How Pakistan is good for India

When a limb is infected beyond hope, you have two choices: Persist with it and hope against hope that it will heal and risk death, or you cut it off to save the body.

This is the story of India’s partition into the soul- India- and the gangrenous limb-Pakistan, or what I would like to call- the result of an idea, The Two Nation Theory.

I’ve heard from various intensely,bordering on the jingoistic, patriotic Indians, (privately, of course) how India was broken into two by the ‘M’. Little do they realize that creation of Pakistan ended up saving India.

1. Two Nation Theory

As with any political–slash-religious theory the Two Nation Theory (TNT) has different versions and interpretations based on the guy’s political leanings.

Essentially it comes down to two points:

a) There are two Nations withing India (In spite of the fact that both of them have been living side by side for centuries).

b) The point of divide being Religion (This point is important). The divide is so great that these nations cannot co-exist at any cost.

A secular, liberal, progressive mind will probably disagree, including me, but not completely. What I am going to say next might sound contradictory in nature(and, controversial even), but is really not.

I do agree that dividing Humans into two sets based on some lofty man-made idea called Religion is idiotic, but we have to also agree that division exists and have to factor that in our calculations.

Hindus and Muslims were at each others throats. Muslims formed around 25% of the population of British India, making them a powerful bloc. Owing to their size and strength in numbers in certain parts of India, they had terrible nuisance potential.

But, one will argue that this is also true of the Hindus. Yes, but Hindus never wished for a separate state from Muslims. This is important. In the Hindu Religion(If you can call it that), there is no political side, as in Islam. Its priestly class has never been all-powerful.

But, its not the case with Islam. Its scriptures do interfere in the matter of the state. For instance, there are more than 50 Muslim Majority Countries in the World and only few of them are Democracies. Most of them call themselves Islamic.

One can easily see how this is dangerous. As it went, Muslims began to see themselves as a separate entity from majority Hindus and began to see themselves as victims and more crucially, Hindus being their tormentors, despite the fact that it was the British who had complete control of India and before the British arrived there was Mughal rule in most parts of India.

What guarantee was there that these separatist emotions would have been locked away had India stayed together?

The thing is: Once a case is made for a separate state, rightly or wrongly, and if the people who make that demand are present in very large numbers, have financial and political capital (Like Jinnah had British patronage), its very difficult to impress them not to make their demands. They would not settle with anything less than complete political power, either in the present state or the new state.

A few enlightened Muslims did recognize this cancerous theory for what it is. Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan (also known as Frontier Gandhi or Sarhadi Gandhi, for his love of non-violence, a trait he shared with the greatest proponent of the art- Gandhi), for instance said, “You have thrown us to the wolves”, when he learned that Congress had accepted the plan for partition. Maulana Azad too recognized that this was a flawed theory.

TNT was the disease, India the patient. The diseased part had to be cut off; A sacrifice to please the Gods had to be made.

If these separatist tendencies were ignored or somehow placated with concessions, what is the guarantee that they would not have raised their ugly head again when time seemed right? Riots went on even after Partition, with both sides attacking each other. Had Pakistan not been born, they would have occurred at a much grander scale, thereby destabilizing India, robbing it of the opportunity to build itself a solid foundation, which it got. Which brings me to my next point.

2. India needed solid foundations, not uncertainty

“We shall have India divided or we shall have India destroyed.”

– Mohammad Ali Jinnah

India got a solid foundation, thanks to Nehru. But, this would not have been possible if Pakistan had not been created. Riots would have caused havoc in all of India. India could have easily been plunged into Civil war (Note: Jinnah did in fact threaten Civil war if his demands were not met. In a show of strength he called for ‘Direct Action Day’ on the 18th day of Ramzan [Note the Religious overtone of the call]. Suhrawardy, a Muslim Leaguer and a close associate of Jinnah; who was the Chief Minister of a Muslim-Majority united Bengal and in charge of the Home Ministry, did nothing when Muslim mobs went on a rampage against their fellow neighboring Hindus). That day shook India. About 5,000 people died and 15,000 injured.

What if someone in a united free India and invoked similar emotions and demands among Muslims? The Nation would have been hostage to the blackmail of thugs like Suhrawardy, who went on to become the Prime Minister of Pakistan.

There was a very real chance that India could have been divided into two or more states had the Cabinet Mission Plan been accepted. The Cabinet Mission Plan, which Nehru put a brake to, would have left India a “moth-eaten” state, in which the 3 wings of India possessing the power to declare independence after 10 short years.

The proverbial steam was let off.

3. Pakistan – The buffer state

Be it Alexander or the Mughals or the Afghans, who used to raid India to loot and plunder, they all came from the same direction.

Himalayas to the North and North-East, the Indian Ocean to the South acted as natural barriers for ancient India. Not surprisingly, India was invaded and looted only from one direction (Only the British came via the sea). Pakistan, today, graciously, plugs that hole.

Pakistan and Afghanistan(Af-Pak) today are some of the most dangerous, volatile and violent regions on Earth. If Pakistan hadn’t been born, that region would have been part of India! If Pakistan didn’t exist, the porous, long borders with Afghanistan would have made sure India was sucked into the instability.

4. The Demographic Challenge

Today Pakistan and Bangladesh have a combined population of 316 Million, out of which only a fraction are non-Muslim. The total Muslim population of South Asia is around 450 Million.

