identities are more ‘real’ and natural.

 

[Syed1]

Also, identity being complex, evolving and forever in flux, how long is long enough for a national identity to be deemed to have fully and indelibly morphed from what it was into what it is? How long before we cease being who we used to be, and commence being who we are? Is seventy odd years long enough, generally speaking?

I would argue using the example of immigration. Generally first gen immigrants to the west (like yours truly) have strong bonds with their country of origin, they follow the politics and news regularly, long for the foods of their country and participate in the festivities of their native country.

Their children by virtue of growing up in a first gen immigrant house know of their background and may even take interest in the nitty gritty of parents home country but they begin to branch out and see themselves as part of the country they are born in.

Fast forward one more generation and by now the linkage to the native country begins to fade and the grandkids see themselves fully as part of the country of birth and may never even visit the country of their grand parents.


A similar analogy can be drawn for Pakistanis, specially those that migrated from India. My own grand parents (both sides) maintained relations in India and visited there quite often upto the 60s when relations began to sour. Then parents kept tabs on their relatives in former homeland and longed to visit, and now me I know of absolutely no one there even though I do have distant cousins. The transition to a full Pakistani identity is complete. I suppose in a generation or two the void between what constitutes to be an Indian and a Pakistani will further widen. As it is the pop culture of both countries is distinctly different even at present.

 

[Knight_Rider]

There is no such thing as Pakistani culture or identity. There is a Pashtun, Baloch, Punjabi, Sindhi, Siraiki and Hazara culture (with their own associated languages and biradaris, clans etc). In many things i have more commonality with an Indian from UP and Dehli, than a Pathan or Sindhi. I notice this aspect more after living abroad for many years, where i ve interaction with these people.

I as a 3rd generation Muhajir am proud of my original identity, Food, culture, literature, humor and language that my grandparents brought over from India. And i try my best to pass it on to my children.

 

[Nostalgic]

I would argue using the example of immigration. Generally first gen immigrants to the west (like yours truly) have strong bonds with their country of origin, they follow the politics and news regularly, long for the foods of their country and participate in the festivities of their native country.

Their children by virtue of growing up in a first gen immigrant house know of their background and may even take interest in the nitty gritty of parents home country but they begin to branch out and see themselves as part of the country they are born in.

Fast forward one more generation and by now the linkage to the native country begins to fade and the grandkids see themselves fully as part of the country of birth and may never even visit the country of their grand parents.


A similar analogy can be drawn for Pakistanis, specially those that migrated from India. My own grand parents (both sides) maintained relations in India and visited there quite often upto the 60s when relations began to sour. Then parents kept tabs on their relatives in former homeland and longed to visit, and now me I know of absolutely no one there even though I do have distant cousins. The transition to a full Pakistani identity is complete. I suppose in a generation or two the void between what constitutes to be an Indian and a Pakistani will further widen. As it is the pop culture of both countries is distinctly different even at present.

This has been my observation too, being an overseas Pakistani with two out of my three kids being American-born and the eldest having spent only the first few months of his life in Pakistan. I’ve insisted on them always having NICOPs and Pakistani passports to go with their American ones, but I’m under no illusions that their descendants will carry on doing so. Look back far enough and everyone is from somewhere else, it’s just that eventually they cease seeing themselves as from that Somewhere Else.

That said, apropos the topic of this thread, for much of Pakistan it wasn’t so much a case of moving to another country as staying put, yet their identity nevertheless evolving (this applies even to migrants from the Humaaaya Mulk, since the move was to a part of the same national entity they were part of, albeit one that broke away). Keeping that in mind, I would contend that seventy or so years and at least three generations are sufficiently long enough for the new identity to establish itself in the hearts and minds of the bulk of the population. For some reason though, the validity of that identity keeps getting questioned. My post was really me wondering aloud how long would be long enough for the naysayers to cease calling that validity into question.

