tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23301331.post5223086863878486891..comments2023-10-28T05:02:10.442-04:00Comments on Americans For Bosnia: "Settling Partition Hostilities: Lessons Learned, Options Ahead" by Radha Kumar [2]Kirk Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06879908614214050994noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23301331.post-84302829945598930302008-04-09T19:14:00.000-04:002008-04-09T19:14:00.000-04:001940 is when Jinnah began pressing for partition. ...1940 is when Jinnah began pressing for partition. If Kumar's saying that partition was pushed through in 1947 he seems to be suggesting that it was the solution that the colonial power chose to impose on the country. But it seems unlikely that Jinnah would have reached an accommodation with the Congress Party. Kumar seems to be suggesting that the British took a decision in 1947 that could have been avoided. Or am I misinterpreting him?<BR/><BR/>Whatever the colonial power's earlier responsibility for encouraging division, it's not clear that separation and the genocidal violence that accompanied it could have been avoided once the rifts between the Muslim League and the Congress Party consolidated in the 1930s. The violence of 1946 and the confrontation of the Direct Day of Action were surely a signal that partition was politically inevitable. The alternative would seem to have been the outbreak of a civil war with the British drawn in as an ultimately impotent third party who would eventually have pulled out after complicating the conflict and perhaps exacerbating it.<BR/><BR/>So perhaps there's a point at which partition becomes unavoidable even when it's not going to do anything to resolve the problem, the mistakes have already been made.<BR/><BR/>A lot of mistakes have been made in Iraq but hopefully partition isn't yet inevitable and a federal solution is still possible. Even if federalism only works as an interim solution it might make a peaceful separation possible without mass population displacement.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23301331.post-48808924009485569452008-04-09T05:28:00.000-04:002008-04-09T05:28:00.000-04:00I agree about partition being a bad idea, it is th...I agree about partition being a bad idea, it is the COWARD'S 'solution'! It never works when it is tried. Federalization can work if it is done right, if you have honest politicians and not a lot of reasons for people to hate each other. <BR/>The problem here is like all post-Socialist/Communist settings, there are corrupt politicians and very few laws to hold them in check. The minute they get caught, they start in on hate speak, and that is the end of dealing with them.<BR/>A person from the Indian sub-Continent would be well aware of the economic damage partition does too.<BR/>The people of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are all worse off because of partition!<BR/>WAY worse off! India is coming into it's own some ways but it would have been a world power on a par with China if it weren't for partition. Maybe that is WHY partition was done in that case?Katja R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17813405984067905779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23301331.post-65739794295118680112008-04-08T14:05:00.000-04:002008-04-08T14:05:00.000-04:00Parition is often problematic. As I noted in my c...Parition is often problematic. As I noted in my comment to the earlier post, you neever get the broader right and people start fighting over the border.<BR/><BR/>In fairness though, you can also look at what happened in some places where there was no partition. In Iraq now, partition seems to be off the table. The result is that the Sunnis are trying to hold one to something, the Shia are fighting to gain the power they feel was deined to them by successive Sunni based governments, and the Chaldeans and Assyrians are getting massacred or leaving. (The Kurds by all accounts are doing the smart thing and making money off of $100/barrel oil prices). As an aside, I am not advocating partitioning Iraq (though I do think a federal Iraq is a better answer). <BR/><BR/>Looking at other places not partitioned, there is Turkey. After WWI, the Turks fought hard to avoid paritioning the remainder of the country. The result was that the Greeks were massacred or left, and no one is really happy with the Kurdish situation (though the solution there is a democratic Turkey)<BR/><BR/>As an American, it is tough for us to understand as "Americanism" is not based on blood but on acceptance. My family has been here only for about 100 years yet I consider myself American. Can a Kurd consider himself Turkish? Can a Serb consider himself Kosovar? <BR/><BR/>I would like to think the answer is democratic federalism, but if membership in "la patrie" is based on ancestry and blood (no mater how mythical), can it work in reality?<BR/><BR/>And partition cannot always be bad. Should we be pushing for the Austro-Hungarian Empire to the Ottomans to return? Of course not. But given that what we are seeing in a way is the end of 500 years of empires, some changes in borders is necessary. That means some areas will be paritioned.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06638332009159486046noreply@blogger.com