Same goes for all the countries to varied degrees. In Pakistan the Establishment controls a lot of information. And these become facts over time.
I would suggest that in India, the establishment controls all of the narrative, much more then in Pakistan. In Pakistan there is lots of room for criticism, which I do not find in India, especially in regards to certain topics.
Those topics being Islam, Muslims, and most especially Pakistan, it may also be the case regarding other topics, but they do not concern me and I have not paid enough intention.
There is a level of hate in India that people simply do not see, because they are so engrossed with that hate. I honestly do not say this for a shock value but honest interpretations of very real observations. First hand experience, reading sources, and since mass media also online sources. It is shocking how much baseless hate exists among Indians towards Pakistan.
Please ask him simple questions. He appears so self-righteous.
A) what is the % of minorities in pak in 1947 vs now.
B) what is the % of minorities in India in 1947 vs now.
Amazing, what kind of wrong thoughts indiaphobia & hinduphobia (that liberal media love to propagate) can produce.
A very valid question and an indicator of a society. I hope this link would satisfy your query. It gives data on Muslims considered to be most oppressed by FMs on PDF.
I did not find a link, I can only comment if I see that information. If your comment was regarding the inserted quotation, then that is another piece of silly logic applied by Indians. It is such a ridiculous argument, I do not know who came up with that reasoning and how it continues to survive among Indians. It is just astounding.
I am sure we are all aware about the colony of British India, which established two independent nations of India and Pakistan.
There were two aspects in regards to the process of ending the British Raj. The territorial and the ideological.
The territorial aspect consisted of separation of Punjab and Bengal, not India, but two provinces of British India. Plus a referendum in North west frontier province and Sylhet, the established provinces had an indirect say in their future, hence the need for two referendums, and separation of two provinces.
Princely states are not relevant to this point so I have not mentioned them.
The ideological aspect, the two nation theory, which essentially was a political interpretation of Muslim desire to protect their interests in any future political setup, post the British exit. Much like the Hindi/Urdu controversy was the political expression of protecting their linguistic heritage by Hindus in the early part of 19th century. They were both the same arguments, expressed differently because different realities existed.
It is extremely important to look at the pre independence population of the two territories of India and Pakistan. Let's not confuse British India, with India the country, they are two different entities, Indians seem not to be able to differentiate.
The pre and post independence population can only be honestly assessed when you taken into account the whole process of separation of Punjab and Bengal, as well as the ideological migration.
So, there was a migration between the two provinces, because they were being separated, and there was a wider ideological migration between India and Pakistan outside of those two provinces.
Other then the princely states, I will also leave Bengal out of this discussion, because it does not relate to present realities. So, from here onwards, Pakistan refers to West Pakistan at independence and 1951 census.
Pakistan had a non Muslim population of around 23% before independence. East and West Punjab also had similar ratios of minority religions, around 1/4 of West Punjab was Hindu and Sikhs, and around 1/4 of East Punjab was Muslim.
In the Punjab migration, East Punjab was cleared of Muslims and West Punjab was cleared of Hindus and Sikhs, I won't discuss the how and what happened, because that's an another discussion.
The second migration from rest of both the countries also resulted in a large migration but less so then in the Punjab.
The migration between the two countries continued at a slower pace into the 1950s, but by the 1951 census's in both countries, the process was essentially complete.
So for an honest analysis, we have to use the 1951 census as the reference point, because that is when both the states baseline was set, before whatever the movement took pace, was as a result of the creation of India and Pakistan. To ignore this essential basic fact is to spread lies and be deliberately malicious with the truth.
India had a pre independence Muslim populating of around 24%, and at the 1951 census, its Muslim population was around 9.8%.
So, should it be assumed that India murdered tens of millions of Muslims? NO, that would be utterly stupid, because we already now the history, the process of ending the British Raj in South Asia, and the creation of two new states of India and Pakistan.
Similarly,
Pakistan had a pre independence non-Muslim population of around 23%, and at the 1951 census was around 2.9%. Which now stands close to 4% according to the 2017 census.
It astounds me that this even needs to be explained, given the historical knowledge of the movement of people at independence, and the creation of two new states of India and Pakistan.
The Hindu population has increase from around 1.4% to around 2.2%, I can check again if exact figures are that important, but the Hindu percentage as a share of total population has increased by over 50% since 1951, in the midst of existing population explosion in the country. The Christian population was remained around the same as a percentage of overall population due to their concentration in urban areas and similar growth rates to rest of the country.
On a slightly separate note, given the question, it is relevant.
All minority religious groups in Pakistan, including Hindus have two votes, they have reserved seats as a share proportional to their population in the parliament and all legislative assemblies, plus they all have equal rights to stand and vote in open elections.