If Pakistan had not been born, the Muslims would have formed about half the population of India.  India would have been sitting on a time bomb today. That bomb would have torn the fabric of India into shreds. Riots would have engulfed India and would have torn it apart not too long after Independence.

Pakistan was always inevitable. If it was not Jinnah in the 1940s, it could or would have been someone else in the 1950s or the 1960s. Religion is a handy tool to gain popularity and hold the nation hostage (Just look at the History of Pakistan where many despots and politicians alike have used it to their advantage). Jinnah did that beautifully. Nehru recognized that.

A Nation should be born on the ideas of unity, brotherhood and love of the Motherland. Sometime the ideas of division creep in and in rare cases it is best to give respect to such ideas and let them take their own course.

Today India is a Secular, Democratic, Pluralistic society, and is at peace with itself; Everything Pakistan is not. Sacrifice the limb to save a life, the saying goes.

Advertisements

35 Comments

Filed under Gandhi, Geo-Politics, India, India's Freedom Struggle

35 responses to “How Pakistan is good for India

  1. Tilopa

    Totally correct analysis.

  2. gauravkaul

    Brilliant analysis, BruteF…

    Regards
    TightChuddi

  3. oceonn sheath

    it is surprising how this is in fact true, but yes controversial. e.g. I would like to know what you have to say about the muslim population that is in India today. Are we still sitting on a, according to you, time bomb, may be smalleer in size but a bomb nevertheless?

    The thing is, this is one of those instances when something is true and at the same time, not so much.

    • I am on fence with this one. Political Islam is certainly dangerous, which will also feed Political Hinduism.

      There is an urgent need to educate the Muslims of India, which will lead to lowering birth rate, to the levels of other communities in India.

      Without partition the bomb would have gone off by now and would have been dragged into stone age with all the riots. Secular forces would have been undermined for sure. It was only the brilliance of Gandhi and Nehru, who made sure India is established on the principles that they believe in.

      We do not have to hit the panic button, yet.

      But, what the recent arrests of Muslim youths, especially educated ones, points to a dangerous trend and is a peek into a parallel universe where Partition hadn’t occurred.

  4. abhi

    The problem I have with your analysis is that you assume everything would have been same if there was not partition. Many of the problems like afghan problem, talibani mindset prevelant in pakistan, would not have happened if seeds of hatred were not sown by muslim league. We really cannot predict what could have happened there are both pros an cons.

    • I am not even considering the Taliban and the geo political scenario after the 80s.

      In 1947, there were communal tendencies, in both Hindus and Muslims. They both fed of each other, hence, the riots. It was only the spell Gandhi had cast on India and had to cast it many times over, that things were okay and Congress remained the most popular political party.

      My thinking is- If Jinnah was never born, more militant versions would have come up eventually in the 50s and 60s. Jinnah was not even part of the Muslim League when Rehmat Ali asked for the creation of Pakistan.

      Separatist tendencies were there since the 1930s in the Muslim League, which would have only gotten stronger. When you are 40% of the population, with the communal tensions, each groups would have tried to dominate the other.

      Taliban and Islamic militancy is a modern manifestation of Political Islam. Political Islam was present in India since the 1900s and even before. Even the writings of Sir Syed confirm that.

      • abhi

        Muslim league was not as popular in the begining. Britishers encouraged it initially to divide the freedom struggle. If the rehmat ali type leader had any influence on muslims they would not have asked Jinnah to join. You can see the results of polls in 1937 ML couldn’t win even Muslim majority seats. I don’t deny that there was a possibilty of islamic jihad making inroads in to undivided India, but I am sure that united india could have handled the issue easily. There were liberal muslim voices present in area what is called pakistan today but they were silenced one by one after partition.
        Anyway we cannot change the past so better to make best of what we have.

    • You said, “but I am sure that united india could have handled the issue easily.”

      You are not 100% sure, are you!

      Look at other examples of today where Muslims form a minority but significant population: Ethiopia. Muslims form 35% of the population of Ethiopia and many groups, affiliated to Al Qaeda, are waging a war for the implementation of Sharia over ALL the people of Ethiopia. Since, they form a significant percentage, they have terrible nuisance power.

      In Malaysia, with 60% population of Muslims, Sharia is already implemented.

      There was a possibility of this happening in India had Pakistan not been created. Its better to rest assured this will not happen again than be constantly on our toes trying to prevent such things from happening.

      Its not the people themselves, but the nature of ideology at work here.. Islam is a very political ideology, exerts a cult-like influence over its followers and we have seen how this ideology has asserted itself over many nations over the years. India was the only nation in its path which withstood its powers. Indonesia, Malaysia et al succumbed to its occult strength.

      Lets just say its not suited for India. Bad or good, we do not care..

  5. I think the third statement is a bit idiotic. To say its good to have Pakistan as a buffer because all our invaders came from there is a bit simplistic. This isn’t the medieval times where a tribal warlord can conquer entire continents , like the Mughals or Kushanas did. Coincidentally this is also the same mentality that plagues the Pakistani military, which makes them think they will conquer India after 4th battle of Panipat. Also the AFpak region was mostly peaceful up until Pakistan started using Jehad as a means to colonize Afghanistan for strategic depth against some future war against Hindu India, because for some reason they think we want them back. But I agree with demographic and solid foundation part.

    • Yes, that part is not the strongest of the points. In hindsight, its been a blessing that Pakistan is the buffer, not much of a point at Partition.

      But, it was an area where the reach of the British state was limited. India would have had to deal with the violent tribals in what is today FATA of Pakistan.

  6. As a Pakistani who loves the South Asian region as a whole, I am extremely troubled to see the kind of thinking presented here in this article and the adjoining comments. Most of the Indians I encountered abroad were truly progressive, not stinking of skin deep hatred for the Pakistani/Muslim populace. We are all South Asians, and we can bridge the gaps where our politics created them. If you and me start encouraging the gaps instead, god knows what the governments would do.

  7. Ilyas Hussain

    WOW! and they say that our textbooks are teaching us wrong history ( I agree that they do teach us wrong history). It shows how common we are.

    • Show me one part of which is historically inaccurate, oh, Genius!

      If something is historically inaccurate, I’ll surely address it.. You have my word, now out with it.

    • I am still waiting for you to point out the “wrong history”. What are the Historical Inaccuracies that you imply.

      Or, was it just a meaningless statement, a pathetic attempt to win an argument?

  8. I feel in the same way. Pak was created for good. Look at Pak today. India may not be the best but still more peaceful.
    If it were not for the large muslim population of india we could have done better

    • I don’t think we could have.

      My point is Pakistan was a good thing, not Muslims are to be blamed for India’s woes.

      Most of the Indian woes are related to bad economic policies, inspired by Socialism. Apart from that we have done pretty well..

      • “My point is Pakistan was a good thing, not Muslims are to be blamed for India’s woes”

        Really, have you become a appeaser lately.
        Who asked for partition?
        Who killed 1 million Hindus during riots?
        What about direct action day?

        and most of India’s current problem are because of Muslims.Please corrrect yourself

    • That was the story of the Partition. The problems of poverty, illiteracy, violence against women is of our own making.

      Only when we realize what is the truth, what is not; What is under control, what is not, can we grow and achieve something.

  9. Ryan

    When Muslims (Mugul) Ruled in India they have done their best to make feel Hindus that they are free to have religious activities and moreover protected their lives/religion in good faith of Islam. Two Nation Theory came when Hindus got chance to rule INDIA and then Muslims felt how narrow minded they are and then they demanded separate homeland called PAKISTAN. Correct your history and never say it was just political, despite it was fact that HINDUs showed up in few years of government power in British era.

    • “When Muslims (Mugul) Ruled in India they have done their best to make feel Hindus that they are free to have religious activities and moreover protected their lives/religion in good faith of Islam.”

      I almost fell out of my chair when I read this..

      Lets see..

      Will Durant argued in his 1935 book The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage (page 459):

      “The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within. The Hindus had allowed their strength to be wasted in internal division and war; they had adopted religions like Buddhism and Jainism, which unnerved them for the tasks of life; they had failed to organize their forces for the protection of their frontiers and their capitals, their wealth and their freedom, from the hordes of Scythians, Huns, Afghans and Turks hovering about India’s boundaries and waiting for national weakness to let them in. For four hundred years (600–1000 A.D.) India invited conquest; and at last it came.”

      The Mughal rule was preceded by barbarous attacks by the same tribe of people now attacking Pakistan. I’ll quote a Pakistani Historian here..

      “Mahmud Ghaznavi, a Turk erroneously adopted by the Pathans as one of them, who raped and looted regardless of the religion of his victim, was lionised simply for being a Muslim. Few care to know that while this common brigand descended upon India in the winters, he routinely pillaged the rich (Muslim) cities of Central Asia.. There can be no other reason that we worship invaders who raped, looted and sacked our cities. We worship them and name sons after them only because we share the same religion with them.”

      http://tribune.com.pk/story/186284/land-of-the-impure/

      Huh! The same people now Pakistan worships(I am assuming you are a Pakistan. Correct me if I am wrong.) actually killed their ancestors, raped them, looted them. But, for you, as you put it “protected their(Hindus) lives/religion in good faith of Islam”.

      I am not done. Lets list a few details(This topic can take a book, believe me there have been books by Indians and non-Indians alike.. Can’t really put it in a few para comment) of how Mughals behaved in India.

      Lets take Tipu Sultan, from the South of India. was known to carry out forced conversions of Hindus and Christians. Tipu converted 500 Hindus in Kodagu (Coorg). He ordered many Hindu Temples to be destroyed.

      Now Aurangzed. Aurangzeb did not just build an isolated mosque on a destroyed temple, he ordered all temples destroyed, among them the Kashi Vishwanath temple, one of the most sacred places of Hinduism, and had mosques built on a number of cleared temple sites. Other Hindu sacred places within his reach equally suffered destruction, with mosques built on them. A few examples: Krishna’s birth temple in Mathura; the rebuilt Somnath temple on the coast of Gujarat; the Vishnu temple replaced with the Alamgir mosque now overlooking Benares; and the Treta-ka-Thakur temple in Ayodhya. The number of temples destroyed by Aurangzeb is counted in four, if not five figures. Aurangzeb did not stop at destroying temples, their users were also wiped out; even his own brother Dara Shikoh was executed for taking an interest in Hindu religion; Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur was beheaded because he objected to Aurangzeb’s forced conversions.

      You say,”Two Nation Theory came when Hindus got chance to rule INDIA and then Muslims felt how narrow minded they are”

      After all this, now tell me who is narrow minded.. Hindus are progressive, flexible and tolerant. Muslims are not. I can take examples from UK, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, US, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Somalia… so many places, struck by Muslim Terror and/or Islamist movement for a call for Sharia.

