Who Created Pakistan?

re:#95 by HP
``The religious conflicts in India are an unpleasant fact and they have been happening for a long time. ``
If one looks objectively, one will find that statistically overwhelming number of riots in the last 50 years in India have been between Hindus and muslims.
I think the conclusions are telling.
Sridhar

#93 by jang
Jang,

You are one hell of a guy and I agree with you on this. It is simply not possible for people to burn in hate all the time. I had Hindu friends in Hyderabad and some of them certainly had soft corner for India. It never threatened anybody in our circle. I remember in 1979 when the Indian cricket team came to Pakistan, a couple of them said that “Chandar Sheker in sub ki le le gaa.”
We had a good argument but nobody cared that they supported Indian team because they were Hindu. It is natural given the history of the subcontinent. It is also your personal state of mind. If you have knots in your head, you will feel threatened by any thing that moves.

The religious conflicts in India are an unpleasant fact and they have been happening for a long time. One extreme of that conflict was the creation of Pakistan. Would Indian continue to perpetuate the extreme within their society or find a way to move beyond?
Funny that on the one hand Indians cite communalism as the basis for creation of Pakistan, then turn around, and condone communalism w/o let.

Re: # 95

What balls sway between your legs that you would dare to talk about conflicts in india, whereas in your land,pakistan, religious conflicts and sectarian violence is occuring as we speak.Muslims killing other muslims.It is a disgrace and a shame for your country and you.

#92 are bengali hindus know to cause riots? are there hindu-muslim riots in bangladesh? majority-minority relations in india and bangladesh are different type i think.

HP,
my observation is that the indian polity is now far more vocal. when i was in college, things were far more PC, but this does not mean that muslims were having a good time. however, the chattering class muslims were far more comfortable. whatever riots happened, they happend in muhallas, old mughal-time weaver towns, about some religious stuff like ganesh puja or muharrum festivities. chattering class muslims were comfortably secure. now the overall security situation is actually much better, godhra or mumbai riots notwithstanding, but brash-talk is ever higher. this makes chatterring classes more insecure... i mean its scary if you go to your hindu buddies house and see ``Garv Se Kaho Hum Hindu Hain`` sticker on the almira. but the number of riots are far and few and highly publicized, and normal muslim is going on with hisand her life in more peace. the chattering classes however are no more sure, because the brash talk is very high.

Gujju is unnecessarily threatened by ISI innterference. even during my PC younger days, muslims always had a soft-corner for pakistan, but that did not mean we stopped interacting with muslims in a normal way for conducting bussiness etc. mostly its just a soft-ummah-type feeling, no big deal.

people are getting unnecessarily emotional. my reading of history has given me a por view of human nature. The situation I have described below is one of a minority-majority, the actors could be reversed or could blong to some other religion or even non religous affiliations like tribe as in Rawanda or ethnicity as in East Pakistan. peole are the same every where, though sometimes economic well being reduces the scramble for resources.

people everywhere feel a love to the place they belong, but people no where are angels if the state doesnot fulfil its part of the agreement or colludes in harming them then they will reciprocate the feeling.

what makes the situation take a vicious turn is indoctrinated prejudice and a persecution complex like milosovic`s repetition of the battle of kosovar or the sangh`s harping on muslim cruelty. not that the minority is free from such prejudice but it is not in a position to extract a cost for an imagined wrong.

successful states are able to prevent such propoganda and hate speech. when they arent a Bosnia or gujarat or babri happens.

again i repeat majorities in bangladesh behave the same way as majorities in India, though because of diff. historical factors they dont have the same hitorical persecution complex. and muslims in UP or elsewherehave adjusted to the situation just as hindus would have if the positions had been reversed. they too would have felt the need to impose some costs on the majority, even if they lost more just to prevent a repeat.

history is full of brutality whether it was the mongols or it was the crusaders or the spaniards or the christin denominations or the muslims or indeed the hindus as we know from the wiping out of budhism in india. its only a question of what we choose to repeat and exxagerate.

Its quite apparent to me that hindus will not be allowed to live in peace and India will not prosper as long as muslims remain in India. While it is true that there is a tiny section of Indian muslim population that is staunchy pro-India , and a small middle class that just wants to live and let live , the rest are absolute jihadis baying (silently for now) for the kufr blood. It is a matter of regret regret that we didn`t finish off the 8-9% muslims who were left in India post-1947. Now muslims - who breed like rabbits - comprise of 16% of India`s population. Our secularism will be the end of us.

Pakistanis were smart. They either chased away , killed or converted the hindus left in their country. From 13-14% in 1947 , the kufr population has been brought down to a neutered 1%. There is so much one can learn - even from the vilest elements.