 

[KB]

In addition to the military emerging to the forefront, there’s the old debate regarding faith being a tool the state has readily exploited as a battering ram to achieve multiple objectives, some more reprehensible than others. I wonder though if coaxing national cohesion is one of the more nobler objectives faith has been put to work for. The question is, was the state forced into doing so by circumstance, if we are to acknowledge the premise in the OP as valid at least in the early years? Or could the goal of national cohesion also have been achieved without resorting to it? Perhaps the primacy of faith wasn’t a cold, calculating measure after all, and just the default, inevitable primary identity in our region, one which our eastern neighbor is belatedly settling upon after what is now being claimed was an artificial secularism imposed from the top?

I would argue that we need to take seriously the religious commitments of many of the modernists who ultimately spearheaded the campaign for Pakistan and who formed the governing elite of Pakistan in the early years. This is not of course to deny the that the rhetoric of the elite which governed Pakistan was filled with exaggerated religious references and that to draw on the symbolic power of Islam to paper over the cracks was often tempting. It is also true that politicians often must keep an eye on the gallery. But the modernists’ references to Islam were not only ever window-dressing or merely cynical manipulation for secular gain.

As the outstanding scholar, Muhammad Qasim Zaman has shown, the modernist elite that led the movement for Pakistan believed Islam to be an ethical force capable of guiding the Pakistani state. There was an emphasis in their statements on awakening the ‘spirit of Islam’ which had been deadened from excessively formalistic understandings of the religious establishment. There was the belief that as an ethical ideal, Islam could cure many of the world’s ills. When the modernists spoke of brotherhood, social justice, and equality, they were not grounding these ideas in some secular norms but seeing them as expressions of longstanding Islamic values. Such thinking differed from many of the ulama and the Islamists, and tended to emphasise the ethical and social rather than legal aspects of Islam.

This does not mean of course that they had a very clear blueprint for the state. Wilfred Cantwell Smith in the 1940s has taught Indian and Islamic history at Forman Christian College in Lahore. He had therefore observed the Pakistan movement from close quarters. He wrote shortly after the independence that the enthusiasm for Pakistan was not based on what had been accomplished but the spirit it embodied. There was immense enthusiasm, which was derived from the sense that they were doing something for Islam. But in many ways the ideal was largely aspirational, embodying a spirit of striving. Or as Smith, writing in 1951, wrote:

“The Islamic state is the ideal to which Pakistan, it is felt, should aspire. It is the aspiring which is fundamental, and common; not this or that pattern of the ideal. It is an ideal not in the immediate sense of a blueprint which Muslims have only to actualize; - but an ideal in a much more ultimate sense: that to which final loyalty, in this sphere, is or should be given…It is not a picture of what ought to be, but the criterion by which all pictures of what ought to be must be judged; or perhaps it is but the notion that, however inaccessible, such a criterion exists. The meaning is dynamic rather than static, moral rather than sociological; the mood is imperative rather than indicative. For Muslims, so far as the social sphere is concerned, it is not a good but The Good.

The demand that Pakistan should be an Islamic state is a Muslim way of saying that Pakistan should build for itself a good society. Not merely an independent or a strong or a wealthy or a modern society; all these things, perhaps, but also a good society.”

 

[ElRaja]

How do you know that? Any studies, research, Facts to back this claim?

personal experience. however that may be biased by the fact that i don't give much importance to ethnicity and maybe other project the same back at me.

There is no such thing as Pakistani culture or identity. There is a Pashtun, Baloch, Punjabi, Sindhi, Siraiki and Hazara culture (with their own associated languages and biradaris, clans etc). In many things i have more commonality with an Indian from UP and Dehli, than a Pathan or Sindhi. I notice this aspect more after living abroad for many years, where i ve interaction with these people.

I as a 3rd generation Muhajir am proud of my original identity, Food, culture, literature, humor and language that my grandparents brought over from India. And i try my best to pass it on to my children.

im a pothwari, i love urdu poetry and speak urdu with my family, i love eating pathan food and listening to punjabi music.

if you feel preserving your ethnic identity is important, then i will not not argue with that, id rather experience as much as i can and take bits and pieces of whatever i like.

do i have more in common with ethnic pothwaris? maybe, but i don't find any tangible difference in interacting with punjabis, pathans, urdu speakers, etc.

