Pakistan is it becoming more Narcisstic-nation and Volatile towards Opposites of Pakistan(Kafiristans)..? Why Pakistan is breeding ground for Terrorists and Narcissists?
We See Below the Root cause of this phenomenon. (Written by Grok A.I)
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s book, Pakistan or the Partition of India, published in 1940 with updated editions in 1945 and 1946, provides a detailed analysis of the socio-political dynamics leading to the partition of India and the creation of Pakistan. While the book does not explicitly address post-partition terrorism, its insights into the motivations, communal tensions, and structural issues surrounding the formation of Pakistan offer a valuable lens through which to examine Pakistan’s role in terrorism against India. This analysis will explore Pakistan’s state-sponsored terrorism targeting India, particularly in the context of Ambedkar’s arguments about the inevitability of partition, communal divides, and the challenges of nation-building, while integrating contemporary evidence of Pakistan’s actions.
Ambedkar’s Perspective on Partition and Its Relevance
Ambedkar’s book is a meticulous examination of the Muslim League’s demand for Pakistan, the Hindu opposition, and the broader implications of partitioning India. Key points from the book that are relevant to analyzing Pakistan’s terrorism against India include:
- Sentiment-Driven Demand for Pakistan:
Ambedkar argued that the creation of Pakistan was driven by deep-seated Muslim sentiment for a separate nation, which could not be suppressed by force. He wrote, “The creation of a new nation state has to be conceded because it is a matter of sentiment and unity of the nation cannot be maintained by force” (). This sentiment, rooted in the perception of Muslims as a distinct nation, laid the foundation for Pakistan’s national identity, which often defined itself in opposition to India. - Communal Tensions and Inherent Divides:
Ambedkar highlighted the irreconcilable differences between Hindus and Muslims, not just religiously but also socially and politically. He noted the Muslim League’s insistence on separate states and the Hindu Mahasabha’s resistance to partition, yet he foresaw that communal tensions would persist regardless of partition (). These tensions, exacerbated by partition’s violent aftermath, have fueled Pakistan’s use of terrorism as a tool to sustain conflict with India. - Underestimation of Post-Partition Conflict:
Ambedkar underestimated the immediate deterioration of India-Pakistan relations, stating, “There is no reason to suppose that Pakistan will be at war with India immediately after it is brought into being” (). He also misjudged the scale of violence during population transfers, believing they would be minimal (). The partition’s bloody reality—millions displaced and killed—set the stage for enduring hostility, which Pakistan later channeled into asymmetric warfare through terrorism. - Structural Challenges of Pakistan:
Ambedkar foresaw that Pakistan would face significant challenges in nation-building, including the allocation of financial assets, delimitation of areas, and population transfers (). These difficulties contributed to Pakistan’s internal instability, which, combined with its anti-India ideology, fostered an environment where state-sponsored terrorism became a strategic tool. - Rational and Fact-Based Analysis:
Ambedkar’s approach was grounded in cold facts and reason, avoiding emotional speculation (). He analyzed historical precedents like the partition of Ireland and the Turkish-Greek population exchange to propose solutions for a smoother partition. His emphasis on rationality contrasts with the emotionally charged narratives that have since driven Pakistan’s anti-India policies, including terrorism.
Pakistan’s State-Sponsored Terrorism Against India
Pakistan’s use of terrorism as a tool of state policy against India, particularly since the 1980s, can be understood as an extension of the communal and ideological divides Ambedkar identified. Below is an analysis of key aspects of Pakistan’s terrorism, contextualized with Ambedkar’s insights:
1. Historical Context and Evolution of Terrorism
- Post-Partition Hostility: The partition, which Ambedkar saw as inevitable due to Muslim sentiment, created a Pakistan that defined its identity in opposition to India. The unresolved Kashmir issue, rooted in the partition’s territorial disputes, became a focal point for conflict. Ambedkar’s observation that coercion could not maintain national unity () is relevant here, as Pakistan’s inability to accept Kashmir’s accession to India led to covert warfare.
- Rise of Proxy Warfare: Since the 1990s, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has backed terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) to wage a low-cost proxy war against India, especially in Jammu and Kashmir (). This strategy aligns with Ambedkar’s warning about the challenges of Pakistan’s nation-building, as internal instability and a weak economy pushed Pakistan toward asymmetric warfare.
- Key Incidents:
- 2008 Mumbai Attacks: Pakistan’s admission in 2020 of funding and plotting the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, carried out by LeT, underscored its role in orchestrating high-profile terrorism (). The attack, which killed 166 people, exemplified Pakistan’s use of terrorism to destabilize India.
- Pahalgam Attack (2025): The recent attack in Pahalgam, claimed by an LeT offshoot, killed 26 people, mostly tourists, and prompted India to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty and close the Attari border (). This incident reflects the continuity of Pakistan’s strategy, exploiting communal and regional fault lines Ambedkar identified.
- Other Attacks: Attacks like the 2001 Indian Parliament attack and the 2019 Pulwama bombing, both linked to JeM, highlight Pakistan’s consistent use of terrorism to target India’s security and economy.
