The Greek philosopher Heraclitus taught that you can’t step into the same river twice, for you aren’t the same person at each visit, and the water is ever flowing. It is a powerful way to represent the reality of impermanence: Everything is always changing.

Yet so many people have fraught relationships with change. We deny it, resist it or attempt to control it — the result of which is almost always some combination of stress, anxiety, burnout and exhaustion. It doesn’t have to be that way.

No doubt, change can, and often does, hurt; but with the right mind-set, it can also be a force for growth. It’s not as if we have any choice in the matter. Like it or not, life is change. We’d be wise to shift our default position from futile resistance to being in conversation with change instead.

A concept called allostasis can help. Developed in the late 1980s by a neuroscientist, Peter Sterling, and a biologist, Joseph Eyer, allostasis is based on the idea that rather than being rigid, our healthy baseline is a moving target. I see it as parallel to the concept conceived by Richard Rohr of order, disorder and reorder. Allostasis runs counter to a more widespread but older and outdated model for change, homeostasis. Essentially, homeostasis says healthy systems return to the same starting point following a change: X to Y to X. By contrast, in allostasis, healthy systems also crave stability after a change, but the baseline of that stability can be somewhere new: X to Y to Z.

Full article

Countries Created Conflicting for Ever

The Saga of Partition of British India

(Within the Perspective of Philosophy of History)

Birth of the Asian sub-Continent

During the time before history, drawing upon the discipline of geology and earth science, we find that about 50 million years ago, a triangular plate of a huge land mass broke away from Madagascar—a large island lying today off the southeastern coast of Africa. Adrift on the earth’s mantle and breaking away from the continent of Africa, it sailed across the ocean and smashed into the belly of Central Asia to become what we know today the “Indian subcontinent.” Francis Bacon (1561-1626), an English philosopher and man of science, was the first to notice from the African map that the coastlines of eastern Africa matched with the triangular shaped India and the western matched neatly with South America. Geologists in the 19th century hypothesized that all the continents we know today, were connected together as a single “supercontinent.”

With the appearance of different regions and continents the world population was initially divided into 4 major races, namely the white Caucasian, the red Mongoloid, the yellow Chinese, and the black Negroid and Australoid. Since the triangular area of India had split from Africa the aborigines of India known Dravidians were of Negroid race. Origin of Proto-Dravidians may have been in the Indus civilization of Harappan race who after the demise of Indus civilization had moved to southern India and then scattered all over the sub-continent. But from the material remains of the culture of Indus Civilization or the Harappan Civilization (c. 3,300-c. 1,300) it is being professed that these civilizations might well be the key to the roots of Hinduism. Enough knowledge has been ascertained that the Harappans, both through land and sea had been trading with the peoples of Mesopotamia. The Harappans being black in color were named by the Mesopotamians as Hindus—meaning black just as the Europeans named the Africans as Negros, a word from Latin’s Niger meaning black. However, it would have been more proper if the people of the sub-continent India were named Sindhus as the Arabs called them after the name of river Sindh—the original name of river Indus—rather than the Indians accepting the foreign given name Hindu meaning black.

Peoples of India

India is an amalgam of regions and races. It was initially a vegetarian empire because of the two fertile valleys of Indus and Ganges rivers. In the 2nd millennium BCE, the nomadic fair-skinned Aryans, after settling in the western, central, and eastern part of Eurasia, riding horse-driven chariots along with their cattle stocks entered the sub-continent of India. Expressing in their hymns disdain for the indigenous folks as dark-skinned, snub-nosed, immoral, whose characteristics link them with the demons and evil spirits of Aryan myths, themselves accepted to be named Hindus meaning black. India was thus known Hindustan until the Greeks named it ‘India’ after the name of river Indus which the Arabs had named as river Sindh. After the Aryans, many nations

and tribes, notably the Parthians from Iran and the Huns from Central Asia entered the sub-continent of Hindustan and settled there. However, Alexander the Great was the first European to have conquered the Western India until his rule ended in 326 BCE. It is recorded that 30 different dynasties ruled in various parts of the sub-continent of India between 900-1000 CE until the Turkic Muslim started settling in India.

