What's new

Partition was a mistake

Are you offended if Indians say "Partition was a mistake"?

  • I feel offended

    Votes: 25 56.8%
  • Do not care

    Votes: 15 34.1%
  • Agree

    Votes: 4 9.1%

  • Total voters
    44
Salaams,

Whats so funny? I'm failing to understand here, or is it just me? Yes, I like Tea, but thats not the point.

The topic is about "Partition was a mistake."

Lol, everything we have been talking since page 6, has been quite well...nevermind then...

Well atleast I proved Sonia was a ****************, Allama's Granddaddy was not converted by the sword and whats next ummmm... yeah there would be more intethical rivalry in India. So much for pertaining to the topic.......
 
??

just because every one does it , it doesnt become right .
ethics is universal .

secondly religion is a tool . some ppl use it to unite humanity , to inculcate goodness in humanity and some use it to break humanity .so its the person and his use of this tool which is being questioned here . Jinnah used religion to break humanity .

Nationalism is a tool, culture is a tool, race is a tool, religion is a tool, language is a tool, even atheism is a tool.

You are merely picking that one tool, because it fits your bias, and criticizing only that tool. If you did indeed believe in universality of ethics, then you would accept that the basis of any nation is essentially a "division of humanity using a XYZ tool", and argue not just against Pakistan, but all nations.
 
??



Nationalism is a tool, culture is a tool, race is a tool, religion is a tool, language is a tool, even atheism is a tool.

You are merely picking that one tool, because it fits your bias, and criticizing only that tool. If you did indeed believe in universality of ethics, then you would accept that the basis of any nation is essentially a "division of humanity using a XYZ tool", and argue not just against Pakistan, but all nations.

No agno
A muderer is muderer , wether he uses a pistol or a knife .
and there are chefs who use the same knife to innovate gourmet dishes and the police man protect the common man with same pistol ..

you will be judged by your choice of decision to use the same tool for your your purpose.

the reason for the nations is its identity which is not always based on enmity but mostly on the a purpose chosen by the social conciousness of that society . for eg
Indian nationhood is not based on enmity towards canada or Nepal
However I agree that nations are based on narrow divisions based on screwed sense of identity .
Anarchism is idealism ..extreme ealism
 
No agno
A muderer is muderer , wether he uses a pistol or a knife .
and there are chefs who use the same knife to innovate gourmet dishes and the police man protect the common man with same pistol ..

I don't understand what this has to do with my post.

you will be judged by your choice of decision to use the same tool for your your purpose.

the reason for the nations is its identity which is not always based on enmity but mostly on the a purpose chosen by the social conciousness of that society . for eg
Indian nationhood is not based on enmity towards canada or Nepal

And neither is Pakistani nationhood based on "enmity with India, Afghanistan or Iran".

Pakistan's identity is based on the "social consciousness" of its own society and peoples - The people of the lands comprising Pakistan overwhelmingly chose to support the formulation of a political entity called Pakistan due to that "social consciousness", as did the people of India.
 
I don't understand what this has to do with my post..
Its about intention and the result of using the tool ..
As you said
You are merely picking that one tool, because it fits your bias, and criticizing only that tool.
its your intention which judges you . so wether you pick one tool or many, you are criminal .
you ignored my reference of Bangladesh .. MUJIBUR RAHMAN did a Pakistan on Pakistan . he used language ( there are other reasons too ). there is no end to it .as i mentioned earlier there are many layers of identity any one of these can be exploited by politician to evoke secessionist feeling . it can be religion , caste, language or any other .
leaders use there leadership to unite people .

And neither is Pakistani nationhood based on "enmity with India, Afghanistan or Iran".

Pakistan's identity is based on the "social consciousness" of its own society and peoples - The people of the lands comprising Pakistan overwhelmingly chose to support the formulation of a political entity called Pakistan due to that "social consciousness", as did the people of India.

Is it ..Plz look at the political state of Pakistan and its Past history ..
its action and the result on its neighbours . From Taliban to LET in Kashmir .
 
