Re:

Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 13:24:59 +0530
From: John Eric Gomes <goe...@gmail.com>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!"
    <goanet@lists.goanet.org>
Subject: Re: [Goanet] India & Pakistan would have remained united had
    Nehru let Jinnah become the PM says Dalai Lama.


I am wondering why he made such a statement. He could have said "perhaps"
there would have been no partition. Nobody can say today what would have
definately happened! Would have, could have , should have are in the realm of speculation and can cause immense fallout politically as one may see now
in due course?

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 11:08 AM, Con Menezes <cmene...@tpg.com.au> wrote:

https://scroll.in/latest/
    889725/india-and-pakistan-would-have-remained-united-
    had-nehru-let-jinnah-become-pm-says-the-dalai-lama


Ola,

The Dalai Lam's alleged comment on Nehru may be put in the 'audi et alteram partem' category. It needs not to be true to yet constitute something to think about. Nehru was a great politician and leader, but not a holy man, and like all decision takers he also made mistakes.

No one can say if Jinnah had made a good PM of an undivided India. But it is clear that the partition of India constituted a horrendously massive human drama, and that it has had nefarious consequences up to the present day, where the 'other nation' is used and abused as a playball of - mostly - domestic politics.

In the would-could-should sphere, I think everyone who's sensible would agree that the subcontinet might have been (much) better of with an undivided, but largely confederative India, with almost all powers divested to individual states.

But as the Dutch say 'done business knows no turnback' ...

Cheers from undivided (but very divisive) Italy,
p+7D!

Reply via email to