In 1947 two muslim countries should have been created!

[Vinod2070]

They are 'there', as you admit. However, no one belongs 'there' - lets get rid of the superiority complex shall we.

Commenting on the current poor state of affairs is perfectly appropriate.

I never said it is not appropriate and never denied where we are.

If I don't believe that the subcontinent doesn't belong there, it is because I have seen what we have achieved in a short span of time. We just have to sustain it for few decades and we won't be third world anymore.

Wonder where is the superiority complex here!

I wasn't referring to any mythical entities, rather the various nations of South Asia.

Well, in that case Pakistan and Bangladesh will also do well along with India in the near future.

I will be happy for them as I will be for India. They are within the Indian realm for me, not physically (they don't have to be) but spiritually.

Hogwash. This has nothing to do with 'interested parties'. The definition of nation fits all the entities that existed in the region prior to the British invasion and prior to the arrival of Islam.

This is a simple mater of looking at the facts, and the facts disprove your argument.

Actually the facts and the proof are nothing but how you look at the whole thing. To me what I feel is so obvious that I don't even see the need to explain it. The difference is in the belief system.

You won't convince me otherwise nor would I convince you. Any Attempt is futile. It is one of the fundamental differences that make India and Pakistan different.

 

[Vinod2070]

Just on that point really quick - the idea of an 'ancient Indian nation' is a 'subjective view', one more of beliefs than facts. It is an attempt by modern nationalists to retrospectively argue the idea of a 'nation'.

And anytime your 'beliefs' end up imposing upon my land Pakistan and infringing upon my distinct identity (which this idea of 'ancient Indian nation' does), it will be argued against.

You are welcome to your distinct identity. We don't want a merger with Pakistan.

The idea of ancient India may indeed conflict with your idea of the history of the subcontinent. It doesn't need to conflict with the present realities.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You are welcome to your distinct identity. We don't want a merger with Pakistan.

Good to hear - a step in that direction for people like Malang would be to stop criticizing Pakistan's creation and the ideology behind it.

The idea of ancient India may indeed conflict with your idea of the history of the subcontinent. It doesn't need to conflict with the present realities.

The history of ancient India does not conflict with anything - the distortion of that history to try and justify a nation in the past, that my country was a part of, does.

Actually the facts and the proof are nothing but how you look at the whole thing. To me what I feel is so obvious that I don't even see the need to explain it. The difference is in the belief system.

You won't convince me otherwise nor would I convince you. Any Attempt is futile. It is one of the fundamental differences that make India and Pakistan different.

I similarly disagree with the concept of an Ummah united into a nation state, and I believe I have been similarly told that 'I do not understand, that their is a deficit of faith and therefore an inability to understand the concept'.

However, if faith and a subjective understanding of history is what we have arrived at, I will agree to disagree as you suggest.

 

[ejaz007]

ezaz, there were 543 different territories were merged in India, hyderabad people have supported Indian Police force (not army), goa joined in 1960 why you are leaving all this and running behind kashmir. The east pakistan got separated because there were not happy with the country "pakistan". There were ~90000 troops who surrendered.

Dear Nitesh,

Lets go through one by one.

As for Kashmir, Junagarh, Ferozpur and CHT please go through this article I found on the net. This more or less explains every thing:

Gurdaspur was the key to the Fraud in Kashmir accession - Kashmir - Zimbio

It does not matter whether people supported Indian police or not the fact is that India invaded a sovereign state and annexed it.

As far as Goa is considered it was also annexed by India using force and did not join by free will.

Operation Vijay (1961 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

I also found this article and thought should share it.

The Sunday Tribune - Spectrum

 

[nitesh]

Dear Nitesh,

Lets go through one by one.

As for Kashmir, Junagarh, Ferozpur and CHT please go through this article I found on the net. This more or less explains every thing:

Gurdaspur was the key to the Fraud in Kashmir accession - Kashmir - Zimbio

It does not matter whether people supported Indian police or not the fact is that India invaded a sovereign state and annexed it.

As far as Goa is considered it was also annexed by India using force and did not join by free will.

Operation Vijay (1961 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

I also found this article and thought should share it.

The Sunday Tribune - Spectrum

so what's the point here?

 

[Flintlock]

so what's the point here?

One point I can see is that Lahore should have gone to India, since it apparently had a Hindu+Sikh majority population.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

One point I can see is that Lahore should have gone to India, since it apparently had a Hindu+Sikh majority population.

"Accordingly to the 1941 census, Lahore city had a total population of 671,659. It had crossed the 700,000 mark by 1947. It had an absolute majority of 64.5 per cent Muslims and the rest were Hindus and Sikhs as well as a small Christian community. In the district as a whole, Muslims were 60.6 per cent and Hindus and Sikhs together made up 39.4 per cent of the population. However, many of the new localities and most of the commercial and trading areas in the city were owned by Hindus and Sikhs, whose presence in the life of the city was very visible and prominent. They owned 80 per cent of the total wealth in it. Thus despite the statistics which showed a Muslim majority, many of the Hindus and Sikhs believed that they together were in a majority. A widely held belief among them was that Lahore will remain in India come what may."

The battle for Lahore and Amritsar

 

[cactuslily58]

Why don't we put an end to living in the past and stop exhuming the dead for one post mortem after another.

Lets simply look thru the windshield chart a route to drive ahead instead of looking at the rear view mirror all the time.

 

[Vinod2070]

Good to hear - a step in that direction for people like Malang would be to stop criticizing Pakistan's creation and the ideology behind it.

