India - 1.4 billion people

[MultaniGuy]

If those muslims were spread out evenly throughout South Asia, that would be true. But they are geographically isolated from ROI, and make up overwhelming majorities in close concentrations. That would have been a nightmare to administer. Lets flip it around and say UP, BIhar MP, etc were Muslim majority and part of Pakistan. That would make Pakistan the majority of South ASia. Do you think they would be able to successfully rule South India and East India which are overwhelmingly Hindu majority and did not want to join the larger nation of Pakistan?

The point is, according to the 2NT, Hindus did not lose any land that should have gone to India. But Muslims lost land that should have gone to Paksitan. Forget Hyderabad, Junagadh, etc. JInnah wanted the entirety of Punjab, Bengal, and Assam, including regions that were majority Hindu and Sikh. If that happened, I would have agreed with you that Hindus lost land. But that is not what happened is it?

There many times when Hindus ruled Muslims like in Kashmir, and Muslims ruling over Hindus in Hyderabad princely state.

The Hindus could have ruled the Muslims in a united South Asia. lol.

From the perspective I have state the Hindus lost land. Hindus would have STILL made the majority of 66% in a United South Asia.

You are missing the point.

Going by your logic, the Hindus and Sikhs also lost West Punjab and East Bengal.

Nice try again.

If those muslims were spread out evenly throughout South Asia, that would be true. But they are geographically isolated from ROI, and make up overwhelming majorities in close concentrations. That would have been a nightmare to administer. Lets flip it around and say UP, BIhar MP, etc were Muslim majority and part of Pakistan. That would make Pakistan the majority of South ASia. Do you think they would be able to successfully rule South India and East India which are overwhelmingly Hindu majority and did not want to join the larger nation of Pakistan?

The point is, according to the 2NT, Hindus did not lose any land that should have gone to India. But Muslims lost land that should have gone to Paksitan. Forget Hyderabad, Junagadh, etc. JInnah wanted the entirety of Punjab, Bengal, and Assam, including regions that were majority Hindu and Sikh. If that happened, I would have agreed with you that Hindus lost land. But that is not what happened is it?

2 Nation Theory was never implemented to the 100%. It was only partially implemented.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

There many times when Hindus ruled Muslims like in Kashmir, and Muslims ruling over Hindus in Hyderabad princely state.

The Hindus could have ruled the Muslims in a united South Asia. lol.

From the perspective I have state the Hindus lost land. Hindus would have STILL made the majority of 66% in a United South Asia.

You are missing the point.

Going by your logic, the Hindus and Sikhs also lost West Punjab and East Bengal.

Nice try again.


2 Nation Theory was never implemented to the 100%. It was only partially implemented.

Yes and you know how long Hindu rule in Kashmir and Muslim rule in Hyderabad and Junagadh lasted? The only way India would be able to placate modern day Pak in an "Akhand Bharat" situation would be through using violence. Is that what you want? Anyway, Kashmir is a different story because It was an independent state that acceded to India only when it was being overrun by Paksitan. The point is even if some Hindu leaders wanted all of British India, that would be impractical. Similar there were and are some radical islamists who wanted(and still want) a continuation of the Mughal Empire. That would also be impractical.

Alright fine, Hindus and Sikhs lost West Bengal and East Punjab. That is still not as big as Assam(which included all of Northeast India), Kutch, and all of the Muslim-majority princely states and districts Jinnah wanted.

 

[MultaniGuy]

If those muslims were spread out evenly throughout South Asia, that would be true. But they are geographically isolated from ROI, and make up overwhelming majorities in close concentrations. That would have been a nightmare to administer. Lets flip it around and say UP, BIhar MP, etc were Muslim majority and part of Pakistan. That would make Pakistan the majority of South ASia. Do you think they would be able to successfully rule South India and East India which are overwhelmingly Hindu majority and did not want to join the larger nation of Pakistan?

The point is, according to the 2NT, Hindus did not lose any land that should have gone to India. But Muslims lost land that should have gone to Paksitan. Forget Hyderabad, Junagadh, etc. JInnah wanted the entirety of Punjab, Bengal, and Assam, including regions that were majority Hindu and Sikh. If that happened, I would have agreed with you that Hindus lost land. But that is not what happened is it?