      No, thanks. If you think Sharia is progressive, ask yourself why Pakistan hasn’t implemented it even after 66 years, despite it being an “Islamic Republic”.

      Until you come up with some notable answers, read this.. This is by a fellow Pakistan and a Muslim.

      http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2012/10/12/comment/columns/dont-blame-the-taliban/

      http://my.telegraph.co.uk/kkshahid/kkshahid/15/dont-blame-the-taliban-ii/

  10. Surprising

    Hello!

    As a Pakistani who’s always believed that partition was a mistake, I found this post saddening, but true in ways for India. I agree with the previous comment pointing out that the buffer point was a bit off.

    I’m a regular reader of Express Tribune, where you often comment. I’m a bit surprised that on the one hand, you like to take shots at Jinnah, while his achievement i.e Partition is something you seem to support? Forgive me but this seems disingenuous. You criticise his communal tendencies but don’t you see that these tendencies yielded that which you are glad for, the removal of 3/4ths of the Muslims?

    If Jinnah had not existed, India would have had what you called the “demographic time bomb”. In my opinion, this is almost as bad as Jinnah complaining about Ram Raj. If you are glad that Pakistan exists, why do you continuously critique its Islamic foundations? Without these foundations and Muslim nationalism, there would be no Pakistan, which you seem to want to exist. This is a confused view.

    You criticise the communal orientation of Jinnah and Pakistan, but support the existence of both? Surely both have their faults, but if your blog here is to be believed, you feel the advantages of them existing outweigh the concept of United India. If communal based Muslim League hadn’t formed the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, you would have had this demographic time bomb and weak centre. Therefore I feel you should appreciate the existence of Pakistan in its current form – or you’d clearly not like what happened.

    Kudos!

    • Thanks for commenting.

      My views might seem confusing, I totally get you, but its actually not in my mind.

      Pakistan was a good thing, but that doesn’t mean Jinnah was NOT communal. Just because India benefitted by the call of a despot, doesn’t mean one has to like that despot.

      If that despot goes ahead and attains the tag of “Freedom Fighter”(at the expense of the real ones); or, when his adoration results in the demonisation of saint like figures of Nehru and Gandhi, it irks me.

      I share a special relationship with Pakistanis, what they think of my heroes – Gandhi and Nehru – is very important for me. You can admire Jinnah or Gandhi/Nehru, but never both. Defending the latter is a piece of cake, but talking about the complex Jinnah gives me great pleasure.

      I am against Political Islam, so should everyone be. The reason I am against the Islamic Foundations of Pakistan.

      A secular Pakistan, away from Political Islam, which is at peace with India is the ideal scenario. As long as Jinnah is adored, Gandhi/Nehru will be vilified. The sub-continent needs the latter, can do without the former. As long as Jinnah is remembered, TNT, a divisive ideology, endures. Hence, I simply quote Jinnah to prove the liberals wrong. Not that hard, actually.

      Your next question will be: By proving the liberals wrong(when they claim Jinnah is secular) how can you achieve that?

      That will bring in clarity. Jinnah is a very confusing figure. Columns are written about him every other day in Pakistan. Phrases like “Jinnah’s Pakistan” are bandied about, mostly by liberal-centrist libs, when they are supposed to be talking about Human Rights, a strong conscience of a mind which believes in Universal Rights. When they are mixing up things, it actually defeats the very purpose of the argument.

      I know my views won’t matter. In that case, I just like bursting some liberal bubbles. 🙂

      • Surprising

        Hello again.

        I see where you’re coming from, but it’s a bit like hating the chicken that lays the egg you crave…and then criticising the way the chicken behaves too.

        Political Islam is terrible. There’s a Muslim revival going on, one hopes it will run out of steam soon but inevitably at some point it will.

        Let me speak from experience. I’m a Pakistani liberal, and Jinnah is the only ammunition we have when we argue with the hordes in our country who want sharia and such things. When they tell me a Muslim country should have Quran based laws and economy, I tell them Jinnah drank and ate bacon, and in a limited way it makes them shut up. Basic? Yes. But you should know how desperate the case for secularism is here. Without Jinnah, we are really hopeless. Jinnah’s view was not for an Islamic or a Secular Pakistan. I doubt he had any real vision. Some of his speeches point north, some south…

        http://pakteahouse.net/2013/04/08/kapil-komireddis-butchery-of-history-on-jinnah/

        Think you might like this.

        I remember being at a Youth Leadership Conference once and being surrounded by people from smaller cities who were making speech after speech for the imposition of 6th century laws. Then someone raised the confusing case of Jinnah’s lack of orthodoxy and there was silence. That’s why we fall back on him. We’re surrounded on all sides. I know you like bursting liberal bubbles but when you do so you deprive already vastly outnumbered, hated people of a last solace.

    • I’ve thought of what you said for a few days now.

      The question from my side is: Has your strategy worked? Jinnah is owned by the Right as well and there are overwhelming number of speeches where Jinnah invokes Islam and talks of Sharia. The smart Right-wingers will use that to suit their own needs.

      http://peddarowdy.wordpress.com/2011/10/23/the-legacy-of-gandhi-nehru-vs-legacy-of-jinnah/

      Thankfully, Right-wingers are not that smart, nor educated in these matters. Your tactic of invoking Jinnah might work on a few, but not all of them are that clueless about History. Eventually you will meet one who will simply out-quote you.

      Its time for a change of strategy, don’t you think?