Hindvi ,

``Sorry, the muslims (or any other minority) are not going to sit around to be raped and butchered for some notion of nationhood to which the majority themselves dont consider them party, they are going to take help from any quarter (ISI, CIA, KGB) they get. Its up to you if you wish to escalate the situation by indulging in a general massacre, then in areas in which they are above 30% there will be a civil war with help taken from any neighbouring country that offers it. In other areas they will be wiped out. ``

You know - thats analogous to what came first , the chicken or the egg theory . Do hindus attack muslims because muslims indulge in anti-national activity in collusion with enemies from across the border , or do muslims indulge in anti-national activity in connivance with ISI etc. because they are targeted by hindus...............each one has his own answer and justification....

.....but as a hindu...I thank you for being so open about muslims colluding with Pakistani elements. Thank you also for your warped explanation of concepts such as citizenship and nationalism. Whatever sympathy I had for muslims , I have lost. All that crap about secularism seems to hold only for hindus. Might is the only thing that is right under the circumstances. Next time there is a riot , I intend to have some fun ;)

#80 by Netizen

Baba,
“they cannot accept this change if its not in line to what written centuries back and hence they become more conservative and grudgingly modify their outlook. This in turn creates more friction.”

There is lots of truth to what you say but one thing you and many even very well educated Indians forget that minorities are always more conservative, inward looking and if they are in a perpetual conflict with the majority, will continue to look outside for support and symbols.
For example, Jews throughout the history in Europe looked inwards and dreamt of their symbols outside of Europe.

History has lots of cruelty written in it. Many nations and people have suffered throughout the centuries. In fact, many civilizations lost out to brutalities. The current Indian Nationalism is built of rhetoric and not on sound values. In fact, I should say that there are two clear trends in India. One group is attempting to lead India on practical and scientific grounds and the other group is shouting from the top of the lungs and blaming others for its rather slow walk to progress. Both groups are nationalist one wants to build consensus in the society and other feels that consensus would open playing field for the same group that it holds responsible for centuries of foreign rules and perhaps slavery.

We should also not discount the natural differences that many communities have. Like the difference, Blacks and White have in this Society and they went thru a period in the 60s, when life and property had no meaning. But they have moved forward. Both communities still have problems but by and large they have learnt to live with each other.

The whites still are blamed and the Blacks still get accused but a vast majority does not live in fear or in contempt of each other.

Building consensus is not easy and in Pakistan where one faith dominates, people of different provinces still don’t see eye to eye on several issues. Despite the commonality of religion, other differences come into play.

In situations where communities have difficulty in getting along like the case in India, the role of state machinery becomes important and since in India, the majority community controls the state machinery, it has more responsibilities to create environments of, if not cooperation, at least restrained aloofness.
Accusing the minority on all counts, would not create national cohesion and any attempt to make progress would be bogged down. The majority community in India has more responsibility just for its own country’s sake to create peaceful environment for all.

Re: # 86

``There is lots of truth to what you say but one thing you and many even very well educated Indians forget that minorities are always more conservative, inward looking and if they are in a perpetual conflict with the majority, will continue to look outside for support and symbols.
For example, Jews throughout the history in Europe looked inwards and dreamt of their symbols outside of Europe.``

European Jews were not inward looking. They progressed in their land of birth and didn`t blame the majorities for discrimination and ghettoisation, even though there were instances of anti-semitism well before Nazis cae to power. They excelled in various professions and I wonder how many even knew Hebrew. If there was no holocaust may be there would not have been Israel. Russian communist movementtconsisted of many Jewish comrades who denounced religion and believed in peoples revolution.

``History has lots of cruelty written in it. Many nations and people have suffered throughout the centuries. In fact, many civilizations lost out to brutalities. The current Indian Nationalism is built of rhetoric and not on sound values. ``

Of all of the civilisations in the world, India (and probably China) has survived several assaults and have more or less maintained their vigor. So how can you say that it is merely a rhetoric. Indian nationalism rose against British imperialism and has been around. You will see it at another Indo-Pak match.

``In fact, I should say that there are two clear trends in India. One group is attempting to lead India on practical and scientific grounds and the other group is shouting from the top of the lungs and blaming others for its rather slow walk to progress. Both groups are nationalist one wants to build consensus in the society and other feels that consensus would open playing field for the same group that it holds responsible for centuries of foreign rules and perhaps slavery.``

I assume you mean Congress and BJP. Congress`s consensus means 50% reservation for muslims in AMU, which even prominent muslims have denounced since it will devalue a degree from AMU.