As in 712 CE Muhammad bin Qasim invaded Sindh and from 712-854 the region came under the rule of Arab Umayyads. Turkic Muslims led by Mahmud of Ghazni started his raids in Hindustan from 1000-1186 followed by Muhammad Ghori who was succeeded by the Turkic Slave dynasty headed by Qutbuddin Aybuk. Turkic Khiljis, Tughlaks, Saiyyads, and Pathan Lodhis ruled Hindustan until in 1526 Zahiruddin Babar conquered Hindustan and laid the foundation of Mughal Empire which after 315 years’ rule was ended by the British in 1857-58. From 1758 India became a colony of the British until in 1947 every British left India. Thus, throughout the history of the sub-continent, every race, tribe, nation or family entering India permanently settled there and became Hindustanis, except for the British who considered themselves as the colonizers, left India for good. Thus, we can say Hindustan belongs to all those who have settled there during the past millenniums and are still living there.

Prelude to Colonization

From Renaissance to Enlightenment, the Europeans took a great leap forward to reach out all over the globe, exploring new lands and establishing settlements, conquering the known regions, and spreading new knowledge in every corner of the world. The adventurers and explorers from Europe not only proved that all oceans were connected, but also opened the doors of world domination for the Europeans. Spreading all around the globe and settling only over the un-urbanized lands such as America and Australia, the modern period of colonization started during eighteenth-century when the European nations became masters of most of the lands and sea routes of the world. The British, beginning with the overseas possessions and establishing trading posts between sixteenth and early eighteenth centuries succeeded in creating the largest empire in history spreading from east to west that it was described “the empire on which the sun never sets.” Because of the worldwide influence of the British Empire, English language also spread almost everywhere in the world. Two new continents, North America and Australia, where the Europeans had permanently settled and remained under the British influence, English became a leading language. But the sub-continent of India, after the fall of Mughal Empire in 1857, was the biggest and richest colony of the British Crown. But soon after the fall of Mughal Empire in India, the Indian Rebellion of 1857-58 against the rule of the British was ruthlessly quelled by the British.

British India Viewed within Philosophy of History

According to ibn-Khaldun, generally history is a record of events happening in human society, nations, and civilizations. History is a chronicle of changes that take place on account of tribe’s migrations, conflicts, wars, and revolutions. But there are errors in historical writings. The first and the most critical error is the “partisanship” towards a creed or opinion. The second error is “over-confidence” in a historian’s source. The third

is a “failure to understand what is intended” and the fourth source of error is a “mistaken belief in the truth.” The fifth error is the “inability to place an event rightly in its real context.” The sixth factor is “to gain the favor of those of high rank by praising them.” The seventh cause of error is the “ignorance of laws” governing the transformations of human society. The eighth error is “exaggeration” by giving free rein to the imagination. Therefore, it is the job of a philosopher, an intellectual and a sage to view all historical events and judge them critically, honestly, and scrutinize them neutrally within the “lens of philosophy of history” by analyzing and synthesizing events comprehensively within the spectrum of diverse issues relating to historical, geographical, political, social, and economical factors.

During the period of 1919-22 the campaign of “Khilafat Movement” in India was launched as a political move by the Muslim leaders notably, the Ali Brothers—Shaukat Ali Gohar and Muhammad Ali Jauhar—and Hakim Ajmal Khan, Abul Kalam Azad, Dr Muhammad Iqbal and many others, which was also diplomatically supported by Mohandas Gandhi and some other Indian Congress leaders. Though the movement was seeking restoration of the Ottoman Caliphate, for the British rulers it was also a glimpse of a struggle for the “Restoration of a Muslim India.” Just as the Europeans tore apart the Ottoman Empire into some nation-states with un-natural boundaries, the Khilafat Movement in India provided the British an idea to leave India as a sub-continent divided into almost 584 princely states (also called native states). Such a plan was neither acceptable to the Muslims nor to the Hindus of India. However, the British were determined to leave India not as one country because they never wanted to see a Muslim country on the globe as it was when they conquered it. Their best choice was to leave India in a state of everlasting conflicting nations where Muslims with their pride of ruling India for a millennium and the Hindus burning with the complex of victimhood would never be able to reconcile with each other. The British knew that the complexes of rulership and victimhood are “psycho-biological” which last for many generations and their pride and hate gives birth to an everlasting conflict.

