This only stands true if the people feel enfranchised by the nation. Your assumption that there is some massive secular support to grab guns and fight is again a military fantasy and not realitiy.
Quite to the contrary I was suggesting the opposite. A fatigued Gen Z population addicted to the fantasy of India as portrayed in Bollywood would be completely at ease to an Indian annexation. This has happened in the case of the territories of Goa, Daman, Diu, Pondicherry, Chandanagore, whose populations fatigued under Portuguese and French colonial rule decided to support Indian military "liberation ". Sikkim too was annexed by India when the population was tired of the despotic regime of the ruler ( Chogyal). Hyderabad was annexed in 1948 because the population was fed up of the despotic Nizam rule, Hence a similar annexation of a bankrupt war weary Pakistan is theoretically feasible if the "urban professionals " want it. The question is what is the reality? Sometimes a population's nationalist sentiment is misread
Example : It was assumed that a similarly fatigued and religiously ethnic divided Iraqi population would welcome liberation from Saddam Hussain's regime. A similar experiment may be underway in Iran
The assumption that Pakistanis would view an Indian invasion as liberation misunderstands both history and current reality. There is no broad desire to “merge” with India, only a deep fatigue with internal dysfunction.
How do we know there is no broad desire to merge with India? Is there any Pew research or Gallup poll that supports this view? Were the sentiments of the Bengali population in our erstwhile Eastern wing accurately read in 1971 ? Did the Bengali population of East Pakistan view the Indian military incursion as an invasion or liberation?
Today’s Pakistan is fragmented by economic crisis and ethnic divides, not united under martial law or waiting for outside salvation. If such a war ever occurred, most citizens would likely retreat into apathy or self-preservation rather than mount a patriotic defense or welcome invaders.
That is very good news for India , that has long maintained that Pakistan is an illegal entity carved from sovereign Indian territory by a combination of foreign colonial intrigue and a false religious identity of a population forcibly converted to a religion that is foreign to the sub-continent.
So only the weak Pakistani army has to be defeated for Pakistan to be easily annexed, and the population integrated.
In fact India effectively demonstrated this course of action when it defeated the Portuguese Army and took Goa. For the record the Portugal ( a NATO power by the way ) had ruled Goa for 600 years and the people of Goa were officially Portuguese citizens. Today the urban professionals of Goa would have been EU nationals with full employment and travel rights with the EU ( but that is another issue) .
The comparison to 1971 ignores how much social trust has eroded since then and how different the political consciousness of present-day Pakistanis has become.
If you read my post I was comparing the desire of the newly liberated secular population of East Pakistan to merge with India. If you study the history of the left wing movement in adjoining West Bengal and its counterpart in what is now Bangladesh, you can see how back then the call for merger with India echoed by Maulana Bhashani and Tiger Siddique, was taken up by their left wing West Bengali Indian counterparts, Azizul Haque, Hannan Mollah, and Gani Khan Chowdhury, Bangladesh didn't merge back into India because the Brahmin lobby in the West Bengal Congress did not want a merger of the population that would inevitably elect a Muslim Chief Minister.
Trying to compare Indian Muslims to this alleged invasion is whataboutism to try and shifts from “what do Pakistanis want” to “are Indian Muslims perfectly secure,” which does nothing to prove that Pakistanis secretly desire annexation or endless war.
The word Pakistani itself is a fairly recent definition ( since 1947) , prior to which we were all Indian Muslims, So it's not what-aboutism, The definition of Pakistan in the Pakistan Declaration of 1940 defines it as a "Homeland for Indian Muslims " so we can't de-hyphenate Pakistanis from Indian Muslims, ...at least not until India annexes us when there will be no Pakistanis ( just as there are no East Pakistanis today ) .
Question:
What does being apathetic and neutral to an Indian invasion of Pakistan ( exactly like the Indian Muslims are today ) mean? Desire for annexation or resistance?
Even if Indian Muslims face discrimination and structural barriers, that reality does not turn 240 million Pakistanis into willing candidates for absorption into another state. The core issue remains that most Pakistanis are preoccupied with inflation, jobs, security and ethnic fault lines inside their own country, not with a hypothetical upgrade to Indian citizenship.
It's not a "hypothetical upgrade" to Indian citizenship. India has demonstrated these upgrades to the people of Goa, Daman, Diu, Dadar and Nagar Haveli, Chandan Nagore, Pondicherry, Sikkim and Lakshadweep ( forgot that one). India annexed Hyderabad in 1948 to make it the Silicon Valley of South Asia. Isn't that upgrade real and attractive?
Pointing to Indian Muslims is a diversion from answering what Pakistanis themselves actually think or need.
Quite the reverse I pointed out the potential for economic security, female empowerment, a secular democratic environment, and personal safety for the people of Pakistan if they revert to becoming Indian Muslims ( which we all were before 1947 ) .
Your questions echo the same whataboutism by deflecting from Pakistani realities to hypothetical Indian ones. Urban professionals in Karachi already struggle with jobs and housing amid local collapse, not because of annexation dreams but due to internal mismanagement they endure daily. Food access for Pakistanis hinges on economic rot and supply failures within their borders, not some Maslow-scale comparison to India.
Read my responses above. An annexation by India is the solution to all the problems faced by urban professionals in Karachi.
Ask the urban professional in Hyderabad and Goa how their lives improved beyond their wildest dreams after India annexed their territory. Believe me the Karachi urban professional will be way better off getting employment in Mumbai, Pune, or Hyderabad. If he or she changes her/his name, eating habits and religion, housing will never be a problem.
Resistance here is not holy war but basic apathy born of exhaustion, not devotion. This sidesteps the point: Pakistanis prioritize survival over either endless conflict or foreign absorption.
I agree, You have made a powerful argument. Resistance is futile. The Pakistani Armed Forces will be defeated yet again and must not be supported. An Indian annexation is the best option for the economic prosperity, and personal safety of our people. I agree to give up my Chapali kababs as I revert to becoming an Indian Muslim
Would like our Indian members to comment on this
@Vkdindian1 @Raj-Hindustani.
