OVER 10,000 years ago, it would have been possible to walk from the plains of primitive France to primeval England. All one needed was a pair of well-shod feet. Then, 6,100 years ago, a tsunami created by snow melting in Norway swept southwards, creating the Channel and detaching the British Isles from the mainland of Europe.

Last year, a different sort of tsunami engulfed Britain. Britons decided to let politics imitate nature. They voted in the Brexit referendum to become an island again. Some Europhiles believe it is a decision taken in haste. Two years from now, Europhobe Britons can repent at leisure.

If it was an accident of nature that gave rise to Britain’s insularity, it was an accident of birth that united the kingdoms of Scotland and England. In 1603, King James VI of Scotland succeeded his cousin Queen Elizabeth I of England and became simultaneously King James I of England and Ireland. Since then, no British monarch has needed to remind the Scots that they share a sovereign with their southern kinsmen, until, during the recent Scottish referendum for independence. Queen Elizabeth II let it be known that it should not be forgotten that she is also Queen of Scotland.

The feisty Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, smarting at Westminster’s determination to sign Article 50 which UK Prime Minister Theresa May proposes to do on March 29, has reopened the possibility of a second Scottish referendum. Theresa May has two options: she can either accommodate Scottish demands in her negotiating strategy with the EU, or she can ignore Scotland’s expectations and watch Scotland drift away, as the British Isles once did 6,000 years ago.

Will the queen become the Duchess of Edinburgh?

Should, hypothetically speaking, Scotland break away, will the queen then be obliged to wear two separate crowns? Or will she revert, in Scotland, to her marital status and become the Duchess of Edinburgh?

Such constitutional convulsions can be debilitating for the body politic of a country. No wonder less mature countries, even papier maché democracies, prefer the swift precision of a coup.

Here, the convulsions expected in Islamabad have not yielded the swift decapitation of Nawaz Sharif that Imran Khan’s PTI had hoped for. His attempt to remove an elected sitting prime minister is a novel use of the Supreme Court. Usually, certainly after military coups, it was the new dictator who demanded to be anointed by the Supreme Court. One can think of no military dictator — generals Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Ziaul Haq, Pervez Musharraf — who was removed by an order of the Supreme Court. But then, as Stalin once cruelly reminded the pope during the Second World War, how many legions does the Supreme Court have at its command?

It is a sign of the maturity of our judiciary that it is taken as seriously as it is. It is a sign of its wizened caution that it is taking so long to arrive at what everyone hopes will be a unanimous decision in the Panamagate case. In this particular case, justice delayed is not justice denied. Should, however, there be a dissenting note by one or more judges adjudicating the case, justice delayed will be interpreted by the common man as justice divided. The law is expected to provide clarity. If there are to be conflicting interpretations by judges, then why, some may ask, does one need lawyers? It is simply a repetition of conflict, at another level.

While the political pugilists attack each other with insults that masquerade as cogent arguments, two recent events have occurred that hold significance for both Pakistan and India. The first is the arrival in Islamabad of the Indian Indus Waters com­missioners and the resumption of talks between our two countries on the Indus Waters Treaty. Riparian countries dependent as India and Pakistan are on common water sources are like Siamese twins sharing one set of organs. Coexistence is not a choice: it is an imperative for survival.

The BJP victory in Uttar Pradesh is the second. From the UP electorate Mr Modi has received the same clamorous endorsement that Pandit Nehru’s Congress received two generations ago in 1937. Then Congress sat in government, and Muslims in the opposition. Today, BJP with Muslim support has secured 325 seats out of 403. Nehru’s great-grandson Rahul Gandhi might as well opt for Pakistan where dynastic politics still has a future.

Mr Modi’s selection of a hardliner RSS apparatchik Yogi Adityanath as chief minister UP is a clear indication of Mr Modi’s vision of India. He is as far from Nehru’s perception of ‘secularism’ as the present Pakistani leadership is from the Quaid’s.

If in geography, 6,000 years is a blip, in politics, the next two years whether in Brexit or in elections on either side of Wagah, could affect our lifetime.

The writer is an art historian.

Published in Dawn, March 23rd, 2017