In India, fifty years after the unsuccessful rebellion against the British, Mohandas Gandhi, an Indian genius came forward in 1908 and stated, “The English have not taken India, rather we have given it to them.” The British heard this as a sign of another Rebellion in the sub-continent and thus started planning how to avoid the repetition of the 1857-58 scenario. They saw clearly that the colonization spell was coming to its end. While it was after the World War I, big dents started appearing in the colonization sprint of the Europeans. Thus, the British started work on a plan of quitting India without facing an armed struggle from the Indians. They knew well that the seventy percent Hindus of India were not a militant nation—a nation with its cast system had only one cast as fighter—whereas every Muslim was a soldier, as Jihad was obligatory for every Muslim who is healthy and able to fight. An armed struggle for the freedom of India could mean the birth of Muslim India, a country bigger than the European continent. The Europeans never wanted to see a big Muslim country whereas they had already divided the Middle East under the Ottomans in small Arab states. Thus, the peaceful march for freedom projected by Gandhi appealed to the British and they decided to promote his views as a non-violent “ideology of pacifism.” At the same time to control the militant Muslims on both sides of the river Indus, they created a “Sarhadi Gandhi”

in the person of Ghaffar Khan. Though seemingly he was being portrayed as a Soviet ally whereas he was working for the British agenda of keeping the fierce warrior Muslims of that region under control.

Countries Created Conflicting for Ever

The colonized nations owe their thanks to Hitler who beleaguered every European nation and brought them to their knees that it became impossible for them to keep their control over their colonies abroad. Whereas Hitler brought destruction in Europe, he proved a blessing in disguise for the colonies under the European’s rule. The aftermath of the World War II rendered the British unable to keep the vast country of India as their colony. Three actors of the sub-continent, the British, Hindus and Muslims were already in negotiation with each other to find a way acceptable to the people of India. Here a big issue is that almost all the Muslim leaders including the top one, Jinnah, Iqbal and Liaquat were not politician in the sense that they had no constituencies from where they could be elected, rather they were nominated in the Indian National Congress. Only the leaders from Bihar and Bengal were electable leaders and in my opinion were politicians. On the other hand the Hindu leaders like Nehru, Patel, Acharya Kripalani and many others were all politicians and they had their voter banks and constituencies. However, it is interesting to mention here that on June 2, 1947, in the meeting with Mountbatten in his study, only Jinnah, Liaquat and Nishtar were there and not a single leader from Bihar or Bengal was there. While there was Nehru, Patel, Kripalani and Baldev Singh, the plan for the partition was agreed between these eight leaders.

After the eight leaders’ round table Cyril Radcliffe was invited to India to chair the Punjab and Bengal Partition Commissions who drew un-natural boundary lines—for some with eyes closed—and opened the door for an unprecedented chaos and turmoil which shocked everyone not only in India but in Britain also. He awarded the Muslim populated state of Bihar and Gurdaspur to Bharat to provide an access to take over Kashmir which being a Muslim majority was sure to accede with Pakistan. After Radcliffe finished drawing the new maps in desperate haste, Mountbatten refusing to allow even his own British governors of Punjab and Bengal to see where the lines have been drawn, and no troops could be stationed at the key danger points declared the partition of India with such un-natural borders that many Indians overnight found themselves in “enemy” countries rather than among their relatives and friends. British troops hurriedly filled every ship leaving the ports of Calcutta and Bombay with every single British headed home to Cornwall and London that even Sir Cyril Radcliff never looking back at the rivers of blood flowing on the borders he created.

When the partition of India was declared, the “complex of victimhood” of the Hindus who were 70% in India flared up as hate for the 30% Muslims. Becoming revengeful Hindus started massacring the Muslims, while the Muslims in retaliation started killing the Hindus living in the Muslim majority regions. Another race which had converted from Hinduism to a new faith of Sikhism and whose two out of twelve Gurus were brutally murdered by the Mughal Emperors carrying the “complex of victimhood” were dying with revenge from the Muslims. The Sikhs mostly Punjabi Jaat, were a militant race and taking the opportunity they jumped in the killing spree of the Muslims who were moving out of the areas which had been declared part of Bharat—a name

given to Hindu India. Millions of people were killed on both sides of divided line, which for the British was a well-planned step in creating an everlasting conflict between the two countries, Bharat and Pakistan.

After millions of people were killed and Gandhi’s peaceful ideology of ahinsa or non-violence shattered to pieces, so far so that Gandhi himself became a victim of violence and was killed. He was expecting that his ideology of ahinsa or nonviolence will compel the British to present freedom to the Indians in a silver plate. Gandhi forgot that just as freedom is lost by losing the wars, in the same way freedom is won by fighting it out. If the Indians had started an armed struggle against the British, it would have been a joint struggle like the one appearing in 1857-58 with Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs would have fought unitedly for the freedom of their homeland. Mohandas Gandhi’s ahinsa ideology proved for the British a “blessing in disguise.” The traditional historians following one or all of the eight-errors as philosophized by ibn-Khaldun, started blaming the leaders of both sides. Some would blame Iqbal or Jinnah for taking wrong steps and some would blame Gandhi, Nehru and Patel. The blame-game is continuing without any solution for the “eruption of everlasting conflict” between the newly created states of Pakistan and Bharat in the sub-Continent of India by the Machiavellian British.

Pakistan Army’s Rein in the hands of British

Thus, Pakistan born on August 14 and India declared free on August 15 were both created to conflict generated partition of British India. First Indo-Pakistan war started in October 1947 just two months after the independence of both the countries. As Jinnah tried to send two of Pakistan’s regular army divisions into the battle it was blocked by Field Marshal Claude Auchinleck, the supreme commander off British Commonwealth troupes, who flew to Pakistan to warn Jinnah and forced him to withdraw the order. Since Pakistan army was under the control of British offices commanded by General Sir Douglas Gracey, Jinnah was forced to relent. Indian Prime Minister Nehru knocked the door of UNO and it was decided that a plebiscite in Kashmir would decide the fate of the people whether they would join Pakistan or India. Plebiscite is still due and India is every day consolidating its control over Kashmir.

As Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961) became president of USA, the rein of Pakistan army was handed over to Pentagon by the British. In 1962, when a war broke out between India and China, Pakistani President General Ayub Khan was getting ready to grab an opportunity and capture Kashmir, but President Kennedy of USA called him and advised not start a war with India, assuring him that he will solve the Kashmir issue according to the resolution of UNO. Just like Jinnah, Ayub had no choice other than to relent. He was invited by President Kennedy and was given a memorable welcome unprecedented in American History, but without any word to solve the Kashmir issue. Frustrated General Ayub made another attempt in 1965 and a full-fledged war erupted between India and Pakistan. This time as Pakistani army was within few hours of swerving Kashmir’s link with India, both UK and USA interfered and forced Ayub Khan to stop and accept a cease fire. Indian Prime Minister Shastri and Pakistani President General Ayub were summoned by the Soviet Prime Minister Alexi Kosygin to Tashkand and again the decision was made in India’s favor. The third Indo-Pak war erupted in 1971. India helping the separatist to free East Pakistan from West Pakistan,

in which India was again supported by the Western powers including the USSR. Pakistan faced a humiliating defeat by surrendering ninety thousand personals including some civilians. East Pakistan was declared as an independent country with a new name as Bangladesh by its new leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Bangladesh was recognized by almost all the countries of the world and thus won a seat in the United Nations Organization. During the last decade of twentieth century Pakistan fought a proxy war for USA in Afghanistan to defeat USSR by supporting most of the Arab, Afghani and some Pakistani Mujahideen under Osama bin Laden. The Soviets were defeated and American goal was achieved, but Pakistan was left alone in the deluge of the after-war mess.

The partition of British India and the creation of a new country Pakistan has remained like a vessel-state of the British-American stratagem. Pakistan, today a country possessing nuclear weapons, is constantly under the watch of USA disguised as its ally USA. Pakistan’s army which has throughout in the history of Pakistan has ruled the country directly through four periods of martial-law and then through the behind-door controlled politicians. Though, Pakistan believes China is its best friend, but the country’s military, its economy, and foreign policy is guided by the USA. Daniel S. Markey in his book, No Exit from Pakistan: America’s Tortured Relationship with Islamabad, has presented an intimate policy analysis of Pakistan-USA relations:

Ever since Pakistan gained independence from British India in 1947, Washington has viewed the country as a means to other ends, whether that meant fighting communism or terrorism. When Pakistan was helpful, it enjoyed generous American assistance and attention. When Pakistan was unhelpful, the spigot was turned off. . . Above all, the Pakistani Military viewed relations with the United States as a means to balance against India, Pakistan’s larger sibling with which it has maintained a more or less hostile relationship since birth. . . Having spent billions of dollars in military and civilian assistance to Pakistan, many representatives and senators have reached the conclusion, as Gary Acherman, a Democratic congressman from New York, put in May 2012 that “Pakistan is like a black hole for American aid. Our tax dollars go in. Our diplomats go in, sometimes. Our aid professionals go in, sometimes. Our hopes go in. Our prayers go in. Nothing good ever comes out.”(pp 2, 3, 4)

Though there are many more strategic points in the book as America and Western World dipped in the complex of “Islamophobia” fearing Islamic Civilization’s role as projected by the British political scientist Samuel P. Huntington in his famous work The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Markey argues:

Pakistan’s most important role is likely to be the one it plays in the geopolitics of Asia, spinning from energy rich Persian Gulf and Central Asian states to the thriving economics of the Far East, especially that of China. . . Of course, an increasingly prosperous India offers ample attraction for the United States in its own right, but there is no escaping the fact that the more Washington tilts toward New Delhi, the more insecurity that inspires in Islamabad . . . On many other occasions, however, insecurity has led Pakistan to take counterproductive steps: to build more nuclear weapons, lend support to anti-Indian terrorist groups, or seek a closer relationship with China. (pp. 8, 9, 10)

In spite of all such remarks, the author is of the view that only a healthy Pakistani state would offer the prospects for achieving all of the American objectives in an enduring way. Instead of helping to solve the Kashmir problem which can improve Indo-Pakistani relations, America believes that a military-first relationship with Pakistan serves its broader regional interests. Therefore, in Markey’s view:

Retaining and expanding ties with the Pakistani military would also help Washington keep a close eye on Chinese military and economic activities inside Pakistan. Questions will persist about China’s long-term intentions in the region, but it is beyond doubt that Beijing is extending its influence in Pakistan and throughout Central Asia by way of diplomacy, trade, and investment. Chinese support to Pakistan’s nuclear, missile, and conventional military programs will be more apparent to Washington if U.S. officials retain working relationship with their Pakistani counterparts, even if the information is gleaned indirectly. Finally, close ties with Pakistani generals would come in handy if China decides to pursue more aggressive regional strategy in the future. Pakistan’s generals would at least have the option to demur if China seeks to “Finlandize” their country. (p. 219)

Just as Kashmir has remained a tormenting issue between India and Pakistan, an unrealistic creation of Pakistan is an everlasting torment for its people. The ideology of Pakistan presented by Dr. Muhammad Iqbal in his speech delivered to Muslim League in his annual session at Allahabad in December 1930, he presented his vision of Pakistan that “I would like to see the Punjab, NWFP, Sindh, and Baluchistan amalgamated within the British Empire or without. This is the final destiny of the North West India.” Did he made any reference to Bihar and Bengal where the foundation of Muslim League was laid in 1906 at Dacca as an immediate reaction to events in Bengal? The two nation theory in the sub-Continent first voiced by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, was applauded by Iqbal in his idea of Pakistan not based on a European model of a secular democracy, but on an acute understanding that political power was essential to the higher ends of establishing God’s law. By contrast, Jinnah envisioned Pakistan as “nation” consisting Indian Muslims. Copyright © Mirza Iqbal Ashraf, 2023.