      Besides, when you talk of Right and Wrong, why do you need the clutches of a Jinnah? Its not worked, either.

      Try calling it as it is? Subverting the truth is a two-way street. Truth always shuts people up. Its time for you to embrace Bacha Khan, perhaps, than a Jinnah?

  11. OJ

    I agree with your point of view that Partition of India was actually good for India. But I also believe that it would’ve been much better if it were a little “STRICT” as well.

    1. By strict I mean that All the Hindus would’ve stayed in India & All the Muslims would go to Pakistan. This way the communal riots/tensions in this country would’ve not occurred.

    2. I also believe that many Muslims don’t recognize or don’t want to recognize that India is `The Motherland` for 4 Major religions of the world(Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism). This FACT somehow irks/upsets them. They feel oppressed when they hear this.

    3. I believe that their(Muslim) loyalty towards India maybe conditional, Why do I say so ? Consider if Pakistan had not failed i.e. Bangladesh hadn’t been created AND it had been a prosperous state which provided ideal atmosphere for Islam/Muslims to prosper then many Indian Muslims would’ve looked towards Pakistan and would’ve repented for staying in India. Such people would’ve either migrated or would’ve gained sympathy from Pakistan(in a greater way than today) and would’ve started blackmailing the government for Islamic laws/traditions. If the government didn’t listen there would’ve been MASSIVE RIOTS!

    4. Indian Muslims, do have a big sympathy for Pakistan and there is no denying it, in many Muslims areas, Pakistani Flags are raised in case of victory for Pakistan in a cricket match. This is just one example. Extreme ones are involved in terrorist activities. e.g. Indian Mujaheddin.

    5. Whenever Muslims have gained power, the first thing they’ve tried doing is exterminate other faiths from the land. Destroying Buddha statues in Afghanistan is a live example. If partition hadn’t happened India would not be a country but more of a battlefield. Minorities have never flourished under Islamic governments. They’re still treated as second class infidels!!

    • I don’t really have an issue with what you said, but how you said it and presented it.

      Without empirical evidence this can easily be misconstrued as hate speech or poppycock.

      I agree with you point #1, the exchange of the population should have been more planned and thought out. Not because of the large number of Muslims in India, but the poor souls stuck in Pakistan who are non-Muslim!

      Its not the love for Pakistan, which drives them angry young Muslims into Indian Mujahideen, but hatred of the ‘Infidel’, which is prevalent all over the Muslim world, not just in India.

      Even in countries with minority Muslim populations you see this. UK has seen such groups emerge. The call for Sharia from Radical Muslims in UK is a sour point among the English. Ethiopia is going through the same thing as India, actually its worse for them!

      The idea which drives a Religion determines the overall conduct of its followers. Evolution also is important. Christianity was also just like Islam, but evolved into something tolerant and acceptable. Islam was spread using the sword and its constant emphasis on “True Religion”, “One true God” makes it highly dangerous and resistant to evolution. Its dabbling in the everyday life of its people makes it highly Political.

      A deadly cocktail.

      • OJ

        I am aware of radical groups in UK demanding Sharia law, But since the topic was about India, I thought it was irrelevant to mention it in my comment.

        This article shows you about the case of Buddha Statues in Afghanistan:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamiyan#Dynamiting_and_destruction.2C_March_2001

        As for the IM example, Yes it maybe true that they’re not driven by love, but their hatred is fueled by some elements in Pakistan, Particularly about Hindus. They’re solely blamed for the massacre during the partition, thus rendering Muslims(clean) in the process and portraying them as the ONLY victim(which is not true Sikhs, Hindus have also suffered). This creates sympathy for their cause of `Jihad`.

        For my second point, Muslims complain that literature in India biased towards Hinduism, To an extent I agree. But teaching about other religion doesn’t mean that one is insulting/abusing another faith.

        For e.g. Miraj dangals were caused by a poster in Shivaji is shown killing Afzal Khan, This is an historical fact and not something that Hindus came up with to insult/abuse Islam.

        Most importantly, I m not here to spread any hatred but just to have a decent conversation about this topic 🙂

  12. JC

    I can’t believe how ignorant and hateful you are, you probably have an inferiority complex.

    All of your points are invalid:

    #1.India is not really a nation, it is home to hundreds of ethnic groups, more ethnic groups than Europe, and over a 1000 languages are spoken in India.

    The most successful countries in the world are homogeneous one, not countries that are extremely diverse like India.

    Even if India wasn’t divided based on religion, it would’ve certainly been divided on ethnic grounds, India would’ve been the next Yugoslavia.

    I also believe that a major reason for Pakistan’s creation is the Hindu caste system.

    Since Muslims are non-Hindus we would have been treated as outcastes, obviously India isn’t following the caste as much now but we wouldn’t have known then.

    The major reason Pakistan was created was because Hindus made up 85% of India’s population and they would’ve always formed a government in a democracy and they would’ve persecuted Muslims.

    Even if Hindus never demanded for a separate state, they did demand Muslims to convert to Hinduism( many INC leaders had said that i.e Tilak and some Swami), and they considered Muslims to be foreigners.

    #3. Pakistan may be a buffer state between Afghanistan and India, but the world isn’t the same as it was 200 years ago, countries don’t invade other nations to conquer them, and I’m glad Pakistan was created because historically present-day Pakistan and India were only one country for 500 out of 2000 years, and only Punjabis,kashmiris and Sindhis have “Indian” roots, whereas Pasthuns and Baluchis have Persian roots, infact Pakistan is split between the Eurasian and Indian tectonic plates, so we aren’t the same.

