Undoubtedly, it is in the domain of human nature that he wants to dominate others in every aspect of life. Similarly nations also want to dominate and rule over other nations to exploit each others’ resources for development and to fulfil their desire at the cost of hostile behavior with others. In our human history, we see that this desire was fulfilled through attacking , capturing and annexation of other nations but in today’s modern world, the strong and effective hold of UN on these matters, it is very difficult for one state to invade the other without strong justification and support; to overcome this- in our modern technological era- states are now using hybrid warfare including spying and subversion, raising enemy’s internal problems by fueling its internal issues.
After the second world war only few incidents occurred in our history throughout the world when one state imposed full-scale war on the other; but this full-scale war for annexation was only successful when it was within a nation ethnically on the same page, e.g., the matter of North and South Korea and the invasion of North Vietnam of South Vietnam.
In Pakistan’s case, it is not of as much danger to outer world after independence but to behave as a large importer. Although Pakistan has problems with india which urges India to dismember Pakistan and to threat it at every international level but after Bhutto’s era, Zia-ul-Haq tried to Islamize Pakistan; and after that nuclearization and then Western economic enemy China wants to get huge share over world’s economy by passing its routes through Pakistani territory to change the world and last one Pakistan is the only country who was ideologically opposed to the ideology of Israel which was sponsored by Britain and US alike.
These facts urged western allies, America, India and strong Israeli lobby to decompose Pakistan into many parts for which many rebellious activities ran throughout Pakistan to depart decompose and destabilize Pakistan by using some Pakistanis by giving them high incentives but breaking up of a country is never an easy task and in the matter of Pakistan which is composed of many ethnicities having distinct culture traditions and languages, although Islam is a common religion but religion alone is not a sign of unity and discipline so what makes Pakistan unbreakable? Here are some reasons based on geography and history that explain why it is an unbreakable and despite the strong efforts of Pakistan’s enemies that ran separatist movements like Sindhudesh, greater Balochistan, free Pakhtunistan etc, Pakistan will never decompose into smaller unit.
Modern day Pakistan is composed of many states and provinces of British India and these states and provinces have separate identity during the British reign but at the time of independence these states had to annexed to India or Pakistan. Pakistan annexed almost all Muslim states in the West having Muslim majority and even in today’s Pakistan we see that more than 50% of Pakistan is compose of those States. Let us review some major aspects of the bonds of the country, one by one, which unified Pakistan.
First on the list is Sindh, where Sindhudesh movement was started after the partition when many muhajirs came from India and settled in Sindh. Local Sindhis perceived the migrants a threat to Sindhi culture because of their large numbers. Some Sindhis, due to fear of lagging behind in numbers from muhajirs, started Sindhudesh movement but the movement has not successful till now.
The first cause of its failure is that Sindh consists of a very large number of muhajirs living in the areas of entire Sindh and have deep roots in the economics of Sindh. Urdu speaking population is not only very patriotic towards Pakistan but also has no place to live except Pakistan. Moreover a large area of Sindh was previously Muslim majority state Khairpur which was annexed to Pakistan through an agreement which made it a part of Pakistan. The remaining part of Sindh province mainly consists of Thatta, Umarkot, Karachi,and Sukkar so when Indian funded organisations speak about Sindhudesh they do not pay attention to Khairpur state which annexed to Pakistan not to Sindh province. Moreover the important point is that of high patriotism of Sindhis towards Pakistan so it is very difficult for external forces to separate Sindh by just spending large sums of money.
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) province has a large part of area consisting of Malakand division which is composed of previously princely states like Chitral, Swat, Dir, Buner, Amb and Phulra which annexed to Pakistan in 1947-48 and it is is the written agreement that they will be loyal to Pakistan which they are and the second aspect is that Southern districts of KPK; DI Khan and Tank have Saraiki population also that does not want to go with Pakhtunistan. Similarly the former Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) was annexed to Pakistan by Britain itself. The last point of vital importance is that KPK consists of vast hazara division which has entirely different culture from Pakhtuns so how pakhtonistan. Not to mention the majority of Pakistani Pakhtoons will never choose to go with Afghanistan’s Pakhtuns due to huge gap in lifestyle as Pakistani Pakhtoons have lived under British banner for a century which created a sense of separate Pakhtoon identity from that of Afghans in them.
The third one of vital importance is Balochistan, which is mineral rich and consists of half of Pakistani territory, sharing a large marine belt with Arabian sea. Due to lack of development in this province, external enemies exploited local sentiments against Pakistan and are still trying to destabilize Pakistan. India has even declared its intention to separate it from Pakistan and USA wants to use its demographic importance for its own benefit or to at least restrain China from ruling world’s economy, so they want blood in Balochistan to destabilize Pakistan. There are two questions that are worth considering in this regard:
Did the Pakhtun and the Baloch live in the same region, i.e. does Balochistan have mixed population altogether?
The answer is that they never lived together because they are entirely different in every aspect of life. Pakhtuns possess northern belt while Baloch are living in distant far southern belt from Khuzdar till Arabian sea. The culture, tradition, customs of two ethnicities are entirely different and there are so many Baloch living in Punjab area.
Another question is, even if a break away occurs, how minerals will be managed and local funds will be generated?
Baloch belt consists of 95% of that area which was under princely states in British Raj, these States annexed to Pakistan with their own will even the states of Lasbela, Kharan and Makran are those who annexed with Pakistan barely within month after independence consisting more than 50% of Baloch belt today. The conditions are strongly said that the Baloch will remain under Pakistani flag till death and the main Baloch state named Kalat although annexed to Pakistan in 1948 but promised to remain under Pakistani flag. The game which was started by india is so bloody that if this succeeds, a trend of several independent states will be on schedule in entire subcontinent, like that of europe, which is ultimate death of india and india knows that this game is of no results because the agreement is long-lasting.
Pakistan is unbreakable, and any efforts to break it will not succeed. Pakistan was made after so much struggle and bloodshed. We should thank to God that He bestowed us with such a diverse, vast and beautiful country and we should not look at the outside world for improving our life standards, rather we should put more and more effort to make our country progressive and prosperous.
About The Author
Saad Bin Ubaid is the head of Infrastructure Division of Rationale-47. He studies Mathematics at Quaid-i-Azam University. He is interested in National Security as well as Agricultural and Industrial development. He is a keen observer of International Relations and Strategic Affairs.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the original author and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views of Rationale-47.