Its about intention and the result of using the tool ..
As you said

its your intention which judges you . so wether you pick one tool or many, you are criminal .
you ignored my reference of Bangladesh .. MUJIBUR RAHMAN did a Pakistan on Pakistan . he used language ( there are other reasons too ). there is no end to it .as i mentioned earlier there are many layers of identity any one of these can be exploited by politician to evoke secessionist feeling . it can be religion , caste, language or any other .
leaders use there leadership to unite people .

The "intention" of any nation is to be "divided" from other nations - whatever the "tool" it uses to achieve that division. My point is that you cannot just pick one point in history and one nation that used one particular "tool" to criticize it.

Anyway you look at it - every existing nation in history has used these "tools" for the purposes of divisiveness - some just go back in history further than others.

Why is the desire of Pakistanis to exercise this "divisionism", no matter what tool they use, any worse than that of other nations?

Is it ..Plz look at the political state of Pakistan and its Past history ..
its action and the result on its neighbours . From Taliban to LET in Kashmir .

Its nationhood is indeed based on a common "social consciousness" shared by a majority of its people.

Our actions are based on a distrust of Indian intentions - starting from the statements of the Indian leadership in the aftermath of our Independence that "Pakistan would never survive and be eventually reunited with India". This suspicion has been enforced by other events through history.

Our actions are based on what we perceive as the subjugation of a people and usurpation of territory that should be rightfully ours - a territory whose people would choose to be part of Pakistan if given the choice.

To argue that Pakistan's identity is nothing but "enmity with one nation" is an absurd simplification of the dynamics of the India Pakistan relationship.

Pakistan exists only because there was a common social consciousness amongst its people - without it there would never have been popular support for Jinnah, there would never have been popular support for the Muslim League. Jinnah merely provided a voice for that common consciousness and identity to assert itself, he provided the political platform for millions of Pakistanis to fight for the right to have that separate identity.
 
Anyone who is powerfull and threatens a man convert or die even if he was thief (we don't know he could be innocent just AQ Khan :undecided:)
is a bad man.

How would you like it if Bush said all Pakistanis should convert to Christianity otherwise he will bomb you to the stone ages ?

Regards

I wonder if Azim Khan converted Sahaj Ram Sapru forcefully/ by sword then the most important point is why didn’t the children of Sahaj Ram Sapru convert to Hinduism after the death of Azim khan? They could have converted to Hinduism b/c after Azim khan the fear was no more.
 
I don't have any issues with Pakistan, and don't consider Pakistan a mistake.

However, I do have issues with Pakistani posturing as the haven for all subcontinental muslims and high-protector of muslim rights.
 
The "intention" of any nation is to be "divided" from other nations - whatever the "tool" it uses to achieve that division. My point is that you cannot just pick one point in history and one nation that used one particular "tool" to criticize it.

Anyway you look at it - every existing nation in history has used these "tools" for the purposes of divisiveness - some just go back in history further than others.

Why is the desire of Pakistanis to exercise this "divisionism", no matter what tool they use, any worse than that of other nations?.

Dear AM

The Nature or the reason of nation is not divisiveness of human nature but its sense of unity .
A Nation is born when different people decide to unite .
USA is a Union , UK is Union , France is Union, Germany is Union , India is Union .
This sense of unity grows with knowledge and wisdom and ignorance and fear of others breaks it and divides it .
European Union is another step towards it .

Our actions are based on a distrust of Indian intentions - starting from the statements of the Indian leadership in the aftermath of our Independence that "Pakistan would never survive and be eventually reunited with India". This suspicion has been enforced by other events through history.

Justifying the action of terrorism , by showing the intention of few individual is foolishness.
There are millions across this world who think and said the same thing about India ..
Britishers said that India cant survive because of it inherent diversity and its poverty .