2. Ideological Foundations
- Two-Nation Theory: Ambedkar’s analysis of the Muslim League’s demand for Pakistan, based on the two-nation theory, explains the ideological roots of Pakistan’s anti-India stance. The belief that Muslims and Hindus are distinct nations has been perpetuated in Pakistan’s state narrative, fostering a sense of perpetual conflict with India ().
- Jihadist Support: Pakistan’s intelligence agencies have long supported jihadist groups, as seen in the Pahalgam attack and earlier incidents (). This aligns with Ambedkar’s observation of Muslim assertiveness, which he argued necessitated partition to avoid internal strife (). However, partition did not resolve these tensions but externalized them into cross-border terrorism.
3. Strategic Objectives
- Kashmir as a Flashpoint: Pakistan’s terrorism is heavily focused on Kashmir, leveraging the region’s Muslim-majority population to stoke separatism. Ambedkar’s discussion of communal distribution and political representation () foreshadows how demographic and political factors in Kashmir would remain contentious, providing Pakistan a pretext for intervention.
- Destabilizing India: By targeting civilian and economic centers, as in Mumbai and Pahalgam, Pakistan aims to weaken India’s stability and global standing. This strategy exploits the communal divides Ambedkar analyzed, though he did not anticipate their weaponization through terrorism.
- Low-Cost Warfare: Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf’s 2015 admission that Pakistan trained LeT and JeM to fuel insurgency in Kashmir () confirms the strategic use of terrorism as a cost-effective way to challenge a stronger neighbor, a tactic born from Pakistan’s structural weaknesses noted by Ambedkar.
4. Ambedkar’s Miscalculations and Their Implications
- Underestimation of Violence: Ambedkar’s belief that population transfers would be minimal and that India and Pakistan would not immediately go to war () was proven wrong by the partition’s catastrophic violence and subsequent conflicts. The unresolved trauma of partition, which Ambedkar did not fully anticipate, has fueled Pakistan’s use of terrorism as a form of vengeance and leverage.
- Communal Riots Post-Partition: Ambedkar’s hope that partition would reduce communal strife by creating a predominantly Hindu India was only partially realized. He noted that India’s Muslim population remained significant post-partition (around 10% in 1951) (), and communal riots persisted. Pakistan has exploited these internal fault lines by supporting radical elements within India, though direct evidence of this is limited.
5. Contemporary Relevance
- Pakistan’s Persistent Strategy: Recent events, like the Pahalgam attack, show that Pakistan’s reliance on terrorism remains unchanged, driven by the same ideological and strategic imperatives Ambedkar identified in the 1940s. Home Minister Amit Shah’s accusation of “Pakistan-backed terrorists” () reflects India’s frustration, though Ambedkar’s call for rational analysis suggests the need for a broader perspective beyond reflexive blame.
- India’s Response: India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty and border closure in 2025 () indicate a hardening stance, echoing Ambedkar’s view that coercion cannot resolve deep-seated sentiments. However, his emphasis on pragmatic solutions, like referendums for disputed areas (), suggests that diplomatic and multilateral approaches could complement India’s security measures.
Critical Reflections
Ambedkar’s Pakistan or the Partition of India provides a prescient framework for understanding the roots of India-Pakistan hostility, though it falls short in predicting the scale of post-partition conflict and the emergence of terrorism as a state policy. His rational, fact-based approach contrasts with the emotive narratives that drive Pakistan’s anti-India terrorism, highlighting the need for India to address both the ideological and practical dimensions of the threat.
- Strengths of Ambedkar’s Analysis: His recognition of communal sentiment as a driving force and his foresight about Pakistan’s structural challenges explain why Pakistan turned to terrorism as a tool. His call for pragmatic solutions, like learning from historical partitions, remains relevant for managing India-Pakistan relations.
- Limitations: Ambedkar’s underestimation of partition’s violence and his assumption of minimal immediate conflict between India and Pakistan limit the book’s direct applicability to modern terrorism. His focus on communal dynamics also overlooks other factors, like geopolitical rivalries and Pakistan’s military dominance, that have shaped its terrorism strategy.
Conclusion
Pakistan’s state-sponsored terrorism against India, exemplified by attacks like Mumbai 2008 and Pahalgam 2025, is a manifestation of the communal and ideological divides Ambedkar analyzed in Pakistan or the Partition of India. His insights into the inevitability of partition, the persistence of communal tensions, and Pakistan’s nation-building challenges illuminate the roots of Pakistan’s anti-India strategy. However, Ambedkar’s miscalculations about the scale of post-partition conflict and violence highlight blindly trusting his analysis without considering hindsight and contemporary evidence. India must combine Ambedkar’s rational approach with robust security and diplomatic measures to counter Pakistan’s terrorism, addressing both the ideological legacy of partition and the practical realities of a hostile neighbor.
Citations:
-https://grpvcare2dare.design.blog/2025/05/09/s940/
GRP_VCare2Dare 