There would be many people who don't agree with the ideology behind the creation of Pakistan. I doubt they will change their mind in a hurry. It has nothing to do with accepting the current realities though.

The history of ancient India does not conflict with anything - the distortion of that history to try and justify a nation in the past, that my country was a part of, does.

That is what many in India may feel when they see some ancient historic justifications being made out for Pakistan when it is obvious to them that the TNT was based solely on religion and the premise that Muslims can't live with Hindus. Then they see 150 million Muslims doing exactly that in today's India.

I similarly disagree with the concept of an Ummah united into a nation state, and I believe I have been similarly told that 'I do not understand, that their is a deficit of faith and therefore an inability to understand the concept'.

However, if faith and a subjective understanding of history is what we have arrived at, I will agree to disagree as you suggest.

Yes, the concept of a nation and culture is definitely subjective to a large degree. Though I know that you consider the nations to be an administrative unit of parts who agreed to be part of a union at a particular point in time, I don't see it that way.

If we go away from the subcontinent and look at the USA, see how the people who came from countries which were warring in Europe came together to form a nation that is the most powerful in the world and is a genuine leader in so many fields.

But yes, this is one area which I find that we can't narrow our differences in. The best we can try is to understand the other's viewpoint.

 

[ejaz007]

Nitesh,
The point is to keep the history correct.

 

[Vinod2070]

Nitesh,
The point is to keep the history correct.

And the correct history means that Hyderabad and Junagarh belonged to Pakistan because of Muslim rulers in spite of 90% Hindu population and Kashmir belonged to them despite a Hindu ruler who signed the instrument of accession in the face of raid by the Qabailis and the PA because of Muslim majority?

 

[BanglaBhoot]

QUIZ​

Who made this statement -

If India is split up into two or more parts and can no longer function as a political and economic unit, her progress will be seriously affected. The much worse will be the inner psychological conflict between those who wish to reunite her and those who oppose this … Unity is always better than disunity, but an enforced unity is a sham and dangerous affair, full of explosive possibilities. Unity must be of the mind and heart, a sense of the belonging together and of facing together those who attack it. I am convinced that there is that basic unity in India, but it has been overlaid and hidden to some extent by other forces. These latter may be temporary and artificial and may pass off, but they count today and no man can ignore them… Yet the fact remains that considerable numbers of ******* have become sentimentally attached to this idea of separation without giving thought to its consequences … I think this sentiment has been artificially created and has no roots in the Moslem mind … It may be that some division of India is enforced, with some tenuous bond joining the divided parts. Even if this happens, I am convinced that the basic feeling of unity and world developments will later bring the divided parts nearer to each other and result in a real unity. It is obvious that whatever may be the future of India, and even if there is a regular partition, the different parts will have to co-operate with each other and in a hundred different ways. Even independent nations have to co-operate with each other and must hang together or deteriorate, disintegrate and loose their freedom…

Thus we arrive at the inevitable and ineluctable conclusion that, whether Pakistan comes or not, a number of important and basic functions of the state must be exercised on all-India basis if India is to survive as a free state and progress. The alternative is stagnation, decay and disintegration, leading to a loss of political and economic freedom, both for India as a whole and its various separated parts. As has been said by an eminent authority: ‘The inexorable logic of the age presents the country with radically different alternatives: union plus independence or disunion plus dependence.’ … There is grave danger in a possibility of partition and division to begin with. For such an attempt might well scotch the very beginnings of freedom and the formation of a free national state … Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of any free state emerging from such a turmoil, and if something does emerge, it will be a pitiful caricature full of contradictions and insoluble problems."

It appears as a central theme in my book The India Doctrine but who can tell where it originally came from.

 

[globall]

To all my Indian friends,



I respect whatever are your views on South Asia but since you do not believe in two nations theory may I ask you some questions?


1- Do you think the caste system very dominant in your country contributes something useful even to the Hindus as well as other minorities specially Muslims? I think it is the main cause of creating hatred between people.

2- I dont think a Muslim can marry a Hindu woman with the blessings of her family with all the traditional Hindu customs. Do you?

3- What is the proportion of successful Muslim businessmen in India with respect to the percentage of the Muslim population there versus the Hindu population?



Best regards

 

[chindit]

1- Do you think the caste system very dominant in your country contributes something useful even to the Hindus as well as other minorities specially Muslims? I think it is the main cause of creating hatred between people.

It doesnt contribute anything to the country. i wont say it causes hatred, but certainly divisions occur.

2- I dont think a Muslim can marry a Hindu woman with the blessings of her family with all the traditional Hindu customs. Do you?

Yes he can if family is open enough. i personally dont know details of hindu -muslim marraiges - but i have seen couples - but never attended any.

However I have seen and attended many - and i mean many - hindu christian marraiges - hindu man, christian woman, christian man - hindu women - etc where the marraiges take place as per both customs . that is - first one ceremony and then another. My best friend married a christian woman - got married in church and then in temple with families from both attending.


[/QUOTE]

3- What is the proportion of successful Muslim businessmen in India with respect to the percentage of the Muslim population there versus the Hindu population?

muslim community is seen as being rooted in old traditions and customs in terms of education and openness. thus percentage of muslims who are well off compared to total population will always be less than hindus. even among hindus, some castes are very backward and have very few leaders in business while others have more than their share. there is nothing malicious in this.

 

[Contrarian]

Per the last survey, 51% of all businesses in India are owned by OBC's. I'd say things are improving.