Pataliputra
SpeedLimited
- Jan 30, 2024
- 249
- 200
- Country of Origin
- Country of Residence
I agree that border skirmishes between countries created from the division of Pakistan will continue, but the loss of human lives and resources would still be far less than what occurs today in a united Pakistan. Do you really think India-Pakistan border skirmishes could cause more loss of lives and resources than what happened in East Pakistan in 1971? It’s better to divide Pakistan peacefully, with the consensus of its people, rather than going through a bloodbath, killing millions, and still ending up divided. What’s the benefit in that?So, if you have four rattlesnakes instead of one in your attic, you will sleep sounder?
States are meant to improve the lives of common people. If a state becomes the cause of violence and bloodshed, it's better to dissolve it. A divided Pakistan would be in the best interest of both the region and the people of Pakistan.
I'm also not against the Two-Nation Theory or the division of India in 1947. The issue is that it wasn't fully implemented—Muslims remain in India, and non-Muslims are still in Pakistan. The division should have been complete, with a full exchange of populations.
Last edited: