Tell me the story of how it came to be and how it became what it is now.
>>299197
I truly do not see Pakistan surviving another century or so given its volatile support and terrorist sponsored activities against both Iran and India which surround it on either side.
Its creation was a mistake.
>>299397
>Pakistan was a mistake
>>299197
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinnah_%28film%29
extract from a /k/ommando who was in Afghanistan
>gypsies
Bad enough
>muslim gypsies
Well that's pretty terrible
>muslim gypsies with nukes
Holy mother of fuck
>>299404
Not him, but it was.
Free Balochistan when?
>>299197
Brits decided that it was a nice idea to separate India by religion, not ethnicity.
The republic of india prefered to present itself in nationalist terms, a country for indians rather than hindus. Pakistan didn't, and it bases it's identity on being muslim. It's name is literally an acronym of the different muslim nations of british India that composed it. Bengal, far away and with an old identity, left. Two of the other peoples, balochis and afghans, are not even indo-aryan. Everyone hates each other and they specially hate the panyabis who basically control the country, being the most populated nation.
>>299197
a crazy muslim motherfucker named Mohammed Jinnah came up with the crazy theory that muslims and hindus couldn't live in peace and had to live in separate and equal states so he and the Brits decide to carve out a muslim majority state from the British raj by expelling and killing as many non-muslims as possible. jinnah died soon after before the process of state building and state formation for pakistan was finished. jinnah's successors realized other than hating india and being muslim the people living there had nothing to tie them together so they decided to propagate and encourage the spread of hardcore islam because that sounded like a good idea at the time. the military which was meant to be its shield against india spent most of its time undermining the civilian leadership and expanding its own power. this essentially created the formula for a failed state.
>>301415
>>301415
>implying Hindus were above attacking and slaughtering and attacking tons of Muslims themselves
>implying Muhammad Ali Jinnah wasn't disliked by some Muslims who thought he was still too ecumenical.
>implying Jinnah didn't originally support a united Muslim and Hindu India
>implying the reason he stopped supporting wasn't because he realized the Indian movement for independence was becoming more and more wedded to Hindu religious identities, leaving the Muslims at risk of becoming irrelevant
>implying democracy in India wouldn't ultimately result in Muslims being forced to allow themselves either be oppressed or absorbed by Hindu parties that had more of a majority vote.
>implying Hindu nationalists have ever seen Muslims, many of whom are of Persian and Afghan origin as having a place in a free and pure India.
>implying a people who once ruled most of India for centuries before the British came should allow themselves to now be debased in their own country after gaining independence by a people whose food they aren't even allowed to share.
>implying the British didn't purposely try to neuter Pakistan by helping India keep Muslim majority areas which should have been part of Pakistan to begin with.
The British and the Indians tried really hard to force Pakistan to stay with India, but Jinnah knew that under a democratic government where Muslims were a minority, there would be no peace between them. The only time Muslims and Hindus in India have EVER lived in peace was under the most undemocratic forms of government. Unless they put in place something that made the Muslims' vote worth more, the Hindus would always overwhelm Muslims at the ballots and Hindus would never support the former unless forced to. Not only that but many Muslims in India have racial and cultural similarities with the Persians and Afghans, especially in the areas that make up Pakistan and Bangladesh now, so their Indianness could always be questioned by diehard Hindu purists
>>303165
>everyone's fault but their own.
you must be a brit
>>303185
>>everyone's fault but their own
I didn't say that. Pakistan is one of the greatest failures of the 20th century, but it's not all Jinnah's fault. Jinnah knew the risks and accepted them because he didn't see any other way. The British only half-supported Pakistan's independence, favoring the Indians whenever they could, and there really was no way for India to be independent and free without getting rid of Pakistan. You think shit is bad between Muslims and Hindus and India now, imagine if Pakistan and Bangladesh had actually stayed part of it.
The only times Muslims and Hindus lived together in peace was when the Muslims ruled over most of the Hindus as their kings and Hindus accepted that that was their place or when Hindus ruled over Muslim majorities and the Muslims just accepted it because the Hindu kings didn't assert much control over them. Creating an Indian democracy which included so many Muslims, who really had been the overlords of the Hindus for far longer than the British had been, just wouldn't have worked.
Allowing Pakistan to secede was the least shitty option, despite Ghandi's desire for a united India. However, the British could have made it less shitty by doing what Ghandi had suggested which was to allow ALL the provinces with Muslim majorities to secede, rather than letting Pakistan secede and then making sure India kept other Muslim majority provinces on the periphery which might have actually helped Pakistan become a more stable nation and reduce the risk of Pakis flooding the UK generations later.
>>303165
>hindu religious identities
>when gandhi literally started the khilafat movement so that kebabs would get off their asses and take part in civil disobedience
>hindu nationalists
>ruled for centuries
hey paki, the tricolor flies over the redfort, not the crescent of islam
>>303239
>The only times Muslims and Hindus lived together in peace was when the Muslims ruled over most of the Hindus as their kings
Yeah, it was a time of peace and loving.
Go fuck your cousin, mohammed.
>>303165
India has 138 million Muslims. Pakistan has 178 million. India's number are projected to outpace Pakistan's by 2050. So the fact that the Pakistan has come close to being an utterly dysfunctional failed state while latching onto their precious two-nation theory shows us all we need to know about the nonviability of both a) the Two Nation Theory and b) Pakistan.
You can talk about all the evil hindus and Indians and non-Muslims all you want. But the fact remains there is an equivalent number of Muslims to Pakistan's population living in India with the Hindus and all the non-Muslims while Pakistan the Muslim dominant state is engulfing itself in a combination of religious fanaticism and terrorism and military backed government dysfunction. The history of India since Partition has pretty much shown that Jinnah's beliefs were wrong.
>>303239
>gandhi
>suggested that all muslims leave India
he went on a hunger strike after direct action day to protect the bihari muslims in calcutta from reprisals.
>tfw my grandfather gave no fucks because everyone was united in removing the bearded cancer from calcutta's suburbs
>>303290
Why didn't India deport every single mudslime following partition? Help them live in their islamic paradise! I know Nehru was a commie c.uck
>>303303
it would be pretty big diplomatic coup for pakistan.
On the other hand the real problem was letting the muslims keep their colonial era laws, this has ended up creating a massive problem in india in terms of demographics.
A uniform civil code should have been introduced ASAP. nehru croaked before he did it though.
>>303277
>mongols
>representative of all muslims
>>303314
Delhi sultanate did similar stuff, the deccan sultanate did similar stuff and they jacked each other off about how many kaffirs they had killed.
Then they ran away and hid behind perfidious albion's skirts
>>303309
>it would be pretty big diplomatic coup for pakistan.
Sure, but wouldn't it be worth it ultimately?
>On the other hand the real problem was letting the muslims keep their colonial era laws, this has ended up creating a massive problem in india in terms of demographics.
Also this. The muslim population rose from 10% in the 1950s to 15% today. This can't be good.
>>303314
Like the other guy said, all muslim rulers in India were absolutely terrible.
>>303324
>worth it ultimately
they would then start pushing from the borders with pakistan and create refugee camps mk2.
and the entire west would want India to take those refugees and shelter them.
>all muslim rulers
well, akbar was a pretty cool guy, but he started off being kebab. he mellowed out though.
>>303324
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Mysore
>>303339
>they would then start pushing from the borders with pakistan and create refugee camps mk2.
>and the entire west would want India to take those refugees and shelter them.
But their shenanigans would ultimately make them unpopular enough for the international community to side with India. Kind of like nobody gives a shit about palestinians.
>well, akbar was a pretty cool guy, but he started off being kebab. he mellowed out though.
Even Akbar knew how to be extremely brutal.
>>303165
>Pakistan to stay with India, but Jinnah knew that under a democratic government where Muslims were a minority, there would be no peace between them.
Jinnah's own daughter stayed in India than join him in Pakistan. His case for a muslim majority state was clearly not very persuasive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dina_Wadia
>>303347
>mysore
>only time the muslims were in charge they start wars of conquest against the malabar citing jihad, get their shit pushed in by the marathas and later the brits, and then die.
>>303354
she converted and became a parsi
that caused him butthurt
and it was good.
>>303349
>akbar knew
yeah, but he had some legit good ideas too. At least he created a stable empire.
>their shenanigans
oh stop, muslims in india cry victimization to the foreign press any chance they get, much like dalits.
>>303371
>At least he created a stable empire.
Stalin created a stable empire too.
>oh stop, muslims in india cry victimization to the foreign press any chance they get, much like dalits.
Right, but who actually feels sorry for them?
>>303371
>much like dalits
Unlike Dalits though, they don't get constitutional protection, something which Jinnah argued for (and was rejected by Congress) for a stable united India
>>303371
>that caused him butthurt and it was good
At least it wasn't as bad as this:
http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/mahatma-gandhis-letter-accusing-son-of-raping-his-own-daughter-up-for-auction-in-uk-562069
It has a problem keeping the military out of the democratic process
>>303381
they have their own religious laws and civil codes. That is as constitutionally protected as it gets.
>marry 4 girls at thirteen, beat them up and shit
>cite islamic law and walk off
yeah such oppression.
>>303376
>dalits
they actually try and integrate into society and use affirmative action for their own good.
>>303267
Hey, dipshit, I never said Ghandi didn't WANT to include the Muslims. He did. Jinnah just thought it was unrealistic. One of Ghandi's associates was even Ghaffar Abdul Khan.
Jinnah felt however, that the Muslims would only end up absorbed into the Hindus (which some Muslims felt guys like Ghaffar Khan were) losing their Muslim religious and cultural identity or it would result in Muslims sticking more strongly to their unique identity and clashing with the majority Hindus. Pakistan was supposed to be a way for both communities to live in relative peace and it could have been if the British hadn't fucked it up.
>>303277
>Yeah, it was a time of peace and loving
I never said it was a utopia. And anyway, you're just proving my point that Hindus and Muslims can't get along if even at their most peaceful times with one another, one side was prone to attack the other. Sikhism itself arose in reaction to the tensions between Muslims and Hindus, having followers from both religions, and found itself oppressed by both. And Shi'ite Muslim rulers in India often maintained power only by playing a delicate balancing act between competing Hindu and Sunni interests.
The fact is, Jinnah thought that centuries of conflict and power battles, had made it impossible for an Indian democracy to be created which gave everyone an equal voice and where everyone as a result would be happy. And he was quite right to some extent. Muslims, especially Sunni Muslims who have always been the majority of Muslim Indians, would not stand to be subjugated by a Hindu majority, and most Hindus would not lend much support to policies that gave Muslims some kind boost anymore than whites in America were enthusiastic about affirmative action. Hindus would always suspect Muslims of trying to seize power over them and most Muslims, except for maybe the Shi'a, would not stand living with unbelievers except as their rulers.
>>303426
>I never said it was a utopia
All right.
>And anyway, you're just proving my point that Hindus and Muslims can't get along if even at their most peaceful times with one another, one side was prone to attack the other. Sikhism itself arose in reaction to the tensions between Muslims and Hindus, having followers from both religions, and found itself oppressed by both. And Shi'ite Muslim rulers in India often maintained power only by playing a delicate balancing act between competing Hindu and Sunni interests.
Muslims can't get along with any non-muslims, as Islam is a violent religion which urges for perpetual holy war against the infidel. India had always been a melting pot of cultures and religions (hinduism, buddhism, jainism, zoroastrianism (which survived in foreign India and not in native islamicized Persia), heck even a few christians in Kerala).
>>303279
>India has 138 million Muslims.
Yeah, and they don't exactly live in teh greatest harmony with the Hindus either. Not only that but many of India's Muslims WANTED to join Pakistan or break away from India.
India only has so many Muslims because the British and Hindus worked together to prevent Muslim majority provinces from joining Pakistan in the first place. And especially in places like Kashmir, Indians have only kept the Muslims line with the most brute of force (like running into people's houses and throwing their families out the windows or waterboarding anyone who speaks of Kashmir independence). And in other parts of India, Islamism grows more and more among the Muslims who don't exactly think they should be living the way they do with the Hindus, which is under what is essentially a democratic state controlled by the majority Hindus.
India has a shit ton of Muslims whom if it were up to them, WOULDN'T want to be part of India. And just because India has almost as many Muslims as Pakistan doesn't mean the Muslims are actually happy living there or that Hindus like them either. If anything the history of Muslim-Hindu relations in India after partition proves Jinnah was more right and that Ghandi was just an idealist who thought some Hindu or Sanskit philosophy would suddenly change history over night.
>You can talk about all the evil hindus and Indians and non-Muslims all you want.
Nice job pulling shit out your ass.
>>303426
>unique identity
yes, so much so that east pakistan is a proud member of the islamic republic of pakistan and not a secular country.
>get absorbed into the hindu identity
too bad there wasn't an overarching hindu identity to begin with.
>sikhism
yes, which is why the khalsa was made to protect the hindus from the mughals and stop afghani slave raids that carried of hindu girls.
>>303449
>buddhism
Which was wiped out and absorbed by hostile Hindu Brahmins. I won't go into the details.
There are already many Indian historians who detail this.
From the Aryans to to pre-Islamic invaders like the Kushans Huns and the Greeks , the land has never really been a bastion of peace even before Islam.
>>303467
>overarching hindu identity to begin with.
Savakar? Hindu Mahasabha? RSS? Gandhi's murderers?
>>303478
>Which was wiped out and absorbed by hostile Hindu Brahmins
That's a funny way of spelling "Muslim raiders".
>There are already many Indian historians who detail this.
Such as? The "history of India" by mohammed m. mohammed? Fuck off.
>From the Aryans to to pre-Islamic invaders like the Kushans Huns and the Greeks , the land has never really been a bastion of peace even before Islam.
Oh god, you can't possibly be this delusional.
>>303461
>kashmiri independence
they really showed that when they started the ethnic cleansing of the kashmiri pandits.
>history of hindu muslim relations in india post partition proved jinnah right
where are the giant riots on scale of the great calcutta killing then you faggot?
why is it that most rioters end up going back to their older homes and start rebuilding with state aid?
>>303478
>wiped out by hostile hindu brahmins
ambedkar pls.
>pre-islamic invaders
that adopted into the cultural fabric of india instead of creating a dar-ul-harb like the muslims did
>>303485
>savarkar
he was an atheist
>hindu mahasabha
wasn't in the same league as the muslim league
>RSS
shitty old men who are living relics of a bygone age.
>gandhi's murderers
ended up elevating him to a saint and tainted india's political scene irreparably.
>>303495
>Such as?
>Oh god, you can't possibly be this delusional
Let me ask you a simple question. What do you think of Romila Thapar?
>>303518
Red as rum
>>303518
I haven't read any of her works.
>>303505
>savarkar was an atheist
And Jinnah ate pork and drank alcohol. One can be a cultural supremacist too. And being Hindu and atheist isn't exclusive.
>>299197
It was originally a state for Muslims, not for Islam, but now it's become something that Jinnah never intended it to be.
>>303527
>cultural supremacist
>when he actually challenged orthodox thought and belief like cow worship and the caste system
>had a very limited effect on the indian state
>comparing his effect to Mohammed "Calcutta or bust"Jinnah
>>303478
>There are already many Indian historians who detail this.
Gee, I wonder who these (((historians))) are.
>>303552
It's curious how the relationship between history and leftists in India is the opposite as in the West.
In the West, left-wing historians and activists can't shut up about the awfulness of European imperialism, how many people were murdered by it, how everything bad in the world is the fault of white people, and how that justify identity politics, murderous black nationalist ideologues such as Frantz Fanon are given a free pass etc.
Meanwhile, in India, Marxist historians dedicate the world to show that Muslims dindu nuffin wrong ever, that all these records about mass murder of millions of Hindus were just poetic exaggeration, that conflict between Hindus and Muslims (and Hinduism itself!) was invented by the Brits and therefore communalism (aka identity politics for Hindus) is delegitimate and fascist.
>>303290
Ghandi DID suggest all the provinces with a Muslim majority should be allowed to leave if they wanted to, but he also believed that they should want to stay. Ghandi never supported any kind of partition, but he also knew you couldn't force the Muslims and Hindus together, he agreed with Jinnah to that extent. It's the main reason he was murdered because if it were up to Ghandi, Pakistan would have been much larger because he would not have tried to keep the Muslims in India against their will
>>303467
>yes, so much so that east pakistan is a proud member of the islamic republic of pakistan and not a secular country.
shit like bangladesh probably happened because guys like Jinnah underestimated the power of competing interests within the Muslims of India.
>>303496
>why is it that most rioters end up going back to their older homes and start rebuilding with state aid?
You can ask the same questions of blacks in America to some extent. A lot of the same problems. Only difference is that the Muslims once ruled India and now are basically the niggers of the country whereas blacks started out as niggers and have only progressed beyond being niggers slightly.
>>303528
Jinnah was more secular leaning really, but he had hoped Pakistan would unite religious and secular Muslims together and he never had any intention of Pakistan tearing itself apart over Sunni-Shi'ite stuff or oppressing the non-Muslim minorities. He was still probably more practical than Ghandi though.
>>303562
Well, I can't comment on any specific incident, but people exaggerate death tolls all the time, even now, if they think it might advance their own agendas. Muslims used to say the Crusaders slaughtered 70,000 in Jerusalem when they really only slaughtered maybe 20,000 and spared specific districts from slaughter. And we all know of one group of people who shall remain nameless can't admit a certain death toll they give for a particular incident last century is probably not true
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n14/perry-anderson/why-partition
>Nehru announced there were now only two political forces that mattered in India: Congress and the British government. There is little doubt that, with fateful self-deception, he believed this. In fact, it was a confessional victory. By this time, the membership of Congress was 97 per cent Hindu. It could not even find candidates to run in close to 90 per cent of Muslim constituencies across India. In Nehru’s own province, Uttar Pradesh, then as now the most populous in India, Congress had swept the board of Hindu seats. But it had not won a single Muslim seat.
>At the outbreak of the Second World War, the Congress high command instructed all its provincial governments to resign in protest at the viceroy’s declaration of war on Germany without consultation with the people of India. The immediate result was to create a political vacuum, into which Jinnah, aware that London badly needed some show of loyalty in its major imperial possession, stepped with assurance. Declaring the end of Congress ministries a ‘day of deliverance’, he lost no time in expressing support for Britain in its hour of need, and winning in exchange its wartime favour
>>303562
Damn I want to buy this book but it's like 50€ on amazon.
>>303581
>gandhi did suggest
only he had no political authority to do so, and it was an extremely dumb idea logistically.
>muslims in india against their will
and pray tell how fuckers like the moplah rioters would be able to move to pakistan logistically?
yes, a population transfer would be possible over the long run, but 1948 soured indo-pak relations terribly.
about as dumb as forced population transfer
>east pakistan.
yes, it had nothing to do with bengali being banned in bangladesh and forced islamification.
>muslims once ruled india
paki, stop spamming your cultural supremacist bullshit. Muslims ruled different parts of India at different times, the only place they ruled continuously was the indus valley.
>he was more practical than gandhi
which is why gandhi was sidelined from the congress because everyone realized you cannot have a nut who belives in ideal village life in charge of a giant country that was rapidly modernizing.
>exaggerate
yeah, which is why you had instances of slaves becoming as cheap 5-10 dirhams.
>>303622
try getting an ebook
>>303633
>stop spamming your cultural supremacist bullshit. Muslims ruled different parts of India at different times, the only place they ruled continuously was the indus valley.
And yet the same could be said of the various non-Muslim Indian dynasties. Asoka never ruled Assam, South India or parts of Kashmir and same for the Guptas. The complete Akhand Bharat never really existed as such.
>>303651
only there was a shared cultural heritage.
Pretty much the same as classical greece.
>>303633
>only he had no political authority to do so,
I didn't suggest he did,
>and pray tell how fuckers like the moplah rioters would be able to move to pakistan logistically?
You figure it out, you're the open air shitting Indian here.
>yes, it had nothing to do with bengali being banned in bangladesh and forced islamification.
you do realize this was my point right? I don't think you're paying attention anything anyone is saying.
>paki, stop spamming your cultural supremacist bullshit.
Ironic coming from a Hindu
>which is why gandhi was sidelined from the congress because everyone realized you cannot have a nut who belives in ideal village life in charge of a giant country that was rapidly modernizing.
You can blame India's modernization for Jinnah (who was more of a modernist than Ghandi) then.
>yeah, which is why you had instances of slaves becoming as cheap 5-10 dirhams.
Did I deny slavery or something? You sound like a really butthurt Hindu who can't accept that your entire country is a failure of British policy and just want to blame everything bad that's ever happened to it on Muslims.
>>303693
>I didn't suggest that he did
then why are you even bringing him up you islamic dongrider
>you figure it out
pretty much superior western policy.
>my point
your point was that muslims in india were a relatively monolithic bloc, bangladesh proved that wrong. What the fuck did you mean by competing interests anyway?
>Ironic
you are the moron who is spamming bullshit that all muslims were rulers in india, conveniently forgetting what the term aljaf meant.
>another gandhi vs jinnah comparison
it doesn't matter, gandhi withdrew from political life and let people who had better ideas than him shape India's constitution while he did his grassroots level campaigns.
>you can blame india's modernization on Jinnah
no, I can blame it on nehru who started the entire process of heavy industrialization and relatively moderate protectionism, including the modernization of a shit ton of hindu personal laws. The fact that the congress was filled with forward thinking people also helped.
>butthurt hindu
yeah, the fact that the INC was a organically formed political party had nothing to do with India, or the fact that the entire quagmire of princely states was solved without british intervention in any way whatsoever.
>blaming it on muslims
you are the faggot who started the WE WUZ RAJAS AND SHIT bullshit.
>>299197
>how it became what it is now.
Fuck what it is now nigger. What it was at the dawn of civilization is equal parts fascinating and mysterious; Chalcolithic indoor plumbing bruh???
>>303829
Wasn't the IVC more close to Dravidian-Speaking peoples from Southern India then modern day Pakistanis/North-Western Indians?
>>303936
>wat is picrelated?
The ruins of Mohenjo-Daro, located in modern Sindh, Pakistan.
>>303946
You speak of the people, and I of the land, homie.
>>303936
>Dravidian-Speaking peoples
Brahuis nigga, although this is of course speculation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahui_people
>>303743
>then why are you even bringing him up you islamic dongrider
because he was right that any Muslim majority province that wanted to secede should have been allowed to.
>your point was that muslims in india were a relatively monolithic bloc, bangladesh proved that wrong
I said Bangladesh proved that Jinnah and others for all their talk of the need for Muslims to secede also underestimated the ability of Muslims to live with other Muslims in peace in a modern democratic state. I was saying the exact opposite. Doesn't change the fact that Britain and India shouldn't have tried to force any Muslim province to stay and aren't doing themselves any favors now by continuing to follow similar policies.
>you are the moron who is spamming bullshit that all muslims were rulers in india,
I'll admit I generalized a little.
>it doesn't matter, gandhi withdrew from political life
It doesn't matter whether gandhi withdrew from political life or he didn't. You seem to have forgotten what this whole debate has been about which was whether or not Jinnah was right in that Pakistan needed to be created. He was right to the extent that Muslims and Hindus couldn't be expected to live in the same united democratic india with Hindus being such a large majority, whether you like Pakis or not. And Gandhi, for all his desire of unity, knew more problems would be created if Indians or the British tried to stop secession of Muslim majority provinces by forceful means, and he was right.
>no, I can blame it on
>on
I said you can blame modernism FOR guys like Jinnah because Jinnah and Pakistan are direct products of that modernization of India. I didn't say Jinnah was responsible for it himself. learn english.
>>303989
Woah, there! Someone really took their time with this one!
(I kidd man, that's what makes this board great)
>>303461
>India only has so many Muslims because the British and Hindus worked together to prevent Muslim majority provinces from joining Pakistan in the first place.
and it made a lot of sense.
india may be developing but not too many people leaving India for a life in glorious bangladesh or pakistan.
Everywhere muslims form the government they get ass backwards islamic state, not even muslim interests are served by Islamuic governance.
The law can't force anyone to love your neighbor, but at least in India the law is forced to offer equal legal protections, proportional political representation, reservations offered to minorities and access to an independent judiciary.
The muslims came to India as conquerors, so why do their hands always need to be held? Why do they keep falling behind in a state and hosted by a culture where they enjoy greater economic and academic opportunities than they would be offered anywhere in the Islamic World?
These folks are still struggling to pull their own weight in India, who in their right mind would think the logical solution would be to further atomize South Asia to create a larger or maybe a few more Bangladesh or Pakistan?
>Unless they put in place something that made the Muslims' vote worth more
This statement is characteristic of muslim thinking.
You don't deserve more political representation just because you are in the minority.
Everyone is a minority in some sense.
Everyone has some differing opinions with the majority.
It might be religion, economic policy, any particular aspect of public policy. But you give a little and you get a little so that everyone can work together in the long run.
Everyone gets one vote and guaranteed constitutional protections, that's it; that's fair and if you can't understand that they you don't understand democracy.
If every aspect of life didn't have to be micromanaged by religion then maybe muslims wouldn't feel it so intolerable to live with a bit of intellectual pluralism.
>>303989
>muslim majority province that wanted to seccede
they were you dingus. The entire NWFP became a part of pakistan despite the congress winning the last elections there.
>underestimated the ability
because the pakistani army was on a giant racial theory bullshit trip at that time. They literally overthrew their government because mujib-ur Rehman won the election
>persuaded any province to stay
which province in british india- not counting the princely states that was muslim majority was forced by the brits to stay in India.
>muslims couldn't be expected to stay in India with large hindu majority.
then how the fuck are they living there now?
they are free to immigrate to pakistan.
>secession by forceful means
the partition was reluctantly agreed upon as a reality. The entire kashmir fiasco was something Jinnah brought upon himself
Here's my take on the whole shit fight.
I don't think you can blame partition on the British solely, the Indians and Pakistanis have to bare a lot of the blame as well. Jinnah, a whole section of the Muslim upper layers, realised they would never be a strong force in India and so created a separate state so they could be their own ruling class.
The problem for Pakistan was there wasn't enough industry for them to build a viable state, and it devolved pretty quickly into a series of civilian and military dictatorships. Their turn to Islamism came from the realisation that they could never beat India in a conventional war, so stirring up jihadis is the best option they have.
Also all you brahmin hindu nationalists can fuck right off.
>>304025
to add
>no, I can blame it on
>on
my bad
>>304026
To add, frankly it's a failed state taht should have never existed.
United Nation Human Development Index Ratings for India and most Muslim countries:
India=135
Pakistan=146
Afghanistan=169
Turkmenistan=103
Uzbekistan=116
Iraq=120
Jordan=77
Saudi Arabia=34
Turkey=69
Azerbaijan=76
Tajikistan=133
Kyrgyzstan=125
Kazakhstan=70
Bangladesh=142
Malaysia=62
Indonesia=108
Syria(2014)=118
Egypt=110
Albania=95
Yemen=154
United Arab Emirates=40
Kuwait=46
Lebanon=65
Morocco=129
Mauritania=161
Sudan=166
Oman=56
Iran=75
Libya=55
Tunisia=90
Algeria=93
And for added measure:
China=91
Russia=57
Thailand=89
Portugal=41
http://hdr.undp.org/en/countries
India is hardly better than Pakistan in terms of its actual development and most Muslim countries are better places to live than India. So, I don't think it's all a Muslim-Hindu issue. Jinnah was right that a united India wouldn't work because it doesn't seem to be working very well right now. I think the question should be asked if Pakistan and India being one would have helped either. I don't think so. If anything, India probably should have been broken up into several independent states. Jinnah was right about a united India being a dream that could never be. The problem was he only saw it as far as the Muslim-Hindu problem was concerned.