You are lucky you are not debating with a mod or a admin, because they wouldn't take your crap like I do.

I am stating the obvious. You are sidetracking here.

I stated the Hindus would have made the majority in South Asia without or with division of the region.

Without partition of the British Raj Hindus would make 66% of a united South Asia thus dominating the Muslims and displacing the Muslim majority regions.

And Yes there were many times, when the Hindus were ruling over Muslims like in Kashmir.

The Hindus would have ruled over the Muslims like the Maharajah ruled over the Muslims.

It was a lost opportunity for the Hindus to get Akhand Bharat.

But the Muslim League cleverly fought for Pakistan, and thus South Asia got divided.

And Thanks goodness it did. Muslims in the majority Muslim regions would have been cheated of their rights.

Yes the Hindus lost land.

You can deny it as much as you like, but the Hindus will never have Pakistan or Bangladesh under their administration again.

Regards.

Yes and you know how long Hindu rule in Kashmir and Muslim rule in Hyderabad and Junagadh lasted? The only way India would be able to placate modern day Pak in an "Akhand Bharat" situation would be through using violence. Is that what you want? Anyway, Kashmir is a different story because It was an independent state that acceded to India only when it was being overrun by Paksitan. The point is even if some Hindu leaders wanted all of British India, that would be impractical. Similar there were and are some radical islamists who wanted(and still want) a continuation of the Mughal Empire. That would also be impractical.

Alright fine, Hindus and Sikhs lost West Bengal and East Punjab. That is still not as big as Assam(which included all of Northeast India), Kutch, and all of the Muslim-majority princely states and districts Jinnah wanted.

Doesn't matter how long Muslim Hyderabad or Junagarh rule lasted. Hindus ruled over Muslims in Kashmir for quite a while.

Don't obfuscate facts here.

Besides that, aren't you the one who mentioned that the Marathas ruled over Pakhtunkhwa a few weeks ago here on this forum. I still remember that.

Not only that, Look at Muslims in India today, they are being ruled over by the Hindu BJP party.

That is the ultimate proof. The same would have happened to West and East Pakistan. lol.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

I have already shown that those instances were short and relatively rare. Maybe Hindu India would have been able to pass laws limiting their rights, but ENFORCING those laws would have been difficult. If what you said was that easy, why did Aurangzeb's Empire last so short? Because he had a hard time administering the Deccan. A situation where the ROI ruled Pakistan would have been ripe for a rebel group like the Taliban or the Marathas that would have caused a lot of money and lives to India. I am pretty sure the same would be true in a situation where muslims made up the majority of the population of the Subcontinent and tried to rule non Muslim parts of South Asia that did not want to join.

 

[MultaniGuy]

I have already shown that those instances were short and relatively rare. Maybe Hindu India would have been able to pass laws limiting their rights, but ENFORCING those laws would have been difficult. If what you said was that easy, why did Aurangzeb's Empire last so short? Because he had a hard time administering the Deccan. A situation where the ROI ruled Pakistan would have been ripe for a rebel group like the Taliban or the Marathas that would have caused a lot of money and lives to India. I am pretty sure the same would be true in a situation where muslims made up the majority of the population of the Subcontinent and tried to rule non Muslim parts of South Asia that did not want to join.

You are contradicting yourself here.

Muslims ruled Hyderabad for a while by the Nizam.

Point is a minority can rule over a majority in the right circumstances for a long time.

And the Hindus would have ruled the Muslim majority regions in a united South Asia. lol.

You lost the debate. Go home now.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

Anyway I fail to see any land that SHOULD have gone to India that went to Pakistan instead, whereas land that SHOULD have gone to Pakistan did go to India. Even if you say Hindus lost West Punjab and East Bengal, Muslims still lost the entirety of Assam as well as their princely states which are now entirely in India.

Also, where do Burma, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Yemen, and Oman fit into this? They were at one point administered under British India. Did Hindus lose those lands as well?

You are contradicting yourself here.

Muslims ruled Hyderabad for a while by the Nizam.

Point is a minority can rule over a majority in the right circumstances for a long time.

And the Hindus would have ruled the Muslim majority regions in a united South Asia. lol.

You lost the debate. Go home now.

