The Character of a Nation (Part I)

The world has just witnessed a celebration of sorts on Obama's swearing in as the 44th President of America. What needs to be seen is how fast Obama delivers on the promise that - "the chalenges will be met".

Whether the United States of America meets the current challenges is to be seen, but this nation has always shown a character of unity and resoluteness. One realizes this on comparing how this nation faced situations against similar situations faced by other nations. The point in case I take here is the situation of imminent partition. 

In 1860s, the United States found itself divided into two halves on the issue of salvery. Just as president Abraham Lincoln was being sworn in as the 16th president - seven Deep South cotton states South Carolina, Mississippi,Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas announced secession from the US to form the Confederate States of America. America had two choices to make at this point of time - allow America to be divided into two halves or face a bloody Civil War. 

Here is what Lincoln wrote in the New York times at this point of time[1]:

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." ... My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

Making it crystal clear that all goals are subbordinate to the unity of the nation; even if the contending goal was abolishion of slavery which was based on the very essense of the American Dream - freedom.

As against this, India was faced with a demand of partition on religious lines - a demand which was diagonally opposite to the basic principle of securalism on which our nation was (supposed to be) founded. And even though [source]:

 ... until 1946, the definition of Pakistan as demanded by the Muslim League was so flexible that it could have been interpreted as a sovereign nation Pakistan, or as a member of a confederated India....

.... when it came a time to call upon our guts - risk a civil war, but keep the country united, we decided (supposedly) a more peacful route to divide our motherland. The gash that was inflicted on the nation has not been healed to this day being reinforced by external forces and wretched strategists by injecting religious hatred into the society.

To be continued (Part II) ...