>>304026
fascinating
very fascinating
of course largely wrong.
Pakistan had a pretty good start as part of the SEATO funding they received from america and started doing industrialization on a rather good note.
they pretty much treated east pakistan as a colony but that is a whole other thing.
during the 50's they were on the right track for the most part.
1965 pretty much did a number on their economy and 1971 sealed the deal on a large part of pakistani exports: jute
The islamization of post bhutto pakistan was unexpected and brought pakistan to where it is today
>>304038
>UN HDI ratings
oh, so a country that is extremely diverse ethnically and has one of the largest armed forces in the world does more poorly than countries that are homogeneous, have far lower population and more pricier resources.
Who would have thought?
>So, I don't think it's all a Muslim-Hindu issue. Jinnah was right that a united India wouldn't work because it doesn't seem to be working very well right now. I think the question should be asked if Pakistan and India being one would have helped either. I don't think so. If anything, India probably should have been broken up into several independent states. Jinnah was right about a united India being a dream that could never be.
you do realize that India is a federation of states right, much like the USA, and as such HDI levels differ from state to state
>better off broken
yeah, I wonder would happen if each Indian state had to have it's own military.
>>304040
I'll get back to the rest of your point, but re the Islamisation, I don't think so. It was a trend all across the Arab world, and no wonder it spread to Pakistan. The failures of the 'left' (broadly speaking) to fight poverty, the defeats against Israel, and their generally shitty going ons, plus all the Western and Israeli money, gave the Islamists a lot of credibility. No wonder they spread. Would you be an Arab nationalist post '67?
>>304056
>extremely diverse ethnically
lad...
Being a Pakistani, it's been enjoyable reading all these posts.
>>304038
The low HDI is to be expected, given India's starting point, as well as how late it had an opportunity to begin industrialization.
India was having famines that killed up to tens of millions like clockwork, every decade, under colonial rule. That stopped and has never happened since, literally one decade after independence when India began industrializing.
Add to that the fact that India is a secular democracy, where reform requires building public consensus, and starting with an illiterate population it's fairly apparent why India remained undeveloped for longer.
Moreover, HDI may be lower, but India is more self-sufficient, with a more complex economy that has steadily been moving away from commodities and agriculture, as compared with any Arab nation, as well as the fastest growing GDP.
What's not reflected in HDI is I do think India's long term prospects seem as unlimited as any developed nations so long as it can maintain secular government and intellectual pluralism. The nation will continue to make progress in other dimensions steadily, and fast enough to approach the standards of more developed nations.
>>304058
the problem was that 1960s pakistan was pushed to the brink but still could have recovered and have been a successful state in the subcontinent.
They had a giant growth spurt in the 50s and 60s despite a full scale war against India. they actually grew at a faster rate than the world average.
>>304073
sorry, ethnically is a wrong word, culturally and linguistically would be more appropriate.
>>304131
different people lad.
>>304013
>india may be developing but not too many people leaving India for a life in glorious bangladesh or pakistan.
They certainly leave India to go to a whole lot of other places in and outside the Islamic world.
>The muslims came to India as conquerors, so why do their hands always need to be held?
Did I suggest they needed their hands held or something?
>Why do they keep falling behind in a state and hosted by a culture where they enjoy greater economic and academic opportunities than they would be offered anywhere in the Islamic World?
Because of many of the same reasons most Indians live pretty shitty lives in India, I suppose. Also, there aren't that many Muslims moving to India from other parts of the Islamic world to get all these "greater economic and academic opportunities" you speak of. One of the reasons more of them are becoming straight durka is because a lot of them don't benefit that much from the Indian government, at least not as much as they'd like and Muslim Indians do far better in almost every place but India. But, again, the same could be said for all Indians to some degree.
>You don't deserve more political representation just because you are in the minority.
Which is precisely why Jinnah was right that Muslims couldn't live in a democratic India because there were only two ways for it to work either
A.) Give every one a single vote only for Muslims to have almost no power
or
B.) Give Muslim more votes to make up for their lack of numbers, giving them a more equal voice as the some 97% Hindu population.
Neither was practical at all.
>>304143
Careful man, they way things are going around here, it might be hard for you to get back in.
>>304134
>in the islamic world
yes, as white collar labor or tertiary jobs like nurses.
that is what a huge part of kerala's economy is based on.
>did I suggest
no, but there is no reason why they should receive preferential treatment.
>muslims moving to India from other parts of the islamic world
you mean like a large number of iranian tourists in India?
Or a good chunk of afghani students in India who go back after their education?
>muslim Indians do far better in almost every place but India
yes, if every place is limited to the western world where they go as skilled labor.
>precisely why Jinnah was right
that is a funny way of being right if his perfect refuge for muslims ended up falling apart into strife on religious lines
>>304143
have a fun trip brother
>>304056
>you do realize that India is a federation of states right, much like the USA, and as such HDI levels differ from state to state
I was aware of that, but I don't see why any of these states should be forced to carry the others.
>>304085
I don't think India will make very much progress in its current condition. It will probably always trail behind most other nations in the world.
Imagine if all the Central Asian "stan" countries united as a modern, democratic nation-state and thought that because they were all Muslim/Central Asians this was a good idea. I don't think it would result in all of them advancing to a high degree. All I think would happen is that Afghanistan would improve slightly, maybe by 10 ranks on the HDI, but then all the other Central Asian countries would start descending to Afghanistan's level until instead of few different CA countries with some better off than others, all rise/fall to the same mediocre level. Those who don't like this prospect would just end up leaving to go to places like America or Russia or Europe, probably resulting in the country staying at that level as its workers or farmers or intellectuals keep leaving for better opportunities elsewhere in the world.
I think that's probably what's gonna happen to India.
>>304186
>I don't see why any of those states
because different states have different resources and industries add up to a lot of economic power. The entire petrochem industry in India for instance.
>I don't think
well the facts are pretty different.
>>304176
>no, but there is no reason why they should receive preferential treatment.
I never said they should, retard.
>you mean like a large number of iranian tourists in India?
keyword here is "tourists". there's a lot of historical Muslim and other religious sites in India and there's a cultural connection for Iranians. But few Iranians are moving to India permanently because of opportunities available there.
>Or a good chunk of afghani students in India who go back after their education?
Looking at the HDI ratings above, Afghanistan is one of the few Muslim countries worse off than India and Pakistan (who are both pretty fucking low) If Afghans are going to India to study, it's only because it's closer and probably cheaper. No Arab is going to India except to set up a new madrassa.
>yes, if every place is limited to the western world where they go as skilled labor.