    Heck if you visited Pakistan you would stick out like a sore thumb, Indians tend to have more in common with Sri Lankans, especially people from the south.

    #4. there is no demographic challenge, even if Pakistan wasn’t created Muslims wouldn’t have made half of India’s population.

    450 million isn’t half, India’s population is 1.2 Billion, that is just 1/5th.

    “Today India is a Secular, Democratic, Pluralistic society, and is at peace with itself; Everything Pakistan is not. Sacrifice the limb to save a life, the saying goes.”

    India might be secular on paper, but really isn’t

    Pakistan is democratic just like India, we just had elections 2 weeks ago.

    The whole world views India as a third world cesspool, and rape capital, with hyper-sexualized perverted men, a country full of beggars,slum-dwellers,homeless people,Cobras,deserts and immense garbage every where.

    heck, My friends in America call Indians camel jockeys and other racist terms.

    You should travel outside your bedroom, and your country and visit another country and then learn what the world really thinks about India.

    P.S get a life instead of talking crap about Pakistan.

    • “#1.India is not really a nation, it is home to hundreds of ethnic groups, more ethnic groups than Europe, and over a 1000 languages are spoken in India.”

      How does that make a Kannadiga like me less Indian than a Punjabi?

      You have some pretty idiotic notions about Nation-States. I don’t blame you, when India was formed Time magazine famously wrote it off. Nobody says that anymore about India, but you Pakistanis still do..

      Jinnah thought like you. Foolish man. He imposed Urdu over Bengalis. Nehru understood his India much better. He did no such thing. Its about about everyone being of the same Religion, or even same languages,. But, you will never get it.

      You forced your language on others, look what happened, Pakistan broke up before it could complete its 25 years. Your idea of a nation state failed.

      “Since Muslims are non-Hindus we would have been treated as outcastes, ”

      Well, that’s ONE of the reasons. Feudals fearing Nehru’s land reforms is one of the major ones. Liaquat, Suhrawardy were really big landowners. No wonder they didn’t want to be in Nehru’s India!

      “The major reason Pakistan was created was because Hindus made up 85% of India’s population and they would’ve always formed a government in a democracy and they would’ve persecuted Muslims.”

      Look at what you people did in Bangladesh! They were in majority too, they formed the Govt. Your disdain of basic Democratic principles has broken your country in half. Punjabis in Pakistan form the same number. History will repeat itself all over again.

      “countries don’t invade other nations to conquer them”

      Tell that to the guys who are crossing the Durand Line to kidnap Pakistani soldiers and then beheading them.

      If Pakistan hadn’t happened they would have crossed over into India.

      “450 million isn’t half, India’s population is 1.2 Billion, that is just 1/5th.”

      I am pretty sure I used the word “about” somewhere there. You are partly right. They would have formed 37.5% of the population.

      If by being 15% of the population they can get their way and freedom in almost every field, imagine what would have happened if they were in such huge numbers!

      Its good anyway, India would have gone the route of Malaysia had Partition never happened. There would be talks of imposing Sharia on the Muslim populace by now. Scary stuff!!!

      “India might be secular on paper, but really isn’t”

      Show me one law or one constitutional segment which is un-secular and discriminates against ANYONE. I challenge you!

      Do you even know what Secularism is?

      “Pakistan is democratic just like India, we just had elections 2 weeks ago.”

      I am sorry, but I don’t consider Democracy minus Civilian supremacy as Democracy at all!

      Pakistan still has a state within a state-ISI- reporting to the Military, NOT Civilians. A Dictator will probably go scot-free. All this is unthinkable in REAL Democracies.

      “You should travel outside your bedroom, and your country and visit another country and then learn what the world really thinks about India.”

      I think you should have visited your news websites before saying that..

      http://tribune.com.pk/story/553830/pakistan-second-most-unpopular-country-in-the-world-poll/

      You guys are hated ALL OVER THE WORLD!

      Spoke a bit too soon, eh?

      • JC

        “How does that make a Kannadiga like me less Indian than a Punjabi?”

        It doesn’t, all I’m saying is that homogeneous countries are far more successful than artificial states(including Pakistan), India is probably one of the most diverse countries in the world, and if it had not been divided on religious grounds it certainly would’ve been divided on ethnic grounds.

        The only reason India has avoided it till now is Pakistan, without Pakistan(the common enemy of all indians), nothing would be able to unite India.

        ” Nobody says that anymore about India, but you Pakistanis still do..”
        Nope, a Chinese newspaper talked about the balkanization of India.

        “Jinnah thought like you. Foolish man. He imposed Urdu over Bengalis. Nehru understood his India much better. He did no such thing. Its about about everyone being of the same Religion, or even same languages,. But, you will never get it.”

        I’m talking about ethnic homogeneity not religious homogeneity.
        Pakistan is far from a homogeneous country, and may never be, a homogeneous country is like Japan or Finland, I don’t want all Pakistanis to assimilate into one greater culture.

        “Look at what you people did in Bangladesh! They were in majority too, they formed the Govt. Your disdain of basic Democratic principles has broken your country in half. Punjabis in Pakistan form the same number. History will repeat itself all over again.”

        I’m not an urdu-phone, I’m a Kahsmiri so I didn’t force anybody to speak my language, what we did in Bangladesh was terrible, but it was no different than what The Canadians did in Quebec or what the Castillians have done in the Basque region, or what the English did in Ireland.