Consider this: BJP wants uniform civil code, one man one law (not hindu law), is it unfair? a muslim will go to a western country and obey the laws but in india wants a personal law that too not applicable in all offences. Is this modern thinking?Is this consideration towards other communities? BJP wants to end Haj subsidies or any kind of religious subsidies, is it wrong to financial one particular religious group on tax payers money?

``Building consensus is not easy and in Pakistan where one faith dominates, people of different provinces still don’t see eye to eye on several issues. Despite the commonality of religion, other differences come into play. ``

the same is in case of india too. A tamil hindu has much in common with a tamil muslim than a U.P. thakur.

``In situations where communities have difficulty in getting along like the case in India, the role of state machinery becomes important and since in India, the majority community controls the state machinery, it has more responsibilities to create environments of, if not cooperation, at least restrained aloofness.``

the only communities that have difficulty getting along are the hindus and muslims.
in a country like india where the state cannot even keep roads clean , expecting them to think out of the box would truly be an achievement. The only way things will improve if the communities accommodate each other. As i previously said for majority of muslims Islam is there lifeblood, they will never compromise on it. Every now and then you will see muslims authors quoting quranic verses and justifying there actions. THe non-musim majority doesn`t care what Mohd did in 7th century arabia. If muslim masses think that they are as indian as other non-muslims, why don`t they come out and ask for ``one man one law``? so that that every man in india will have the same laws and punishment? They will never do that because they are answerable to only Allah.
take the eg of Babri masjid, let us assume that no mandir existed there, and that it was`nt Rams birthplace. But if the majority community has faith that their god was born there whats the problem to shift a majid. Its not that it was where mohd died or went to heaven. It was a freaking defunct masjid. Even in KSA, several of them were razed to build highways. THe place is to faithful hindus what Mecca/Median is to Muslims, or Jerusalem to Jews/Christian. would the muslims allow any church/temple somewhere in mecca/medina let alone on the kabba site? the point is muslims intransigence.

``Accusing the minority on all counts, would not create national cohesion and any attempt to make progress would be bogged down. The majority community in India has more responsibility just for its own country’s sake to create peaceful environment for all. ``

no one is blaming minority (muslims in particular) . No one has time for it. muslims should look at other minorities like the jains, sikhs, christians. muslims are lagging behind because of their own orthodoxy/narrow mindedness. it is seen even in Paris, london, netherlands, germany.
they will the last to send their daughters to school/college. they will have unmanageable families. till now i have seen only 1 pakistani woman studying/working in u.s. (in 8 years), when the question of family planning comes, the mullah thunders that it is against islam and all nonsense. I most of the mafias/gangs consists of muslims. you will blame the majority also for this too?

Re: # 102
It was refreshing to read some reasoned and intelligent analysis. Please keep writing on the sociological underpinnings as they relate to the future development of the major players in South Asia.
PRK

Re: # 102
( till now i have seen only 1 pakistani woman studying/working in u.s. (in 8 years), )
are you sure?. the ratio of pakistani females in uk universities is fairly high.

Re: # 86 HP
//...The majority community in India has more responsibility just for its own country’s sake to create peaceful environment for all...//

Thanks for the advice - unnecessary as it is. The majority community in india has been fulfilling its responsibility with considerable success. Pluralism, secularism exists in india not because of muslims demand it [mostly, they don`t] but because majority wants it. They always have and always will - that`s their way of life.

If you flip the context - 80% muslim, 15% hindu - there would NOT be any pluralism, secularism and any such good things .... neither would you be pontificating about the ``responsibility`` of the majority, because pluralism is always completely out of question -whenever the majority is muslim. So there is never any scope of any discourse on how pakis or bdeshis should excercise ``more responsibility`` towards the minorities among them. That`s sad.

#81

I didnt know Modi`s ``action-reaction`` theory had such strong following.

#81

I didnt know Modi`s ``action-reaction`` theory had such strong following.

So Hindvi, would it be OK for India to provide ``help`` to Hindus in Bangaldesh or
Pakistan if they ask and would it be OK for them to ask India`s help?
I believe Hindus in those oppressive countries perhaps have many more grievances
against their Muslim countrymen, they just can`t express yet.
And even if they are not, if they percieve so and ask for help, should India provide?

Any what happens when minority wants to play by its rules without any considerations to the Majority or other minorities? Do you think Majority is always at fault no matter what? Frankly, why do not I see Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Zoarastrians, Christians do not have same complaints against ``Majority`` as Muslims do all the time?

And can this ``help business`` apply in the context of any country? How about mexicans in USA, especially the border states? This may not be applicable now, but who has seen the future?