And the Muslim countries where they basically do all the jobs Arabs, Indonesians, Malays and others are too good to do.
>that is a funny way of being right if his perfect refuge for muslims ended up falling apart into strife on religious lines
He was wrong in thinking all Muslims could live together in peace and just thinking it was a case of Muslim having to separate from Hindus. But he was right that Hindus and Muslims couldn't live together under a united democratic India. He just forgot that the problem probably had more to do with democracy itself and the idea of any kind of united India than with the fact that Muslims were minority.
>>301323
Shit's fucked, yo.
>>304134
Out of virtually all South Asian countries, India is the most developed. Perhaps not by a significant margin, but it is the fastest developing across all dimensions and more economically complex than any Islamic nation except maybe Turkey.
We can argue all the reasons why muslims or hindus commonly seek greener pastures abroad. But I think the only point that needs to be made is that the muslim countries in South Asia have not only failed almost across the spectrum in combating their own problems with multidimensional poverty, but it doesn't look like their development is trending in any way that's going to reverse this condition any time soon. Not to mention, democracy hasn't been a guarantee in Pakistan or Bangladesh even if you are muslim.
To me the precedent seems quite clear that more or larger Islamic nations in South Asia would mean even slower development in the subcontinent, if at all.
But that's just me, I think not only secular government but ideological pluralism in all respects is going to be non-negotiable if South Asia ever has a hope to fully modernize technologically and socially.
>>304087
There was a massive growth spurt, but the wealth wasn't spread around. The period leading up to the '68 revolution saw massive unemployment, poverty and inflation.
>>304202
>because different states have different resources and industries add up to a lot of economic power. The entire petrochem industry in India for instance.
A good number of Indian states would be better off if they didn't have to support the others. If one Indian state won't pull its own weight, the other more successful Indian states shouldn't be forced to hold them up in the name of some vague sense of national unity that just holds back everyone's development to mediocre levels.
>well the facts are pretty different.
Yeah, that's why India is getting dumber by the day while more Indians leave to get rich in Silicon Valley.
>>304254
>I never said they should
Then make up your mind you cockmongler.
Jinnah's entire basis of the 2 nation theory broke down when islamic solidarity was thrown out the the window and east pakistan was treated as a colony.
>historical muslim sites
this is some epic bait right there.
most of the muslim and religious shrines in India have more to do with local saints and traditions that are decidedly unislamic based on wahabi traditions.
>arabs going to India
yes, only their oil does which gets refined by India and is a part of India's economy. :^)
>muslim countries
yes. And when their stint is done they return home with their foreign remittances.
>he was right that they couldn't live under a united democratic india
well seeing as the entire movement of pakistan took a much more concrete shape post 1930s, it very well could have been otherwise.
A similar number of muslims live in current day India and they are far more passive than pakistan.
>>304294
yeah, which is why nationalization in the mid 70s was good, but then it devolved into Oligarchy mk2.
So once again Islam ruins everything for everyone?
>>304292
>Out of virtually all South Asian countries, India is the most developed.
Maybe. But "South Asian?" that's not saying much, bro.
>but it is the fastest developing across all dimensions and more economically complex than any Islamic nation except maybe Turkey.
It doesn't even rank high on the list countries with the most economic freedom and it ranks very low on the quality of life indexes, even compared to some of the lesser developed Islamic countries.
The fact is India is a third world shit hole that has not been able develop itself in such a way that the majority of its people live very happy and prosperous lives.
>>304302
>each state should pull its own weight
yes, what a gandhian idea. And full of shit.
Take the instance of Punjab and haryana; large agricultural states that are high on the net monies earned scale. the agricultural manpower for the harvest in these states comes from bihar, a poor state by Indian standards, but able to supply a source of cheap labour.
Kerala for instance is based on very high HDI in comparison to indian standards and a large source of it's income comes from gulf state remittances.
>>304316
read the thread retard. Islam played an important part, but the pakistani economy going down the drain played an important part too.
>>304341
it's a third world shithole for the large majority of its people, yet as hard as it may be to accept, it could be much worse.
>>304341
yes, this is what happens when you have to build a country from the ground up while holding on to pesky ideas like democracy and human rights.
>thats not saying much
yes, if only India could become a second europe in 60 odd years while having to balance a rapidly increasing population that is diverse, while industrializing rapidly.
>inb4 China did it
they didn't have to worry about human rights or a content citizens body.
>>299197
Muzzies didn't want multiculturalism and diversity.
>>304394
read the thread anon.
we are having a pretty good discussion here
>>304304
>Then make up your mind you cockmongler.
I haven't changed my position at all. You just keep assuming things I haven't even said. Jinnah was right about the need for Pakistan because Muslims couldn't be expected to have an equal voice in India and they couldn't be expected to get preferential treatment and Jinnah didn't want Muslims to live as minorities with no power or as people who enjoyed preferential status. That's the only reason why he was right and that's why I've said he was right since the beginning of this argument.
>Jinnah's entire basis of the 2 nation theory broke down when islamic solidarity was thrown out the the window and east pakistan was treated as a colony.
And I never denied that. In the very post you're responding to, I said quite explicitly that Jinnah probably had too much faith in Islamic solidarity.
>most of the muslim and religious shrines in India have more to do with local saints and traditions that are decidedly unislamic based on wahabi traditions.
And we were talking about Iranian tourists...who are not wahabis.
>well seeing as the entire movement of pakistan took a much more concrete shape post 1930s, it very well could have been otherwise.
it could have been otherwise, but I doubt India or Pakistan would be better off otherwise. And Hindu reactions to the proposal didn't exactly assure Muslims who supported it that they would enjoy a better life as part of India.
>A similar number of muslims live in current day India and they are far more passive than pakistan.
They don't exactly enjoy an exponentially higher quality of living than they do in Pakistan or Bangladesh, except for a few of the Muslims who have always been more upper class since before independence. Pakistan in a lot of ways was created for the more lower class of Muslims who thought life would be better for them in their own country.
>>301323
nice cap, that was great.
pic related buffers those points
>>301323
Can't fault much but:
>US troops withdraw from a now stable Iraq
>>304425
so wait, muslims as a whole wanted preferential treatment because a tiny part of them were once rulers over disparate parts of the subcontinent.
They wanted their own majority because they were afraid of being stifled by the hindu majority in an undivided india.
yet the muslim experience in India has shown that they have not been stifled by the majority hindu voice even when they are proportionally lower than they were during independence.
>iranians visit religious shrines in india
yeah, the handful of local pirs and tombs for sufi saints are the primary reason why they visit India, not because it is close and doesn't have retarded laws like mandatory veil coverings and the like.
>hindu reactions to the proposals
when you end up reserving a percentage of the electorate for people based on certain religions, it is going to piss people off. India seems to elect muslims into parliament just fine without reserved seats.
>exponentially higher quality
no, but it is much better. The fact that indian muslims can go to different states in search of jobs and work and set up shop legally is a pretty sweet deal.