 

[ElRaja]

By the way, one national entity that has perennially fascinated me is the former Yugoslavia. In some ways, it was the mirror opposite of Pakistan: whereas we are multi-ethnic but with a common faith, they were all ethnically South Slavs, but religiously Orthodox, Catholic and Muslim. Pakistan lives on to fight another day, but Yugoslavia is no more. The countries are too far apart to draw too many credible parallels, but sometimes I can’t help but wonder why it took forty years of Marshall Tito to keep a lid on separatist sentiment in Europe of all places? Perhaps faith is just as valid a marker of identity as ethnicity after all, and the canards about artificiality stand debunked?

this is an excellent point and i have thought about it to. some people to this day long for what Yugoslavia represented.

my own very limited knowledge however has me often wondering whether that had something to do with the fact that to a large extend the south slavic ethnic unity was a result of political oppression under the austro-hungarians, and given their demise unity was a ticking bomb.

eventually the spectre of nazi-ism and the second world war exerted similar pressures to unite and earned tito a lot of respect. the prospect of a crumbling soviet union combined with the death of tito removed the last internal and external pressures to remain united.

i don't think i need to elucidate what factors represent similar parallels for Pakistan.

 

[Knight_Rider]

personal experience. however that may be biased by the fact that i don't give much importance to ethnicity and maybe other project the same back at me.



im a pothwari, i love urdu poetry and speak urdu with my family, i love eating pathan food and listening to punjabi music.

if you feel preserving your ethnic identity is important, then i will not not argue with that, id rather experience as much as i can and take bits and pieces of whatever i like.

do i have more in common with ethnic pothwaris? maybe, but i don't find any tangible difference in interacting with punjabis, pathans, urdu speakers, etc.

Birds of a feather...

 

[IndianHero]

I will tell u one insider news and this is 100% true..

Pakistan's geography problem of kashmir was due to a woman and she was edwina mountbatten (wife of lord mountbatten, last viceroy of undivided india)

how ?

1.) In October 1947 jinnah & army sent pashtun tribes/armed men into kashmir, these troops took control of almost half of valley & they were just few miles away from srinagar

2.) Maharaja of kashmir asked nehru to send indian troops, nehru wasn't interested at first to sent troops

3.) Nehru was having affair with edwina mountbatten & he used to give her lots of gifts like sarees etc,.

<img src="https://i.ibb.co/KVkcJ1Z/713-A6-F2-C-D8-EC-443-B-93-D5-C67-C9-DE65-CDE.jpg" alt="713-A6-F2-C-D8-EC-443-B-93-D5-C67-C9-DE65-CDE" border="0">

4.) Lord mountbatten came to know about this affair & he wanted to teach nehru & india a lesson by engaging them into never ending conflict as punishment

5.) He brainwashed nehru & compelled him to send indian troops to kashmir & rest is history which every one knows


So, hence this lady edwina mountbatten was direct/indirect reason for pakistan's geography problem with kashmir

 

[Nostalgic]

I would argue that we need to take seriously the religious commitments of many of the modernists who ultimately spearheaded the campaign for Pakistan and who formed the governing elite of Pakistan in the early years. This is not of course to deny the that the rhetoric of the elite which governed Pakistan was filled with exaggerated religious references and that to draw on the symbolic power of Islam to paper over the cracks was often tempting. It is also true that politicians often must keep an eye on the gallery. But the modernists’ references to Islam were not only ever window-dressing or merely cynical manipulation for secular gain.

