Is this true. This is frightening.

[Wood]

I'm sorry to say but this romanticised version of colonialism, and a historical Indian past will not work any longer. We seriously need to understand the nuances and the factors at play in history. Interpreting history through repeated sound bites is unfair and simply wrong.

This simple interpretation of history has given this region Hindu extremism, the RSS and the BJP fascist government.

The British did not take over India/South Asia with 20,000, it was far less, it increased with time, neither did they take over this so-called India, because India never existed as a country, it's truly a sad and false representation of a nation that never was.

The British took over South Asia/India, a region, by defeating multiple kingdoms in multiple battle. It took them a hundred years to reach Lahore from Calcutta, that's because it never a country. Hence the size differential doesn't come into it.

The kingdoms were a lot smaller, and whatever deficiencies the British had were compensated by superior technology, better governance, and better education, plus, partnerships with local allies. Partnering with local allies has been the name of the game throughout history, it is nothing special to the British as it has been repeated for so long.
Please read The Anarchy by William dalrymple, you'll find interesting details.

The Mir Jaffar's is another overblown drama that gets repeated far too often. During the decade before the battle of Plassey in 1757, the Marathas had killed nearly 500,000 Bengalis and Biharis, which had weakened Bengal, and played a major role in the British victory. Suffering at the hands of the Marathas, that's an another kingdom, because India was never a country, losing half a million people, and the associated destruction, and paying 25% of your income to the Marathas for them to stop attacking is going to weaken you. This story gets ignored, But there is never one single reason. Mir Jaffar's were just a single reason among many.

This part of your post is stating the obvious. Most Indians are under the delusional fantasy that India was rich and the Brits stole Indian wealth. The reality is that individual kingdoms within South Asia had various degree of wealth and the Brits simply conquered them one at a time. India was created by British Raj. It is sad that Indians do not have the maturity to accept history the way it is and instead imagine it to be something it never was.

India inherited a fully functioning state, that matters, and all the resources and a proper industrial base, that matters. It's main founding father lived on for 17 more years, and it had large number of other capable top tier national leaders, that matters. Still, despite all this, India does not have a national language, even today. They have created a fantasy for themselves and the world has bought into it, about a historical India, but, they still do not have a national language, meaning, they are still in the process of nation building. There was no India before 1947, just a region, there is an India now, but it is still in the process of nation building.

Pakistan inherited the poorest areas of South Asia/British India, with no industrial base at all. No resources, Not a single complete university, no governance structures, they had to build everything anew, they had to do this when it's single most important founding father was sick and died in one year, the second most capable was killed by an Afghan, just 4 years later in 1951, possibly backed by India. The rest of the leadership was second tier, just regional leaders. But they held the country together, that matters.
All this, and at the same time hosting 6-7 million refugees, that's over 20% of the population, whilst fighting a year long war with a neighbour 11 times bigger then you, that matters. India also had around 6 million refugees but that only amounted to 1.5% of their population, they had everything intact.

The later part of your post is debatable at best.

a) Lahore and Karachi were economic centers. Karachi in particular was as wealthy as Mumbai if not more. With both these cities, one can have a reasonable expectation for Pakistan to be at least as rich as Maharashtra by now. During the early decades of the country, Pakistan was in fact richer than India - thanks to the largesse of the west.
b) Pakistan's single language policy was a gift under the Christmas tree for India. India quickly unwrapped the gift as soon as possible to find Bangladesh inside. The breakup of Pakistan pushed Pakistan's economy off a cliff. This is the price for single language policy that you say is critical for a nation. For what it is worth, Indians are also not so mature in dealing with language and ethnic sentiments within the different kingdoms (provinces). In the 60s, India nearly lost the provinces in South by trying to push Hindi as a national language. It has now become certain that India will never have a national language. Personally, I think that the fundamental requirement for a nation to exist is that the richer provinces should be willing to transfer wealth to poorer provinces without much unrest. This is seen to happen in India today. So the lack of a common language is a survivable handicap.
c) So why did Pakistan not develop economically? I don't accept your argument that Pakistan's loss of founding father as the reason. A leader will and should rise in any and every population group. I'm sure even early Pakistan had many people with leadership potential. But Pakistan chose to put its military objectives above civilian institutional development. Consequently, the military leaders had the upper hand and today Pakistan is punching well above its weight in military terms. But of course, the price to pay for that success is that Pakistan lacks civilian institutions that begets its size. India on the other hand is an under performer in military power and has relatively better developed civilian institutions.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

The fact that there are so many easy sell outs for America to buy is pure joy

Not only that, but the fact that no one has the innate credibility to eject these sell-outs because they themselves have skeletons is harrowing.