>except for a few of the muslims that have upper class since independence
>pakistan was created for the islamic layman.
did you read the thread, the entirety of pakistan's economic growth during the 50s, and 60s was based in the hands of a small group of families who were extremely rich while the experience of Indian states like kerala and to a lesser extent pre fuck up west bengal had pretty decent numbers of muslims uplift themselves politically and socially.
Gghjgfhhj
>>304481
>India seems to elect muslims into parliament just fine without reserved seats.
Numbers have almost always been below their proportional representation. And with the BJP rise, things are becoming even more difficult, politically.
>>304342
>>each state should pull its own weight
I wouldn't go THAT far. I just don't think the current union of Indian states will really result in anything than all of the states forever trailing behind most other countries of the world and Indians leaving more and more as they realize the country has hit the limit of what it can offer them.
Could India climb up an extra 15 ranks on the HDI? Maybe, but I doubt it'll ever be a high developing country by UN standards at this rate. Compared to some other countries that shook off colonial rule at the same time and have a lot less resources, India's rate of development hasn't been that extraordinary.
>>304498
yes, because people vote on issues, not on religious matters.
>BJP rise
>all muslims are doomed
Or maybe because Modi was a successful chief minister of a successful state and anti incumbency was a strong factor in his election?
>>304508
>yes, because people vote on issues, not on religious matters.
Quite a coincidence this only seems to negatively affect Muslim representation then?
Besides, this was the entire point that the ML were making. Guaranteed under-representation of Muslims if no safe-guards were in place
One can't just pretend theses issues don't exist and then hope they go away.
>>304504
A major problem in India is power generation and supply, especially based on fossil fuels.
That and infrastructure investment are enough to push india up by a good amount on the HDI scale.
It helps that India is moving towards nuclear power at a decent rate.
>compared to some other countries
the only other country comparable in scale to India is china, and they had a headstart in a relatively homogenoeus population and a political system that requires far less consensus and has top down decision making.
>high developing country at this rate
this rate is largely based on india's energy basket which is still overwhelmingly reliant on fossil fuel.
>india's rate of development hasn't been that extraordinary
considering that India started opening up to the global economy in 1984, I would think it is doing alright and having a diverse economy certainly helps.
yes, it would have been far better if India had a lower population. But then the entire family planning thing was soured in India
>>304522
>only seems to affect muslim representation
why not Christian representation?
Or how about the fact that in 74 seats that had the muslim community having a giant vote in, 39 were won by the BJP?
>guaranteed under-representation if no safeguards are in place.
The entire idea that elections are supposed to fill an certain quota is an anathema to what the will of the people is, people should be voting on issues, not on candidate's religion.
And that doesn't change the fact that muslim leaders have held key positions in the indian government, and have been head of state.
>>304481
>so wait, muslims as a whole wanted preferential treatment because a tiny part of them were once rulers over disparate parts of the subcontinent.
And Jinnah was against this. Jinnah didn't want Muslims to receive preferential treatment in India anymore than he wanted them to be degraded in India. Jinnah knew that the Hindus would not stand for a minority having its status elevated artificially for the sake of giving them a more equal voice disproportionate to their numbers, and he didn't think the Hindus should be forced to accept it. The only solution he could see was a separate state. And to the extent that India was dead-set on a becoming a democracy, Jinnah was right to support a separate state. Although the Indians probably should have just abandoned democracy, it is what it is.
>yeah, the handful of local pirs and tombs for sufi saints are the primary reason why they visit India,
Some of these saints are connected to Iranian Sufism (some of them wrote in Persia). You also forget that Iranian Shi'a have religious connections with India's sizable Shi'a minority. I'm sure many visit for more secular reasons, but there are plenty of religious reasons for Iranians to visit India too. And there are plenty of Indian students who go to study in Qom.
>no, but it is much better.
It's feels a lot like if someone gets paid 50 cents a day instead of 25 cents like he would if he left to go somewhere else
Also, a lot of the Muslims who were part of the places that became modern Pakistan or traveled to join Pakistan weren't exactly from the more successful classes of Muslims and these Muslims who made up Pakistan were unlikely to experience very much mobility in terms of status. If India's Muslim population seems better off than Pakistan's Muslim population, it probably has more to do with the kinds of Muslims who went to Pakistan in the first place, not so much because India is a much better provider for its Muslim population
>>304544
>how about the fact that in 74 seats that had the muslim community having a giant vote in, 39 were won by the BJP?
Well then, I'll keep my fingers crossed for a time when Hindus vote for a Muslim majority party...
>why not Christian representation?
Christians weren't majority in four plus provinces.
Note, I am talking about the impossibility/possibility of a united India and not how it is presently with every province (other than Kashmir) having a Hindu majority..
Muslims in the North-West and East were only able to break away due to their numbers and not due to any ancient right.
The arrangement Congress was proposing would have led to Hindu rule over the Muslim states and people under a Central government. Whether or not Congress called it as such was a different matter.
>The entire idea that elections are supposed to fill an certain quota is an anathema to what the will of the people is, people should be voting on issues, not on candidate's religion.
You could say the same for race in America and yet that's not how they casually hand-wave it.
Ultimately though, and try as we might to ignore it, race and religion does indeed matter in the real world, especially in the third world.
>>304562
>jinnah was against this
>he didn't want them to receive preferential treatment in India
the reservation of seats was a preferential system you.
>some of these saints
very few of the pirs were related to iran except maybe composing some poetry in urdu.
>more successful classes of muslims stayed in india
are you trolling?
The entire islamic homeland for muslims was largely started by muslim intellectuals and funded by them, coincidentally, these were also from parts of India that had relatively large merchant classes, especially those that were based in bombay, karachi and to a lesser extent gujrat.
They migrated rather easily
>kind of
you do realize the vacancy that the population transfer created right?
A large part of sindh, and the western punjab had lower level hindu clerks, teachers and the like because they tended to be well educated, these folk had to be move to delhi and take up jobs like laborers and blacksmiths and the like
The muslim immigrants had an option for excellent social mobility, especially the muhajir, but a lack of land reforms in the punjab damaged them far more than any other reason.
>>304611
>central government
and if it were to be similar to the current structure of the government of India, said states would have had extensive rights to preserve their cultural and religious heritage.
>you could say the same for race in america
well then americans should get out and vote more often then.
>christian representation
I was talking about representation in the 2014 elections senpai.
>Well then, I'll keep my fingers crossed for a time when Hindus vote for a Muslim majority party...
yeah, the muslims voted for a hindu majority party because the BJP promised Ram rajya, not because they were largely fed up with the central government which is decidedly left of center and a strong proponent of minority rights which by and large mean muslims in India.
>>304562
>not so much because India is a much better provider for its Muslim population
I suspect that it's both.
Obligatory
>>304637
I remember this being torn to shreds on /tg/ of all places
>>304626
>congress
>left wing
This physically hurts me
>>304645
left of center
thats what they describe themselves as.
yes I know they have the same policy as the BJP economically.