        I’m against ethnic cleansing, but the only reason we lost the war was because of India and the USSRs interference.

        Most Punjabis choose to speak Urdu themselves, infact Punjabis have formed the government many times, and Nawaz Sharif will do it again.

        Urdu is no longer forced on Pakistanis, many schools in Sindh, teach in Sindhi and Sindhi is a mandatory subject from 3rd grade- 9th grade in Sindh.

        Baluchi and Pashto are also taught in Pakistani schools, and Punjabi is offered but many Punjabis are ashamed of their language.

        lawmaker are free to speak in their regional languages, and there are many Sindhi,Pashto,Baluchi,Seraiki,Punjabi and even a Kashmiri channel in Pakistan and PTV also has transimmisons in each regional language, you clearly are ignorant about how Pakistan has changed since 1971.

        “Show me one law or one constitutional segment which is un-secular and discriminates against ANYONE. I challenge you!

        Do you even know what Secularism is?”

        That’s what I said, India is only secular on paper, it is still not a secular society, unlike Canada or America.

        I do know what secularism is cause I’ve lived in a Secular state, and English is my first language.

        I am sorry, but I don’t consider Democracy minus Civilian supremacy as Democracy at all!

        “Pakistan still has a state within a state-ISI- reporting to the Military, NOT Civilians. A Dictator will probably go scot-free. All this is unthinkable in REAL Democracies.”

        Say what you want but Pakistan still is a democracy, intelligence agencies always report to the military, they never declassify important information.

        Musharraf is currently being prosecuted, do you think America would ever prosecute Bush for the Iraq war or would India prosecute it’s soldiers for the dreadful war crimes they’ve committed in Kashmir?

        I know Pakistan is very unpopular around the world, but India isn’t seen any better.

        The problem with you is that, you don’t interact with ordinary people in everyday life, you’ve never been to America.

        You only get your info from the internet, you live your life online(hence you have no friends).

        I have interacted with Western people, I’ve lived in America and went to school there and I know how the average American views both Pakistan and India(not very positively).

        They do think of Pakistanis as fanatics, but they also think of Indians as smelly, FOBish, effeminate dorks that have no social life.

        Americans also have “some” positive stereotypes of Pakis and Indians.

        India’s a cesspool.

      • “The only reason India has avoided it till now is Pakistan, without Pakistan(the common enemy of all indians), nothing would be able to unite India.”

        India treats Pakistan as vermin, true. Just like the Communists were treated during the Cold War in the US. Or, how you guys treat your Afghan brethren.

        But, to extend that and say Pakistan is the thing which is keeping India together is stretching it a LOT!

        If you come to the South of India, where I am from, Pakistan is a faraway land, an irritant at best. India might be uniformly hated by Pakistanis all over Pakistan, but that is certainly not true of all of India.

        Many of my friends don’t even know who the PM of Pakistan is. They simply don’t care. They know who the President of USA or UK or China is. There are few like me to keep an active tab on the happenings of the world, especially related to Pakistan, but we are few and far in-between.

        “That’s what I said, India is only secular on paper, it is still not a secular society, unlike Canada or America.”

        What is, in your definition, a secular state? Its not laws and Constitution, you tell me.. Is it equal opportunity? Might I remind you that our PM is a Sikh(who form only 5% of the population). Or, that our Army Chief is a Sikh. Or, that our Defence Minister is a Sikh?

        I work in TCS, of Tata group. Why don’t you do a bit of Googling as to who owns it and how rich he is. And, more importantly what Religion he belongs to.

        So, equal opportunity should not be it. Then, is it violence against the minorities? Should I go into it, how minorities are treated in the West? Can there ever be a Muslim Civil law in the US? Or, can India ever ban the Burqa? Can a Sikh ever become the PM or UK?

        India is the most secular country in the world. No matter how you look at it. Laws and Constitution are clear and concise. Only in India can a member of the minority rise to occupy the TOP post(which is simply unthinkable in US and UK or any Western country). Violence against minorities is less, especially when you count the huge diversity and numbers of India(despite being poor India is at peace).

        “intelligence agencies always report to the military”

        I can’t believe you would go to the extent of lying. I, not for a moment, think you are misguided or dumb enough to not know the facts. This is lying, pure and simple. That to win arguments on the Internet. Shame on you..

        http://archives.dawn.com/archives/18603

        “You only get your info from the internet, you live your life online(hence you have no friends).”

        Buddy, I understand you are frustrated and upset that I and the world is looking at your Religion and Country the way we do, but this is some absurd generalisations.

        India has its share of problems. Many countries share of problems. I am still proud as hell of it, even if its a “cesspool”. People who live in “Cesspools” have a life too, they are living beings.

        At least we are not considered potential Terrorists. What could possibly be worse than being called that?

        I am travelling soon, I am confident nobody will put their hands up my ass in an airport. Can you say the same thing?

  13. JC

    ” Or, how you guys treat your Afghan brethren.”

    Iranians treat Afghan refugees far worse than we do, ask an Iranian what he/she thinks about Afghans and they’ll tell you the same things Pakistanis will tell you.

    “If you come to the South of India, where I am from, Pakistan is a faraway land, an irritant at best. India might be uniformly hated by Pakistanis all over Pakistan, but that is certainly not true of all of India.