 

[AgnosticIndian]

You had an objection to my original statement?
What is it?

okay then.
I see your argument as:
1. A country with a national language is a national language is ahead in the process of "nation building" than a country without a national language.
2. Pakistan has a national language while India is only trying.
3. Therefore, Pakistan is ahead of India in nation building.

I disagree with premise 1, and the conclusion is hollow anyway.
1. A nation is built on a *sense* of shared history, identity and culture. language is one small part of it, arguably a diversity of language only contributes to the glory of the common culture. attempting to stamp out the diversity by forcing an unnecessary third language other the mother tongue and a pragmatic common language (global is better) is simply disastrous.

in response to your conclusion, my response was: a common sense analysis of the two nations will quickly reveal that the Pakistani nation is much more divided than India. a shared language doesn't seem to have helped, in fact it was the first spark of protest against Pakistan in Bangladesh.

so in conclusion, you can harp about common language all day, but at the end of day, India is more cohesive without a national language, than Pakistan is with a national language. unity in diversity might sound like a meme to you, but it's a very powerful meme. afterall, at the end of the day, nations are just imagined communities. powerful ideas that drive a nation don't come out of attempting to enforce a bland template of common language, common blah blah programs.

 

[Air Wolf]

This part of your post is stating the obvious. Most Indians are under the delusional fantasy that India was rich and the Brits stole Indian wealth. The reality is that individual kingdoms within South Asia had various degree of wealth and the Brits simply conquered them one at a time. India was created by British Raj. It is sad that Indians do not have the maturity to accept history the way it is and instead imagine it to be something it never was.



The later part of your post is debatable at best.

a) Lahore and Karachi were economic centers. Karachi in particular was as wealthy as Mumbai if not more. With both these cities, one can have a reasonable expectation for Pakistan to be at least as rich as Maharashtra by now. During the early decades of the country, Pakistan was in fact richer than India - thanks to the largesse of the west.
b) Pakistan's single language policy was a gift under the Christmas tree for India. India quickly unwrapped the gift as soon as possible to find Bangladesh inside. The breakup of Pakistan pushed Pakistan's economy off a cliff. This is the price for single language policy that you say is critical for a nation. For what it is worth, Indians are also not so mature in dealing with language and ethnic sentiments within the different kingdoms (provinces). In the 60s, India nearly lost the provinces in South by trying to push Hindi as a national language. It has now become certain that India will never have a national language. Personally, I think that the fundamental requirement for a nation to exist is that the richer provinces should be willing to transfer wealth to poorer provinces without much unrest. This is seen to happen in India today. So the lack of a common language is a survivable handicap.
c) So why did Pakistan not develop economically? I don't accept your argument that Pakistan's loss of founding father as the reason. A leader will and should rise in any and every population group. I'm sure even early Pakistan had many people with leadership potential. But Pakistan chose to put its military objectives above civilian institutional development. Consequently, the military leaders had the upper hand and today Pakistan is punching well above its weight in military terms. But of course, the price to pay for that success is that Pakistan lacks civilian institutions that begets its size. India on the other hand is an under performer in military power and has relatively better developed civilian institutions.

Are you sure your country flag is correct? Sensibility, courage to accept facts and no trolling is a combination rarely witnessed in people hailing from the same country as yours.

 

[SQ8]

This part of your post is stating the obvious. Most Indians are under the delusional fantasy that India was rich and the Brits stole Indian wealth. The reality is that individual kingdoms within South Asia had various degree of wealth and the Brits simply conquered them one at a time. India was created by British Raj. It is sad that Indians do not have the maturity to accept history the way it is and instead imagine it to be something it never was.