As the outstanding scholar, Muhammad Qasim Zaman has shown, the modernist elite that led the movement for Pakistan believed Islam to be an ethical force capable of guiding the Pakistani state. There was an emphasis in their statements on awakening the ‘spirit of Islam’ which had been deadened from excessively formalistic understandings of the religious establishment. There was the belief that as an ethical ideal, Islam could cure many of the world’s ills. When the modernists spoke of brotherhood, social justice, and equality, they were not grounding these ideas in some secular norms but seeing them as expressions of longstanding Islamic values. Such thinking differed from many of the ulama and the Islamists, and tended to emphasise the ethical and social rather than legal aspects of Islam.

This does not mean of course that they had a very clear blueprint for the state. Wilfred Cantwell Smith in the 1940s has taught Indian and Islamic history at Forman Christian College in Lahore. He had therefore observed the Pakistan movement from close quarters. He wrote shortly after the independence that the enthusiasm for Pakistan was not based on what had been accomplished but the spirit it embodied. There was immense enthusiasm, which was derived from the sense that they were doing something for Islam. But in many ways the ideal was largely aspirational, embodying a spirit of striving. Or as Smith, writing in 1951, wrote:

“The Islamic state is the ideal to which Pakistan, it is felt, should aspire. It is the aspiring which is fundamental, and common; not this or that pattern of the ideal. It is an ideal not in the immediate sense of a blueprint which Muslims have only to actualize; - but an ideal in a much more ultimate sense: that to which final loyalty, in this sphere, is or should be given…It is not a picture of what ought to be, but the criterion by which all pictures of what ought to be must be judged; or perhaps it is but the notion that, however inaccessible, such a criterion exists. The meaning is dynamic rather than static, moral rather than sociological; the mood is imperative rather than indicative. For Muslims, so far as the social sphere is concerned, it is not a good but The Good.

The demand that Pakistan should be an Islamic state is a Muslim way of saying that Pakistan should build for itself a good society. Not merely an independent or a strong or a wealthy or a modern society; all these things, perhaps, but also a good society.”

Thanks, that adds substantial nuance to the two ends of the spectrum I was limiting it to: the calculated, compelled by circumstance, decision on the one hand, and organic popular sentiment on the other.

 

[Nostalgic]

this is an excellent point and i have thought about it to. some people to this day long for what Yugoslavia represented.

my own very limited knowledge however has me often wondering whether that had something to do with the fact that to a large extend the south slavic ethnic unity was a result of political oppression under the austro-hungarians, and given their demise unity was a ticking bomb.

eventually the spectre of nazi-ism and the second world war exerted similar pressures to unite and earned tito a lot of respect. the prospect of a crumbling soviet union combined with the death of tito removed the last internal and external pressures to remain united.

i don't think i need to elucidate what factors represent similar parallels for Pakistan.

“Yugomania” is the term used to describe the nostalgic yearning for the state that is no more that some of them cling on to. I read an article about ten years or so ago about Yugomaniacs who travel the former constituent republics, meeting each other, reminiscing about old times.

Underneath the surface of an otherwise dry news report, there was a palpable wistfulness that touched me, given how ten years ago, Pakistan was at a low ebb. It made me ruminate on what it would be like if the country you’ve grown up loving, your geopolitical Holy of Holies, were to unravel. There was that tug of war inside me between the student of history and the mortal being shackled by existence: the former realizing that national boundaries inevitably “shift like desert sands,” as one Pink Floyd song once put it, and the latter struck by the soul-crushing despondency of what it would be like if it were to happen in my lifetime. I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy.

 

[Nostalgic]

... and to tie up the discussion on borders inevitably shifting with the brief exchange on immigration with [MENTION=138254]Syed1[/MENTION], I find myself frequently mourning the sheer impotence of the individual: we are, utterly and undoubtedly, slaves of Father Time.

Borders shift, and so do families, and with the passage of generations, people happen upon new equilibriums, new norms. But spare a thought for the individual who had to go through the cataclysm that is enforced emigration, or of being witness to a cherished homeland being no more.