>>304650
Yeah, that's sorta my problem. I guess it's because IS Trotskyism is so irrelevant, but it kinda gets annoying when Modi-ites, etc accuse me/others of supporting Congress or the various CPI splinter sects.
Congress and the CPIs are just as commited to neo-liberalism and privatisation as the BJP. And that's what matters, not Congress's mealy mouthed 'support' for minorities.
>>304637
What a horribly painful and long analogy.
>>304637
"sorry for fucking you over for a century, but you guys had it coming for being smelly and dumb".
Yes, we've certainly never heard that argument from Europeans before.
>they're introducing more and more of their technology all the time!
wowee almost a century of colonial rule and we have a fucking railroad to show for 100 million dead in man made famines and stalled industrialization.
t-thanks, lads.
>>299197
Unrelated but only now did I realise Afghanistan shares a border with China. Huh.
>>304637
India was for the most part as isolated as any part of Asia outside of Japan could be. Not even the Mongols penetrated the subcontinent. Whatever didn't arrive by ship was filtered through the northern sultanates before reaching the interior of the subcontinent.
India mostly existed as a series of infighting princedoms and mini-empires, and unlike East Asia which remained stable over long stretches of time, borders changed rapidly; there was no concept as patriotism under one flag in the Indian subcontinent, there hadn't been since the classical era millenia prior.
When India was colonized, Indians didn't make anything new of being under a different flag because it was nothing new in Indian history. Individual princes like Tipu Sultan gained notoriety for repelling colonial armies but other than princes defending their own territories, Indians as a whole didn't have particular attachment to any King or territory or political entity.
The British themselves relied predominantly on Indian soldiers to do the fighting for them.
It wasn't until the 19th century with the rise of race and culture based nationalism, that Indians collectively gained a greater sense of their position in the world, the impetus for self-sovereignty and Indian nationalism as an ideology was catalyzed by this.
>>304882
senpai, did you never read 19th century history about the great game between Russia and Britain? They added that slit so the nations wouldn't share a land border in Asia.
>>304679
I think the Sakshi Maharajs of the world are like the Indian version of Ben Carson/Donald Trump.
Modi/Bush and the BJP/GOP leadership aren't hard enough! Kill all Muslims/Mexicans! Nuke Pakistan/China tomorrow! etc
>>301323
So the country essential tried to play with fire(radical islam). they tried to use it against infia but eneded up destroying themselves
Nice thread you guys
>>301323
>>299197
Just a friendly reminder that the US gives this country OVER 1 BILLION DOLLARY DOOS a year!
>>305823
Pakistan had no sense of identity other than being "muslim India". Encouraging Islam and the military and Urdu as a national language were means of creating a sense of national identity. In retrospect it backfired horribly.
>>299404
Correct.
There is no reason partition ever should have happened. By founding a state on no other basis than Islam, then Islamism becomes inevitable (since religion is the only legitimacy the state/nation has).
If they'd known what it would lead to, I doubt many of the founders of Pakistan would have gone down the partition road. Even with partition, you're still much better off as a muslim in Indian than in Pakistan.
I am a bit curious what happened to the NWFP in post independence pakistan
Khan abdul gaffar khan wanted to stay with india and congress won a majority of the seats there.
He also remarked that they had been thrown under the bus by partition
The Brits just can't get partitions right.
Israel-Palestine
India-Pakistan
Turkey-Cyprus-Greece
Have brits successfully partitioned a country ever ?
>>307278
Germany :^)
>>301323
>pakistan is crazy
Paki here. Can confirm.
>>307278
Ireland :)
>>301323
This sums it up nicely.
Another contrast between Pakistan and India is that during the partition, the Indian section inherited much of what was left behind by the British, namely infrastructure and places of education whereas Pakistan had very little. As well as this, the Muslims in India prior to independence weren't nearly as politically organised as the Hindu's, as with the Hindu's there was Gandhi, but in Pakistan there wasn't a strong, stable and relatively secular leader to help the country establish itself comfortably - the one they (Pakistan) had was Muhammad Ali Jinnah who died not long after independence in September 1948.
>>301415
Mohammed Jinnah wasn't crazy at all, he understood the need for separation between the Muslims and Hindus. He was well educated, secular and Pakistan would be in a much better state than it is now if he had survived long enough to guide Pakistan in the first years of its independence.
>>307684
Also the personnel. The majority of the ICS officers stayed in India while Pakistan only got about 150 of them a mix of Muslim and British Officers with none of the political and economic support infrastructure.
>>307684
>infrastructure
>pakistan receives one of the largest ports in India
>they receive the most fertile parts of the punjab and a water sharing plan that provides them with a giant amount of water.
>no economic infrastructure.
>>307706
Pakistan did fine after jinnah died and during the 50s and 60s
starting a war because they believed in memes is their own doing.
>>307755
but they had a large influx of well educated muslim migrants to pakistan that filled that niche well.
>>307789
>>Pakistan receives one of the largest ports in India
Wasn't Karachi quite backwater at the time?
>>307789
What memes?
>>301323
>stable Iraq
>hmm, guy probably posted this in 2011
>nope, late 2014
>>308005
No way, Karachi maybe, but compared to the South, Bombay, Calcutta, etc, India was far more industrialised.
Also face it, Hindus/Indians believe the same fucken memes. The two ruling classes of Pakistan and India are mirror images of each other, one just happens to be far more successful.
>>306973
pajeet pls
>>308143
>believed the same fucking memes
they didn't base their entire army hierarchy on it. Nehru clipped that bullshit in the bud because he was afraid of the big military boogeyman.
>what is the post independence growth of pakistan
they had extremely high rates of growth post independence, remember? they were riding that post war boom pretty well, while India was doing gandhian bullshit and slowly suffocating it's economy.
>ruling classes in India and pakistan are mirror images of each other, one just happens to be more successful.
did all your subcontinental studies come from college level South asia studies?
Pakistan did an excellent job in promoting growth in their own economy, neglecting east pakistan completely and put the profits in the hands of a few familial institutions. The lack of land reforms for instance is an example.
In india the opposite happened because of the federalized structure, while the congress was in power initially, the state level led to a rise of several local leaders who cut their power base. Leading to where India is now.
>>308233
>what is the imposition of urdu on the population in punjab
>what is the imposition of urdu on the population in bengal
>what is the islamization of pakistan starting post ZAB
>>308409
>what is the imposition of urdu on the population in punjab
This was done by the British to replace Farsi. It was accelerated by Pakistan but not started.
>>308440
and neither had a place in pakistan.
The indians put a break on that bullshit as soon as they could
>>308457
>neither had a place in Pakistan
Farsi and Urdu were the language of the upper classes of many areas of North India. non-Muslims too. Ranjeet Singh's court language was Farsi and many Kashmiri Pundits were Farsi scholars. They certainly had a place.
Do you think Hindi doesn't belong in India too?
>>308500
>neither had a place in pakistan
>upper class language in UP, parts of bengal, the non bengali ones at least
exactly what does it have to do with sindhi, punjabi or pashto?