The later part of your post is debatable at best.

a) Lahore and Karachi were economic centers. Karachi in particular was as wealthy as Mumbai if not more. With both these cities, one can have a reasonable expectation for Pakistan to be at least as rich as Maharashtra by now. During the early decades of the country, Pakistan was in fact richer than India - thanks to the largesse of the west.
b) Pakistan's single language policy was a gift under the Christmas tree for India. India quickly unwrapped the gift as soon as possible to find Bangladesh inside. The breakup of Pakistan pushed Pakistan's economy off a cliff. This is the price for single language policy that you say is critical for a nation. For what it is worth, Indians are also not so mature in dealing with language and ethnic sentiments within the different kingdoms (provinces). In the 60s, India nearly lost the provinces in South by trying to push Hindi as a national language. It has now become certain that India will never have a national language. Personally, I think that the fundamental requirement for a nation to exist is that the richer provinces should be willing to transfer wealth to poorer provinces without much unrest. This is seen to happen in India today. So the lack of a common language is a survivable handicap.
c) So why did Pakistan not develop economically? I don't accept your argument that Pakistan's loss of founding father as the reason. A leader will and should rise in any and every population group. I'm sure even early Pakistan had many people with leadership potential. But Pakistan chose to put its military objectives above civilian institutional development. Consequently, the military leaders had the upper hand and today Pakistan is punching well above its weight in military terms. But of course, the price to pay for that success is that Pakistan lacks civilian institutions that begets its size. India on the other hand is an under performer in military power and has relatively better developed civilian institutions.

Simply because Pakistan sidelined its intellectual leadership very quickly. Historically India’s intellectual center was primarily in the UP with other smaller ones spread out among different areas. As you pointed out Lahore and Karachi were some of these centers but the lions share of nation developing institutions were focused in India (not by any conspiracy but from a colonial perspective).

Whatever intellectual capability Pakistan received was generally concentrated among a particular migrant ethnicity or background in the west or from people in the Bengal. The failure to abolish the feudal system meant that ethnocentric rivalries emerged immediately and any and all leadership was focused on promoting their kind instead of promoting a Pakistan wide consensus. The lack of cohesive political development arising from this gave rise to Ayub Khan’s cabal and from that point onwards Pakistan was doomed.

It wasn’t just that Nehru survived for India but that the other core congress cadre too was available to shape Indian institutions and civilian structures. The muslim league of M.A Jinnah was pretty much replaced or sidelined by the mid 1950s.

 

[StormBreaker]

Simply because Pakistan sidelined its intellectual leadership very quickly. Historically India’s intellectual center was primarily in the UP with other smaller ones spread out among different areas. As you pointed out Lahore and Karachi were some of these centers but the lions share of nation developing institutions were focused in India (not by any conspiracy but from a colonial perspective).

Whatever intellectual capability Pakistan received was generally concentrated among a particular migrant ethnicity or background in the west or from people in the Bengal. The failure to abolish the feudal system meant that ethnocentric rivalries emerged immediately and any and all leadership was focused on promoting their kind instead of promoting a Pakistan wide consensus. The lack of cohesive political development arising from this gave rise to Ayub Khan’s cabal and from that point onwards Pakistan was doomed.

It wasn’t just that Nehru survived for India but that the other core congress cadre too was available to shape Indian institutions and civilian structures. The muslim league of M.A Jinnah was pretty much replaced or sidelined by the mid 1950s.

The cream pakistan received from Aligarh university

 

[SQ8]

The cream pakistan received from Aligarh university

That was the primary institution that formed the core of the Ml

 

[StormBreaker]

That was the primary institution that formed the core of the Ml

Have been with many “uncles” who graduated from Aligarh including my very own Great grandfather, These guys were totally next level, Too ambitious and educated for their era

 

[LeGenD]

Are you sure your country flag is correct? Sensibility, courage to accept facts and no trolling is a combination rarely witnessed in people hailing from the same country as yours.

He is one of the better-informed and cultured members of the Forum. Credit where due. I hope he maintains his standards.

 

[Wood]

Simply because Pakistan sidelined its intellectual leadership very quickly. Historically India’s intellectual center was primarily in the UP with other smaller ones spread out among different areas. As you pointed out Lahore and Karachi were some of these centers but the lions share of nation developing institutions were focused in India (not by any conspiracy but from a colonial perspective).

Whatever intellectual capability Pakistan received was generally concentrated among a particular migrant ethnicity or background in the west or from people in the Bengal. The failure to abolish the feudal system meant that ethnocentric rivalries emerged immediately and any and all leadership was focused on promoting their kind instead of promoting a Pakistan wide consensus. The lack of cohesive political development arising from this gave rise to Ayub Khan’s cabal and from that point onwards Pakistan was doomed.

It wasn’t just that Nehru survived for India but that the other core congress cadre too was available to shape Indian institutions and civilian structures. The muslim league of M.A Jinnah was pretty much replaced or sidelined by the mid 1950s.

Ethno-centric casteist politics is alive and well in India as well. Indian population has not achieved political maturity to move past that. I think India's advantage was and is its big coast line. Most of the coastal provinces have managed to pull together economically despite the dysfunctional electorate. India was also blessed to inherit a semi-competent civil administrative system that was formed with the creamy layer of the society at that time. While the system was inherently unfair to people at the lower rung of the societal spectrum, it was necessary for the existence of the country. Once again, the Brits made it possible. The Brits not only forged India, but also taught Indians how to run this country. Acknowledging this does not mean I belittle the hardship and evil of colonialism in any way.

It is ironic that Indian 'nationalists' criticize Nehru at every chance they get without acknowledging his political leadership in India's formative years. Although he had his flaws (like any and every politician), his leadership helped India incorporate the institutions that it has today.

 

[nahtanbob]

1947 34 million
1981 84 million
2021 230 million
2050 likely close to 400 million

Rich or poor, that's a size no one can ignore, and no one can control. But, old habits die hard, so let them try what they want, they will learn, and they are already learning.

Did I hear absolutely not, and did someone refuse to fetch when called to a "democracy" meeting.

Pakistan is easy to control. you are too dependent on the outside world

 

[SaadH]

Just putting records straight in as few a words as possible... of course not enough can be said or written to capture all... it remains obscure and unsaid.
Mehmood of Ghazni needs no introduction but Jayapala does... One who initiated and took the fight to Ghaznavids... instead he lost three times and committed suicide on a pyre! Mehmood in fact ended up making sure the end of the dynasty in his lifetime... Pakistanis ask, why the name, Ghaznavi?
Secondly, another pivotal moment in history when Nader Shah came just to sack Moguls and their treasury, thereby, causing the very balkanization that came later by different insurrections taking hold of large swathes of territories and as you later point out Marathas themselves paving the way for first colonial rule over Bengal, culminating with defeat of Sikhs.
And finally, the pain and suffering of partitioned Punjab which had almost three quarters Muslim majority to two distinct polities culminating in not only uprooting historic Muslim presence in what is now Indian Punjab and Haryana but subsequently and very quickly a gateway to current predicament of Kashmir itself.
My concluding remark brings us back to Jayapala or his wannabe remnant, current state of India devoid of history, milking the narrative from appropriation of it's name.
Calling it something else would invariably have disconnected it from the historic connotations it aims to provide or project.
However, just like Jayapala and his overreach India will light the pyre of it's own demise.

@Mangus Ortus Novem

Nadir Shah was the biggest calamity to have hit the Indian subcontinent in the past two and a half millennia. Not only did he massacre tens of thousands in Dehli alone, stole all the wealth, but without him there is no maratha and Sikh menace and without them there is no British Raj.

And we have Iran's partisans or apologists talking about "positive" impact of Iran on Subcontinent. This is also not to forget their role in giving refuge to that scoundrel Humayun...

 

[nahtanbob]

Nadir Shah was the biggest calamity to have hit the Indian subcontinent in the past two and a half millennia. Not only did he massacre tens of thousands in Dehli alone, stole all the wealth, but without him there is no maratha and Sikh menace and without them there is no British Raj.

And we have Iran's partisans or apologists talking about "positive" impact of Iran on Subcontinent. This is also not to forget their role in giving refuge to that scoundrel Humayun...

There is little in common between ancient Persian monarchs and current Iran. Iranians gave the royal treatment to the royalists back in 1980

 

[Kambojaric]

I'm sorry to say but this romanticised version of colonialism, and a historical Indian past will not work any longer. We seriously need to understand the nuances and the factors at play in history. Interpreting history through repeated sound bites is unfair and simply wrong.

This simple interpretation of history has given this region Hindu extremism, the RSS and the BJP fascist government.

The British did not take over India/South Asia with 20,000, it was far less, it increased with time, neither did they take over this so-called India, because India never existed as a country, it's truly a sad and false representation of a nation that never was.

The British took over South Asia/India, a region, by defeating multiple kingdoms in multiple battle. It took them a hundred years to reach Lahore from Calcutta, that's because it never a country. Hence the size differential doesn't come into it.

The kingdoms were a lot smaller, and whatever deficiencies the British had were compensated by superior technology, better governance, and better education, plus, partnerships with local allies. Partnering with local allies has been the name of the game throughout history, it is nothing special to the British as it has been repeated for so long.
Please read The Anarchy by William dalrymple, you'll find interesting details.