 

[KB]

But spare a thought for the individual who had to go through the cataclysm that is enforced emigration

Exile is of course different to emigration but the above made me think of Faiz's poem on the pain of being uprooted, which begins, mere dil mere musafir, and ends with:

hamein kya bura tha marna
agar ek baar hota

(This idea of 'I would not mind dying, if only it was to happen once', is derived from a well-known Ghalib poem.)

 

[Nostalgic]

Exile is of course different to emigration but the above made me think of Faiz's poem on the pain of being uprooted, which begins, mere dil mere musafir, and ends with:

hamein kya bura tha marna
agar ek baar hota

(This idea of 'I would not mind dying, if only it was to happen once', is derived from a well-known Ghalib poem.)

If memory serves me, Meray Dil Meray Musaafir was his final book (minus posthumous collections), released very early in the eighties? There are other poems in that book that hint at his acknowledgment of his impending demise: Heart Attack, Jis Roz Qaza Aaye Gee etc, and an admission of his despondency at what the Soviet Union turned out to be. All this in the backdrop of Zia and his Lebanese exile.

I should dust it off and read it all again....

 

[Bigboii]

I will tell u one insider news and this is 100% true..

Pakistan's geography problem of kashmir was due to a woman and she was edwina mountbatten (wife of lord mountbatten, last viceroy of undivided india)

how ?

1.) In October 1947 jinnah & army sent pashtun tribes/armed men into kashmir, these troops took control of almost half of valley & they were just few miles away from srinagar

2.) Maharaja of kashmir asked nehru to send indian troops, nehru wasn't interested at first to sent troops

3.) Nehru was having affair with edwina mountbatten & he used to give her lots of gifts like sarees etc,.

<img src="https://i.ibb.co/KVkcJ1Z/713-A6-F2-C-D8-EC-443-B-93-D5-C67-C9-DE65-CDE.jpg" alt="713-A6-F2-C-D8-EC-443-B-93-D5-C67-C9-DE65-CDE" border="0">

4.) Lord mountbatten came to know about this affair & he wanted to teach nehru & india a lesson by engaging them into never ending conflict as punishment

5.) He brainwashed nehru & compelled him to send indian troops to kashmir & rest is history which every one knows


So, hence this lady edwina mountbatten was direct/indirect reason for pakistan's geography problem with kashmir

Damn the way he was laughing with her something was up for sure
And Mountbatten was just sad that first he took India and know his wife
Must be feeling insecure about his manhood

 

[Nostalgic]

And Mountbatten was just sad that first he took India and know his wife
Must be feeling insecure about his manhood

Unlikely, because by all accounts, they had what would today be called an open marriage. There’s plenty of speculation also that Uncle Louis and Nehru had a borderline homoerotic (if platonic) relationship themselves.

 

[Bigboii]

Unlikely, because by all accounts, they had what would today be called an open marriage. There’s plenty of speculation also that Uncle Louis and Nehru had a borderline homoerotic (if platonic) relationship themselves.

Weird guy this nehru dude tbh

 

[Bigboii]

Unlikely, because by all accounts, they had what would today be called an open marriage. There’s plenty of speculation also that Uncle Louis and Nehru had a borderline homoerotic (if platonic) relationship themselves.

Who is Uncle Louis btw

 

[Nostalgic]

Who is Uncle Louis btw

Lord Sahab Louis Mountbatten.

 

[IndianHero]

Weird guy this nehru dude tbh

I won't be surprised if nehru was bisexual i.e.. waahi dhoono teams ke liye batting karney wala

The insider news says that at first Nehru didn't wanted to send troops (after maharaja's request) for 2 main reasons :


1.) Sending indian troops to kashmir will anger jinnah & unnecessarily spoils relations with pakistan

2.) Land of kashmir is not worth it , in the sense that kashmir neither has natural resources like oil, gas, gold mines, coal mines or any minerals.
It only has only scenic beauties and few farm lands ii.e.. only source of income is tourism & farming & both r quite vulnerable industries. So maintenance of kashmir is costly affair than the revenue it generates for the country


But Lord mountbatten wanted to push nehru into this dispute bcoz of his affair with edwina mountbatten