Great. I am a great proponent of Indian Muslims embracing Christianity to avoid discrimination. This is one question which was always unclear to me.
I couldn't care less what Indian muslims choose to do. In fact, I couldn't care less about what anyone else does, so long as it doesn't affect me or those I care about.
Your argument supports my case.
Take the case of Pakistan. It has Pushtuns and Indic races. Even though both are Muslims there will always be conflict. Same is the case with Afghanistan where there will always be conflict between Pushtuns and Tajiks/Uzbek.
But if you divide Afghanistan & Pakistan into three states based on ethnicity like Indic, Pushtun, Tajik/Uzbek the conflicts will be resolved.
It does not, because in the end, the actual problems within Pakistan and Afghanistan are rooted in economic and political issues, not ethnic. Ethnicity is only used as a scapegoat, just like the rest of the world.
There is literally no evidence that an ethnic division would end conflict. In fact it's actually quite a bigoted world view, as it assumes all people of a single ethnicity have the same world view. There is a reason why Iraqi Kurds do not like Syrian and Turkish kurds, and in fact, there is a reason why the Kurds have never been able to unite under a single flag and have often fought against each other (political differences).
Another example, other than the Kurds, is what happened in South Sudan, where everyone said that splitting the Arab north with the African South would solve all of the country's problems...it did not, and in fact, things got worse in many ways.
Bangladesh is a good example of how mono ethnic states can prosper.
Bangladesh is also succeeding in converting all its people to Islam.
Both of these statements are factually incorrect.
BD is prosperous, because it is located in a strategic position, and it is neighboring one of the biggest markets in the world. Both of the factors have allowed BD to receive massive amounts of FDI, this has nothing to do with ethnicity.
And there is also a sizable and growing chunk of religious minorities in BD, including Hinduism and christianity.
You did not but I mentioned it to high light the flawed basis on division. It should have been divided based on ethnicity rather than religion.
Ethnic division assumes all people of an ethnicity share a similar ideology and world view, not only is this a bigoted world view, it is also flawed.
A state created based upon a shared ideology is far more likely to succeed, than a state based upon ethnicities, due to shared political views.
I support multi cultural, multi ethnic and multi religious states.
But if there is no choice then ethnic states are better than religious states.
You second statement is both logically and factually wrong.
I support multiculturalism and multiethnic societies as well.
The key question is what did PTI + PTM + ANP got versus what PPP + PML got in KPK.
It should be looked as Pusthun vs Indic
It should not. PTI rules Punjab, because Punjabis voted PTI. PTI rules KPK, because KPK voted PTI.
PTI may have a Pashtun as the head of his party, but his party is multiethnic. ANP and PTM lost their last elections, precisely because they tried to use the race card, instead of addressing the underlining socioeconomic issues that KPK and Punjab face. PTI won, because they had a message of national unity, and equal progress across Pakistan.