The Mir Jaffar's is another overblown drama that gets repeated far too often. During the decade before the battle of Plassey in 1757, the Marathas had killed nearly 500,000 Bengalis and Biharis, which had weakened Bengal, and played a major role in the British victory. Suffering at the hands of the Marathas, that's an another kingdom, because India was never a country, losing half a million people, and the associated destruction, and paying 25% of your income to the Marathas for them to stop attacking is going to weaken you. This story gets ignored, But there is never one single reason. Mir Jaffar's were just a single reason among many.

Size matters, but please do not take one view as a singular answer, that as the only determinant factor. It is a sound bit for a bigger argument. Size always matters, but you have to get other factors right. despite the perception, Pakistan has gotten and is getting lot of things right.

India inherited a fully functioning state, that matters, and all the resources and a proper industrial base, that matters. It's main founding father lived on for 17 more years, and it had large number of other capable top tier national leaders, that matters. Still, despite all this, India does not have a national language, even today. They have created a fantasy for themselves and the world has bought into it, about a historical India, but, they still do not have a national language, meaning, they are still in the process of nation building. There was no India before 1947, just a region, there is an India now, but it is still in the process of nation building.

Pakistan inherited the poorest areas of South Asia/British India, with no industrial base at all. No resources, Not a single complete university, no governance structures, they had to build everything anew, they had to do this when it's single most important founding father was sick and died in one year, the second most capable was killed by an Afghan, just 4 years later in 1951, possibly backed by India. The rest of the leadership was second tier, just regional leaders. But they held the country together, that matters.
All this, and at the same time hosting 6-7 million refugees, that's over 20% of the population, whilst fighting a year long war with a neighbour 11 times bigger then you, that matters. India also had around 6 million refugees but that only amounted to 1.5% of their population, they had everything intact.

We Pakistanis have forgotten far too much, and disrespect our history by ignoring what we have achieved and what our Civilian leaders have delivered.

20% refugees amounts to around 250 million in India. 65 million in America, 13 million in the UK, 16 million in Germany. They cry about few hundred thousands. lets see how they would cope with those numbers, even with fully functional governments, their societies would collapse overnight.

But Pakistan did, and we did it when nothing was in place, nothing. So please do not forget and do not under value the resilience of our nation.

All Pakistanis have accepted Urdu as our national language, people have pride in their local mother tongues but they have wholeheartedly accepted Urdu, whereas India is still on that path. There is a Pakistani nation out there, it already exists, it is the foolish who cannot see it, or lack faith.

Size matters, but we have to get other things right, hopefully we will, we have been derailed by factors outside our control, but like before, we WILL deal with it, because the links between the people of Pakistan go back to the dawn of time, to the Indus Valley Civilisation, those links are in our blood, few other nations can make such a claim. Please show some faith in our resilience, and also express faith when evaluating.


@Mangus Ortus Novem

Your post seems to indicate that I have in some shape or form implied that the Subcontinet is equal to India. The point of my post was not to imply that Pakistan or India are/were at some point one political entity but rather that history shows us many examples where small entities in terms of population size have been able to stretch their control over vast amounts of land, in my example the British maintaining control over the Subcontinent with a mere 20,000 whites. This point was being made in reference to your post where you argued that the growing population size of Pakistan is an indication of the fact that we are/will become "too big to influence or control."

I am of the opinion that we cannot solely rely on this factor as a means of maintaining international influence, and my guess based on your second post is that you agree with this as well.

The second part of my post pertains to the fact that where traitors exist socities become succesptible to foreign influence and manipulation. This point was being made in relation to the topic of the thread regarding the ease with which foreign entities are able to wield this influence. As the OP of the thread wrote "this is a serious breach of our security and sovereignty.".

 

[KedarT]

From Jayapala attacking Ghazni to the end of hindu shahi...

From Mughals attacking the Marathas to the end of the Mughals

From Nader Shah pillaging Moguls, allowing Marathas and Sikhs a foot in the door...

Marathas had defeated combined forces of Mughals and Nizam even before Nader Shah's march to Delhi(Check Battle of Bhopal and Battle of Delhi). Mughals were weakened by the Marathas actually which made it easier for Nader Shah to invade Delhi, which by the way is with India now. Marathas even defeated Portugese in the Battle of Vasai, another of the invaders, and kept that at bay.
Anyway, going with the your record of siding with invaders, shouldn't you glorify Nader Shah and be happy about that invasion and sing praises about him? Maybe name a missile after Nader?