Hyderabad and Kashmir are small states. Paksitan is 200 million plus, approaching 300. False equivilancy.

 

[itsanufy]

Middle class 1-2 and poor 2-3..explain why you guys have almost 1.6 times the birth rate of india.. Bulk of the population growth is due to states like UP, Bihar, Bengal etc..

Just saying West Bengal has growth rate 1.5-1.8 whereas Haryana has 1.8-2.19

 

[MultaniGuy]

Anyway I fail to see any land that SHOULD have gone to India that went to Pakistan instead, whereas land that SHOULD have gone to Pakistan did go to India. Even if you say Hindus lost West Punjab and East Bengal, Muslims still lost the entirety of Assam as well as their princely states which are now entirely in India.

Also, where do Burma, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Yemen, and Oman fit into this? They were at one point administered under British India. Did Hindus lose those lands as well?


Hyderabad and Kashmir are small states. Paksitan is 200 million plus, approaching 300. False equivilancy.

Assam was Hindu majority and still is. Even Gandhi said that too, and that why India got the chicken's neck corridor to Assam from West Bengal.

I thought you knew that already. lol.

Anyway I fail to see any land that SHOULD have gone to India that went to Pakistan instead, whereas land that SHOULD have gone to Pakistan did go to India. Even if you say Hindus lost West Punjab and East Bengal, Muslims still lost the entirety of Assam as well as their princely states which are now entirely in India.

Also, where do Burma, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Yemen, and Oman fit into this? They were at one point administered under British India. Did Hindus lose those lands as well?


Hyderabad and Kashmir are small states. Paksitan is 200 million plus, approaching 300. False equivilancy.

When we mean British Raj, we are talking about the British Raj empire in South Asia. Don't confuse people using irrelevant information.

Pakistan was not there when the British Raj was ruling South Asia. You have flawed logic.

Pakistan would have been divided into Sindh, Punjab would have been united (with 50% Muslim and 50% Hindu and Sikh), Balochistan which has little population and Pakthunkwa would have been dominated by the Hindu dominated government in New Delhi.

Yes Muslims lost land, but the Hindus lost more in partition.

Hindus were bound to get more land in South Asia, because they form the majority in South Asia.

lol.

Don't beat around the bush.

Also South Asia was to be granted independence as a single unit, Yemen, Oman, and Myanmar were not part of that option.

By the way if you have the last word in this debate, it doesn't mean you won.

I already debunked you in this debate. Yes Muslims lost land, but the Hindus lost more.

The Hindus will never have Pakistan or Bangladesh under their administration again in human history.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

Assam was Hindu majority and still is. Even Gandhi said that too, and that why India got the chicken's neck corridor to Assam from West Bengal.

I thought you knew that already. lol.


When we mean British Raj, we are talking about the British Raj empire in South Asia. Don't confuse people using irrelevant information.

Pakistan was not there when the British Raj was ruling South Asia. You have flawed logic.

Pakistan would have been divided into Sindh, Punjab would have been united (with 50% Muslim and 50% Hindu and Sikh), Balochistan which has little population and Pakthunkwa would have been dominated by the Hindu dominated government in New Delhi.

Yes Muslims lost land, but the Hindus lost more in partition.

Hindus were bound to get more land in South Asia, because they form the majority in South Asia.

lol.

Don't beat around the bush.

Also South Asia was to be granted independence as a single unit, Yemen, Oman, and Myanmar were not part of that option.

By the way if you have the last word in this debate, it doesn't mean you won.

I already debunked you in this debate. Yes Muslims lost land, but the Hindus lost more.

The Hindus will never have Pakistan or Bangladesh under their administration again in human history.

Yes, Pakistan did not exist, but neither did the Republic of India. And if Assam was majority Hindu, why did Jinnah want it? Back then, it was barely Muslim majority because it contained many parts that were once part of Bengal. Even today, large parts of Assam are acutally majority Bengali Muslim. That is where the NRC conflict came from. Once again I fail to see how Hindus lost more, because Hindus from the ROI had never ruled Balochistan, Sindh, and KP since the Guptas(unless you count the handful of years of Maratha control). Okay, Hindus lost West Punjab and East Bengal and Azad Kashmir, but combined East Punjab(Indian Punjab, HP, and Haryana), IOK, West Bengal, Tripura(Also was once a Muslim majority), and Assam are bigger. That is not even mentioning Kutch, Junagadh, and Hyderabad(Kutch district was supposed to go to Sindh, and Junagadh and Hyderabad had acceded to Paksitan as I already explained). So it looks like Hindus lost less than Pakistan. Yes, Pakistan and BD will never be under Hindu rule. We have accepted that, thank you very much. But have you accepted that you will never recreate the Mughal Empire and fulfill your Ghazwa E Hind? And have you accepted you will never be able to liberate IOK? I suggest you do, as it will make things easier for all of us.

