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.
)
, 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.
.