.Our actions are based on what we perceive as the subjugation of a people and usurpation of territory that should be rightfully ours - a territory whose people would choose to be part of Pakistan if given the choice

No you cant justify terrorism and fundamentalism on the basis of your perception.there will be no distinction between you and Hardcore fundamentalism , after all he does the same thing

To argue that Pakistan's identity is nothing but "enmity with one nation" is an absurd simplification of the dynamics of the India Pakistan relationship.

Look around urself , look at the various discussion in this forum everything , every action , every point of view ends at comparing . abusing and criticizing India ..

Pakistan exists only because there was a common social consciousness amongst its people - without it there would never have been popular support for Jinnah, there would never have been popular support for the Muslim League. Jinnah merely provided a voice for that common consciousness and identity to assert itself, he provided the political platform for millions of Pakistanis to fight for the right to have that separate identity.

Jinnah had an opportunity to become leader of a Nation and unite people. But he chose to divide them in the name of religion .Jinnah was a better politician , Maulana Azad did the contrary and that’s why he was better leader .
 
Dear AM
The Nature or the reason of nation is not divisiveness of human nature but its sense of unity .
A Nation is born when different people decide to unite .
USA is a Union , UK is Union , France is Union, Germany is Union , India is Union .
in the same sense pakistan is a union, a federation actually, between the provinces or regions if you call it.

Justifying the action of terrorism , by showing the intention of few individual is foolishness.
No you cant justify terrorism and fundamentalism on the basis of your perception.there will be no distinction between you and Hardcore fundamentalism , after all he does the same thing
whatever:disagree: , for you it may be terrorism or fundamentalism, but for another it is his jihad. I think kashmiri's would know what is jihad and terrorism.

Jihad is crucial in the religion. it is almost considered the "sixth" pillar of Islam. One who does not want "shahada" or "martyrdom" during Jihad, well, I won't go into that.

Jinnah had an opportunity to become leader of a Nation and unite people. But he chose to divide them in the name of religion .Jinnah was a better politician , Maulana Azad did the contrary and that’s why he was better leader .
actually, that's why Jinnah is extremely favoured among the bulk of the Ulema rather than maulana Azad. Whether Jinnah came or not, pakistan still would have come to existence. Muslims cannot and must not live under a non-muslims' rule, that's more like an order from the religion.

if you have the chance, migrate for the sake of Allah to a Dar-us-Salaam, where the muslims are a majority. You must not permanently stay in a land where muslims are not the majority, unless you are there for the sole purpose of propagating the religion. Whether Jinnah used religion as a basis for pakistan even though he was secular himself, really doesn't interfere with the objectives of the muslims.

Pakistan got its independence, not partition, from British India. India also got its independence from British India. Besides, Jinnah technically divided only punjab and sindh. Pakistan is also deemed a part of central asia by the world bank and a part of the Greater Middle East by Condolezza Rice and the Neocons:usflag:.

afghans or pashtuns(pathans) living in NWFP and FATA belong to afghanistan. even balochistan did not really exist as a separate nation and was actually a part of afghanistan. So technically, modern day Afghanistan AND Pakistan are the successors to the powerful Afghan nation.

Ahmad Shah Abdali, founder of the Durrani empire, himself was born in Multan. A fairly large chunk of our population claim descent from arabs, central asian stock, afghan, and persian ancestry. That's why religion isn't the only thing we see that makes us different from most indians.
 
Dear AM
The Nature or the reason of nation is not divisiveness of human nature but its sense of unity .
A Nation is born when different people decide to unite .
USA is a Union , UK is Union , France is Union, Germany is Union , India is Union .
This sense of unity grows with knowledge and wisdom and ignorance and fear of others breaks it and divides it .
European Union is another step towards it .
I fail to see why you did not include Pakistan in that list - since Pakistan is a union of Punjabis, Sindhis, Baluchis, Pashtuns and others, almost all of whom at independence, and a smaller but nonetheless overwhelming majority currently, chose to become a union on the basis of their sense of nationhood.

