Future Prospects for India and Pakistan and Lessons for Ethnically Divided Societies

Abstract

Federalism in the Indian subcontinent has had bad press from many quarters. Authors such as Kenneth Wheare excluded federalism in the subcontinent from his analysis on the grounds that it diverged from the American model (1963, 33). Authors from the subcontinent have understandably described the centrist and “quasi-federal” nature of the federations that were created (Banerjee 1989, 287; Arora 2002, 507). Others have decried the form that the federations took, such as the concession of linguistic reorganization (Harrison 1960, 135, 307), and the adoption of the One Unit Plan. The One Unit Plan has been understandably criticized for creating bipolar provincial competition and creating grievances against the Punjabis in the Western Wing (Callard 1957, 189). Linguistic reorganization in India is derided for leading to the proliferation of regional political parties, supposed to have undermined federal stability (India Today 1998).

The history of federations is at least as much a history of success as of dissolution… many non-federal states rigidly opposing any entrenchment of regional autonomy… have been broken.

(King 1993, 97)

Although Pakistan still lacks a strong national identity and Islam—especially radical Islam—is not likely to provide one, the Pakistani state is nevertheless strong, and the army remains its core.

(Cohen 2003, 18)

Intra-group divides contribute to inter-group peace.

(Varshney 2002, 171)