My logic is actually very simple. After 1947, Hindus did not lose any territory they controlled one year earlier. Even If you do some mental gymnastics and say Hindus lost West Punjab and East Bengal, the Areas that were supposed to go to Pak but went to India are bigger in area.

On a side note, I think the biggest losers of partition were Sikhs. They lost their biggest city and the cirthplace of their guru to Pakistan, and only make up 2 percent of India. Whereas during British India, they basically ruled the economy of undivided Punjab. They definitely lost the most.

 

[itsanufy]

.................................At least $65 billion is still $65 billion, with many more billions earmarked for further investment in the coming years and decades....................does the origin of this investment matter?................if it does than we are happy that it comes from our closest friend and ally............

FDI in India $61.96 billion in 2017-18. Bilateral trade between India and China around 90 B. Just saying.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Yes, Pakistan did not exist, but neither did the Republic of India. And if Assam was majority Hindu, why did Jinnah want it? Back then, it was barely Muslim majority because it contained many parts that were once part of Bengal. Even today, large parts of Assam are acutally majority Bengali Muslim. That is where the NRC conflict came from. Once again I fail to see how Hindus lost more, because Hindus from the ROI had never ruled Balochistan, Sindh, and KP since the Guptas(unless you count the handful of years of Maratha control). Okay, Hindus lost West Punjab and East Bengal and Azad Kashmir, but combined East Punjab(Indian Punjab, HP, and Haryana), IOK, West Bengal, Tripura(Also was once a Muslim majority), and Assam are bigger. That is not even mentioning Kutch, Junagadh, and Hyderabad(Kutch district was supposed to go to Sindh, and Junagadh and Hyderabad had acceded to Paksitan as I already explained). So it looks like Hindus lost less than Pakistan. Yes, Pakistan and BD will never be under Hindu rule. We have accepted that, thank you very much. But have you accepted that you will never recreate the Mughal Empire and fulfill your Ghazwa E Hind? And have you accepted you will never be able to liberate IOK? I suggest you do, as it will make things easier for all of us.

My logic is actually very simple. After 1947, Hindus did not lose any territory they controlled one year earlier. Even If you do some mental gymnastics and say Hindus lost West Punjab and East Bengal, the Areas that were supposed to go to Pak but went to India are bigger in area.

On a side note, I think the biggest losers of partition were Sikhs. They lost their biggest city and the cirthplace of their guru to Pakistan, and only make up 2 percent of India. Whereas during British India, they basically ruled the economy of undivided Punjab. They definitely lost the most.

Who said West Punjab and East Bengal were supposed to go to Pakistan. Don't make things up. You are lucky I am taking your crap.


The Muslim League may have demanded for it, but Mountbatten and the British said those regions had to be partitioned because they were half Hindu.

You can jump up and down.

But the Hindus lost more land during partition.

The Hindus could have gotten West and East Pakistan, but blew it when they rejected the Cabinet Mission Plan.

Hindus will never administer West Pakistan or East Pakistan who could have been minorities in a Hindu dominated country of 66%.

LOL.

Go home troll, you have been defeated.