Justifying the action of terrorism , by showing the intention of few individual is foolishness.
There are millions across this world who think and said the same thing about India ..
Britishers said that India cant survive because of it inherent diversity and its poverty .

No you cant justify terrorism and fundamentalism on the basis of your perception.there will be no distinction between you and Hardcore fundamentalism , after all he does the same thing
I don't consider support for the insurgency against Indian troops terrorism - though I do consider the policy flawed. It was support for an insurgency in a disputed territory against an occupying Army.

Our actions were no different from those of the US in Afghanistan, in Nicaragua, Guatemala and elsewhere. There was a national interest involved, and in our case the additional factor of the occupation of territory that we considered Pakistani.

Some of these groups did indeed branch out into killing civilians, and that was never supported nor envisioned. But that is why I consider the policy flawed - because the nature of the groups involved in the insurgency, the nature of any insurgency (as US efforts have shown as well), meant that they would eventually spin out of control. But I do not consider it support for terrorism since no one thought it would spin out of control at that point.
Look around urself , look at the various discussion in this forum everything , every action , every point of view ends at comparing . abusing and criticizing India ..
I look around here and I look at Indian opinions expressed on BR and the WAB, and the only conclusion I can reach is that the hate for Pakistan expressed on those forums, the expressed desire for Pakistan to "disintegrate" and "reunite" with India, by far outweighs any negativity on this forum.

In fact the negativity on this forum is a direct result of that sentiment I talked about earlier - that India and Indians have not accepted Pakistan, and have always wanted it to be destroyed. As such it is a reaction to perceived Indian hostility and hate, not reson de etre.
Jinnah had an opportunity to become leader of a Nation and unite people. But he chose to divide them in the name of religion .Jinnah was a better politician , Maulana Azad did the contrary and that’s why he was better leader .
Jinnah did become the leader of a nation. He became the leader of Pakistan, a nation whose people had a sense of nationhood different from that of other residents of the sub continent, and chose to come together to create a single nation.

Again, Jinnah did not create that sense of nationhood separate from the Indian Union, it already existed - he, along with others, merely provided the voice and political platform for that sense of nationhood to materialize into a nation.

You think he was divisive because of this fantastic notion of a "united nation from Afghanistan to Indonesia" - in which case I revert to my argument of "why not a untied Asia at that?"

Another hypothetical argument would be that since Pakistan has been part of empires originating from Afghanistan as well- the divisiveness is not about not being a part of the Indian Union created in 1947, but about not being united with Afghanistan.
 
and who sent their mighty forces???
india

Iraq?? Pakistan as a land/country never existed before 1947's .. a better debater in this case would be Roadrunner...
neither did india as a nation. yes, Iraq was a part of british india.

Indians do not think of conquering Pakistan.. it was the wish of the Muslims/Majority to form a seperate country for whatever reason... and this wish has been respected... why else do you think India never shut off the Indus water supplies? or not attack it first ever?? or why do Indians welcome Pakistanis?
i'm sorry, but my experience with indians totally paints a different picture. "why don't we annex pakistan, so we can get our land back" , "they stole our land". If we spend time on bharat rakshak or the indian-dominated world affairs board, i think we will all be enlightened.

Neither are you my slave nor I yours..
The word partition implies the land was split..
watch your language..
No, you be careful of how you go about voicing your opinions. Claiming Jinnah used religion to divide the sub-continent is more like an insult to the members than an argument. i think the poll above relates to that.

Like i said before, we don't belong to you. so don't go around mourning that your land was split. if you do want to do that, i suggest you go the the bangladesh strategic forum or some other forum for sri lankans, nepalis, burmese, or some indo-china forum.

oh yeah, and come to think of it. let's not forget indira gandhi's statement after the 1971 war, "there goes a thousand years of slavery."
 