    Many of my friends don’t even know who the PM of Pakistan is. They simply don’t care. They know who the President of USA or UK or China is. There are few like me to keep an active tab on the happenings of the world, especially related to Pakistan, but we are few and far in-between.”

    Not true, India is not uniformly hated all over Pakistan, there is just a strong dis-like of India’s treatment of kashmiris, and we don’t like how Indians blame all of their problems on us, I personally don’t like the condescending Indian posters on ET.

    If the average Indian doesn’t know who the Prime Minister of their biggest enemy is,then that is just downright ignorant.

    Equal opportunity is not necessarily a good measure of secularism.

    Talented, hard working people succeed regardless of their race or faith, or where they live.African-American athletes and singers/rappers have succeeded despite discrimination even in the 60s, there are also successful non-Muslims in Pakistan like Designer Deepak Perwani, his brother Naveen Perwani,, cricketer Danish Kaneria, Yousef Youhana(before he converted), actress Sunita Marshall and Sara Loren, talented people will always find a way to achieve success, nobody no matter how discriminatory can ever deny a talented person an opportunity.

    Just because India’s PM is a Sikh(he’s the token minority “leader”) that doesn’t mean Sikhs are happy in India, I mean the Sikh uprisings in the 80s weren’t too long ago.

    I know that Ratan Tata is a Parsi, but the Tata family has been wealthy even before India was created, even in Pakistan we have a rich Parsi businessman( the Avari family). in fact most Parsis are very successful in Pakistan and live in affluent neighborhoods in Karachi.

    Your claim that India is the most secular country in the world is absurd.

    “At least we are not considered potential Terrorists. What could possibly be worse than being called that?”

    A potential rapist would be just as bad if not worse.

    If you’re travelling to America then you will have a tough at time at the airport even if you’re a Hindu, if you got brown skin and are from a third world country you will always have a tough time at an American airport, just ask the Mexicans.

    If you’re going to Canada or Europe you won’t have a problem, I visited Canada recently and had no problem at all, neither did any of my friends, UK and France might be a little more tough for Muslims.

    Many Indians get detained at U.S airports for immigration fraud, a lot of Indian IT pros have been caught with fake work permit issued by Indian tech companies like Infosys and Satyam,and the amount of work permits for Indians have been reduced drastically and some Indians have been sent back from airports despite having a legitimate work permit.

    Indian tech companies have are now popular for immigration scams.

    • “Just because India’s PM is a Sikh(he’s the token minority “leader”) that doesn’t mean Sikhs are happy in India, I mean the Sikh uprisings in the 80s weren’t too long ago.”

      You are clutching onto straws!

      I can tell you were stumped by many equal-opportunity reason I submitted, so you go onto claim its not an appropriate measure of happiness.

      What is an appropriate measure of minority satisfaction?

      Election?

      If you remember the massive anti-Sikh riot happened under Congress’s watch and was co-ordinated by many Congressmen. In the 2009 elections Congress swept Punjab(Nearly 100% Sikh population) by 8 out of 13 seats! Decimating the local, exclusively, Sikh Party – Shriromani Akali Dal and BJP combo.

      http://www.punjabnewsline.com/content/congress-wins-eight-lok-sabha-seats-punjab-sad-four-bjp-one

      Many experts (correctly) attributed it to Mr.Singh being made the PM. They somewhat liked a member of the group they belong to being given the top post. There was never a doubt that Sikhs enjoyed equal freedom and opportunity(They have long since dominated Hindi Film Industry, Cricket and have occupied top posts, Civilian and Military alike). But, what ever little doubt they had and whatever little fear they possessed and anger against the Congress, was all forgotten. India had said its sorry and the Sikhs had accepted it.

      You are smart enough to know the Sikh movement, you will also know the anger Sikhs felt against the Congress.

      You are so desperate that you are claiming a long buried insurgency is alive. Pity..

      “Your claim that India is the most secular country in the world is absurd.”

      Why is it absurd? Equal treatment before Law and Constitution – Check. Equal opportunities – Check. Symbolism – Check. What more do you need?

      Barack Obama had to defend his middle name.. That country, which will never tolerate a non-Christian President is the symbol of secularism for you? Are you so blind with hatred towards India that you can’t see a model of a country which is present right next to your pathetic blob of a land mass you call Pakistan?

      The only set of minorities who are turning their guns towards India are, well, are the same ones, I am glad, a majority of whom in South Asia now don’t call India their country.

      “If you’re travelling to America then you will have a tough at time at the airport even if you’re a Hindu”

      You are twisting, or sub-consciously reading, what YOU want to. I didn’t say security checks are exempted for Hindus and non-Muslims. I merely said one could be confident of not being violated if you were not a Muslim. There’s a lot of difference between the 2 things.

      Its like in the other piece. You read Muslims are bad, everyone else good. Precisely what YOU wanted to read.

      “Indian IT pros have been caught with fake work permit issued by Indian tech companies”

      Now, you are speaking facts. IT majors in India are known to cut corners. Infy was caught not to long ago.

      But, to imply Indians are target of Racial Profiling in Western airports is stretching it a bit. Only 15% of India is Muslim.

  14. John

    JC, I dont know what part of the US you live in or where you went to school.

    Indians are FOBish, their apartments and clothes smell because they cook at home (vegetarian and/or saving money)….all of this are stereotypes which often have a basis in truth.

    But I have never seen an Indian be stereotyped as dangerous, fundamentalist or be thought of as a terrorist type.

    That is the sole burden of the Pakistani.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s