On Breakup Fantasies and Basic Geopolitical Decency

Following my conversation with Kabir; I mulled on the difference between criticising a state and fantasising about its dismemberment.

What should be the type of Critique?

Criticising a political party, a military institution, or a government’s failures is normal. It is necessary. Democracies depend on it. Even flawed democracies depend on it. Pakistan’s military can be criticised. India’s ruling party can be criticised. Iran’s clerical establishment can be criticised. No state is beyond scrutiny. But imagining the territorial breakup of a country, and doing so with visible satisfaction, is something else entirely.

Sacred States?

States are not debating societies. They are containers of memory, trauma, and blood. They are “almost” sacred spaces. For Pakistanis, 1971 is not an abstract lesson in federalism. It is a civilisational rupture. It was war, humiliation, loss of half the country, and a wound that still shapes the national psyche. For Indians, similar fantasies about Tamil Nadu, Punjab, or Kashmir breaking away would be equally triggering. Every nation has red lines embedded in its historical trauma.

Ex-USSR Continue reading On Breakup Fantasies and Basic Geopolitical Decency

The Act of Killing

A must see documentary.
I have not seen it. I only saw the trailer (I have a weak stomach for massacres) but I have heard about it in detail from a friend who saw it and I have read about the movie as well as the massacres themselves.
Humans. What a frigging species.

We did our share of killing in 1947 and then in Bengal in 1971, but the way these Indonesians have not just honored the killers (which we did too, in many cases) but openly boast about their work..that does not seem to be our way (yet).
Somehow I always have the feeling that South-East Asian societies (Burma to Indonesia) are one step ahead of mother India in the mass-killing business, but maybe I am just prejudiced. I have certainly not done the math…

Brown Pundits