Yes, Pakistan did not exist, but neither did the Republic of India. And if Assam was majority Hindu, why did Jinnah want it? Back then, it was barely Muslim majority because it contained many parts that were once part of Bengal. Even today, large parts of Assam are acutally majority Bengali Muslim. That is where the NRC conflict came from. Once again I fail to see how Hindus lost more, because Hindus from the ROI had never ruled Balochistan, Sindh, and KP since the Guptas(unless you count the handful of years of Maratha control). Okay, Hindus lost West Punjab and East Bengal and Azad Kashmir, but combined East Punjab(Indian Punjab, HP, and Haryana), IOK, West Bengal, Tripura(Also was once a Muslim majority), and Assam are bigger. That is not even mentioning Kutch, Junagadh, and Hyderabad(Kutch district was supposed to go to Sindh, and Junagadh and Hyderabad had acceded to Paksitan as I already explained). So it looks like Hindus lost less than Pakistan. Yes, Pakistan and BD will never be under Hindu rule. We have accepted that, thank you very much. But have you accepted that you will never recreate the Mughal Empire and fulfill your Ghazwa E Hind? And have you accepted you will never be able to liberate IOK? I suggest you do, as it will make things easier for all of us.

My logic is actually very simple. After 1947, Hindus did not lose any territory they controlled one year earlier. Even If you do some mental gymnastics and say Hindus lost West Punjab and East Bengal, the Areas that were supposed to go to Pak but went to India are bigger in area.

On a side note, I think the biggest losers of partition were Sikhs. They lost their biggest city and the cirthplace of their guru to Pakistan, and only make up 2 percent of India. Whereas during British India, they basically ruled the economy of undivided Punjab. They definitely lost the most.

Grow up, nobody dreams of recreating the Mughal Empire.

But Akhand Bharat could have been possible with Muslims being the minority in a Hindu majority country.

LOL.

And don't give me that Muslims were concentrated as majorities in certain regions crap, because the Maharajah of Kashmir proves, Hindus ruled over Muslims for some time.

Hindus lost a golden opportunity, but blew it. lol.

Yes, Pakistan did not exist, but neither did the Republic of India. And if Assam was majority Hindu, why did Jinnah want it? Back then, it was barely Muslim majority because it contained many parts that were once part of Bengal. Even today, large parts of Assam are acutally majority Bengali Muslim. That is where the NRC conflict came from. Once again I fail to see how Hindus lost more, because Hindus from the ROI had never ruled Balochistan, Sindh, and KP since the Guptas(unless you count the handful of years of Maratha control). Okay, Hindus lost West Punjab and East Bengal and Azad Kashmir, but combined East Punjab(Indian Punjab, HP, and Haryana), IOK, West Bengal, Tripura(Also was once a Muslim majority), and Assam are bigger. That is not even mentioning Kutch, Junagadh, and Hyderabad(Kutch district was supposed to go to Sindh, and Junagadh and Hyderabad had acceded to Paksitan as I already explained). So it looks like Hindus lost less than Pakistan. Yes, Pakistan and BD will never be under Hindu rule. We have accepted that, thank you very much. But have you accepted that you will never recreate the Mughal Empire and fulfill your Ghazwa E Hind? And have you accepted you will never be able to liberate IOK? I suggest you do, as it will make things easier for all of us.

My logic is actually very simple. After 1947, Hindus did not lose any territory they controlled one year earlier. Even If you do some mental gymnastics and say Hindus lost West Punjab and East Bengal, the Areas that were supposed to go to Pak but went to India are bigger in area.

On a side note, I think the biggest losers of partition were Sikhs. They lost their biggest city and the cirthplace of their guru to Pakistan, and only make up 2 percent of India. Whereas during British India, they basically ruled the economy of undivided Punjab. They definitely lost the most.

So what if India did not exist back then. You are missing the point.

Hindus made a majority in the British Raj empire in South Asia. and the plan was to originally let South Asia get independence as a single unit. The Hindus could have ruled over West and East Pakistan, but blew it, when the Indian National Congress rejected the Cabinet Mission Plan.

The Hindus lost more land than the Muslims did.

Muslims were always going to get less land because the Muslims were the minority in South Asia.

Now please, stop wasting my time!

 

[Cobra Arbok]

It looked like you cannot do simple math because partition and the 2 nation theory was based on the Lahore Declaration, which called for the ENTIRETY of Punjab and the ENTIRETY of Bengal and the ENTIRETY of Assam to go to Pakistan. Even if you say Hindus lost west Punjab and East Bengal, the Muslims lost East Punjab and West Bengal and Assam, all of which Jinnah wanted. Not to mention IOK. You decide what is bigger. And you do know that Jinnah's original plan was modern day Pakistan would have autonomy? So much for ruling over Muslims. Nehru was smart enough to know that situation would not work. And once again, a tiny pricely state like Hyderabad and Kashmir is not the same as a nation of 300 million. You are also forgetting the Dogras had direct support of the British. Hari Singh was even on the Imperial War Cabinet. As soon as the British started supporting the GIlgit Scouts, it was over for him. The fact is, Hindus were put in a bad position during partition, but thanks to the skillful negotiations of Nehru and Patel, they ended up gaining more land than the Muslims.

 

[Novice09]

Yes but we are like 1,200,000,000 people behind you. That is lot of catching up to do. At present we are talking about nearly one Pakistani for 7 Indians. Or nearly 1:7 ratio.

Well each and every thing has its pros and cons... Honestly speaking population is a problem in India... while educated people are looking to have 1 or 2 children so that a better lifestyle can be provided... most of the uneducated are looking for more helping hands to earn money...

Infrastructure and economy is overloaded... we need to ensure that population growth rate is decreased within democratic boundaries...

 

[Cobra Arbok]

Who said West Punjab and East Bengal were supposed to go to Pakistan. Don't make things up. You are lucky I am taking your crap.


The Muslim League may have demanded for it, but Mountbatten and the British said those regions had to be partitioned because they were half Hindu.

You can jump up and down.

But the Hindus lost more land during partition.

The Hindus could have gotten West and East Pakistan, but blew it when they rejected the Cabinet Mission Plan.

Hindus will never administer West Pakistan or East Pakistan who could have been minorities in a Hindu dominated country of 66%.

LOL.

Go home troll, you have been defeated.


Grow up, nobody dreams of recreating the Mughal Empire.

But Akhand Bharat could have been possible with Muslims being the minority in a Hindu majority country.

LOL.

And don't give me that Muslims were concentrated as majorities in certain regions crap, because the Maharajah of Kashmir proves, Hindus ruled over Muslims for some time.

Hindus lost a golden opportunity, but blew it. lol.


So what if India did not exist back then. You are missing the point.

Hindus made a majority in the British Raj empire in South Asia. and the plan was to originally let South Asia get independence as a single unit. The Hindus could have ruled over West and East Pakistan, but blew it, when the Indian National Congress rejected the Cabinet Mission Plan.

The Hindus lost more land than the Muslims did.

Muslims were always going to get less land because the Muslims were the minority in South Asia.

Now please, stop wasting my time!

Tell that to all the people like Pan Islamic Pakistan and IShq Dewana and Hussain. And tell me how Akhand Bharat could have been possible? Anyway, you do realize Akhand Bharat includes Southeast Asia and Afghanistan right? Fewer people dream of that than those who dream of recreating the Mughal Empire in Pakistan. You admitted Muslims got less land than India. They got even less land than they were supposed to because they were supposed to get the ENTIRETY of Punjab, the ENTIRETY of Bengal, the ENTIRETY of Assam, and several princely states. Hindus got most of those regions. Once again, Hindus did not lose any territory during partition as KP Balochistan and Sindh were overwhelmingly Muslim and had not been ruled by a ROI based Empire for thousands of years(aside from short Maratha rule). So Hindus did not lose those provinces. In conclusion, the only land Hindus "lost" was West Punjab, East Bengal, and Azad Kashmir. Which is dwarfed by the land India took that was supposed to go to Pakistan,

Its unfortunate you think I am a troll. I thought we at least came to an understanding after our last debate on the Himachal Pradesh thread when you said "pleasure talking to you." Oh well.​

 

[Novice09]

Must be because after 70 years Pakistan controlled Kashmir still has not been taken by India. Now india has the numbers advantage. So what gives? I guess Gangadesh does not have testicular strength. Or what they say "has the numbers but lacks the balls".

Instead it appears that the dwarf Pakistan is the one eying Indian occupied Kashmir. Bizzare !

Yeah... while we kept our focus on economic growth, Pakistan is begging for fund to payback LOANS...

Even after 70 years of Independence IK is thinking about NAYA PAKISTAN and 50% population which lives BELOW POVERTY LINE...

You have shown your BALLS in Kargil war... where you disowned your brave soldiers who died like STATELESS ACTORS...

The BALLS were hiding in the a$$ at that time... and I mean USA by $$...