My fore fathers were not fools who sacrificed every thing for this great land
when i see gujrat,ayudhia etc i thank God that i have home and who lives without it and who dies if i have it,long live pakistan
 
I fail to see why you did not include Pakistan in that list - since Pakistan is a union of Punjabis, Sindhis, Baluchis, Pashtuns and others, almost all of whom at independence, and a smaller but nonetheless overwhelming majority currently, chose to become a union on the basis of their sense of nationhood..

dear AM.
First you said that origin of a nation is the divisiveness of human nature and when i proved it otherwise you want prove that Pakistan was born out of sense of unity of sindhis, and others .

and this is blatant lie. Pakistan was not created as a union of Sindhis Punjabis, Baluchs and Pasthuns because millions of sindhis punjabis were massacred during partition . Pakistan is a clear example of divisiveness of human nature . it was created as an nation for few muslims who didnt want to live with ppl of other religions

I don't consider support for the insurgency against Indian troops terrorism - though I do consider the policy flawed. It was support for an insurgency in a disputed territory against an occupying Army.

So you support terrorism

Our actions were no different from those of the US in Afghanistan, in Nicaragua, Guatemala and elsewhere. There was a national interest involved, and in our case the additional factor of the occupation of territory that we considered Pakistani.

" I am Wrong because others are wrong " nice argument

Some of these groups did indeed branch out into killing civilians, and that was never supported nor envisioned. But that is why I consider the policy flawed - because the nature of the groups involved in the insurgency, the nature of any insurgency (as US efforts have shown as well), meant that they would eventually spin out of control. But I do not consider it support for terrorism since no one thought it would spin out of control at that point.

The reason these poor illiterate ppl were brainwashed in the name of religios jihad was beacuse they were used to spread terror to kill civilian ( like Kashmiri hindus ) and not to fight with an army . so it is a lie when u say that "that was never supported nor envisioned"
If Pakistan wanted to fight an army they would have used the army and fight a war .

I look around here and I look at Indian opinions expressed on BR and the WAB, and the only conclusion I can reach is that the hate for Pakistan expressed on those forums, the expressed desire for Pakistan to "disintegrate" and "reunite" with India, by far outweighs any negativity on this forum.

First BR and few other forum dont represnt majority of India ..
secondly - you expect respect from the ppls you killed ? against whom you send mad dogs of jihad ?

In fact the negativity on this forum is a direct result of that sentiment I talked about earlier - that India and Indians have not accepted Pakistan, and have always wanted it to be destroyed. As such it is a reaction to perceived Indian hostility and hate, not reson de etre.

Seriously Indians have accepted existence of Pakistan long back but Pakistanies have not accpeted India and thats why when Indians have moved on Pakistand still spends its resources and energy in fighting with India. your school curriculum clearly represents that ideology

J
innah did become the leader of a nation. He became the leader of Pakistan, a nation whose people had a sense of nationhood different from that of other residents of the sub continent, and chose to come together to create a single nation.

Yes its easy to become leader of smaller groups. there are millions of then around the world who scares a minority and spread secessionist feeling .
A leader is one who unites people . makes them see beyond these narrow identity or race , religion , caste or creed . who makes them see themselves as human sharing one value of humaity .

Again, Jinnah did not create that sense of nationhood separate from the Indian Union, it already existed - he, along with others, merely provided the voice and political platform for that sense of nationhood to materialize into a nation.

yes it was there .. he exploited it
no ideology is new .. it existed from the time humanity was born ..

You think he was divisive because of this fantastic notion of a "united nation from Afghanistan to Indonesia" - in which case I revert to my argument of "why not a untied Asia at that?"

First you are chaging the context as I mentioned it as an example of extreme Idealism . secondly if I say why not united world ??
 
whatever:disagree: , for you it may be terrorism or fundamentalism, but for another it is his jihad. I think kashmiri's would know what is jihad and terrorism.

Jihad is crucial in the religion. it is almost considered the "sixth" pillar of Islam. One who does not want "shahada" or "martyrdom" during Jihad, well, I won't go into that.

Yes Asaad you are right .. its a Jihad .. religious war .. atleast you are honest and i appreciate that
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom