Can anyone tell me why India and Pakistan don’t get along?

[EzioAltaïr]

India is not a status-quo power. It is a regional hegemon. It invaded and captured Junagarh and Manavadar in 1947, invaded and captured Indian Occupied Kashmir in 1947, invaded and captured Hyderabad in 1948, invaded and captured Goa in 1961 which was an area belonging to Portugal, invaded East Pakistan in 1971, captured certain locations in Chorbatla Sector in Kashmir in 1972, invaded and captured Sikkim as late as 1975, invaded and captured some portions of Siachen in 1984, captured certain locations in Qamar Sector in Kashmir in 1988, created Sri Lankan terrorist group LTTE and later invaded Sri Lanka in 1988 till the President of Sri Lanka had to openly ask the Indians to leave, invaded Maldives in 1988 and has continually interfered in internal affairs of Nepal and Bhutan and has spread state sponsored terrorism in all her neighbouring states including Pakistan.

Happy.

WOw, huge amount of misconceptions here.

Junagadh acceded to Pakistan, but didn't want it's protectorates, Mangrol and Babriawad to accede to India. India responded by accepting the accession of those two states, and cut off trade with Junagadh. The situation became precarious, people were starving, and Hindu-Muslim riots were destroying the state. Guess what this useless Nawab did? He FLED his land. He refused to take care of his people. India wanted to meet the Nawab. Guess what he responded? He was too sick. India moved it's army to control the situation, and set up a provisional government. The plebiscite showed 99% of people in favour of joining India.

Indian integration of Junagadh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Manavadar was also acceded to India after a plebiscite.

Bantva Manavadar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hyderabad was a princely state that wanted to stay independent of India, but under the Commonwealth. India made it sign a document assuring it's independence, as long as it didn't join Pakistan. But the Nizam broke these negotiations and started a military relation with Pakistan. India tolerated this, but the people in the kingdom revolted and tried to separate into Telangana, or make Hyderabad accede to India. The Nizam created the Razzakars who slaughtered these people to ensure Muslim dominance. One day the Razzakars fired upon an Indian police station, pushing India to the limit, and forcing military action.

Operation Polo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portugal controlled Goa illegally, the people wanted independence, (see :Goa liberation movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). They refused to negotiate with India, and fired upon an Indian ship, Sabarmati. India attacked.

East Pakistanis were being slaughtered in droves by Pakistan, an 10 million refugees fled to India. You guys have a free hand to do what you want and we have to feed the victims? Not a chance.

If Pakistan can launch an operation in Kashmir, we can too. So Siachen, Qamar, and Chorbatla are out of the equation.

Sikkim wanted to remain independent, but it's size left it vulnerable. It agreed to become a protectorate of India, willingly. The monarchy was extremely unpopular, and in 1975, the Sikkimese were literally begging to become a state of India. A referendum showed 97.5% in favour of the accession.

Sikkim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We created LTTE because Sri Lanka had supported the Pakistani Navy in 1971. Just like how Pakistan has created and supplied Kashmiri militant groups. We didn't expect the situation to deteriorate as it did. The IPKF didn't invade Sri Lanka, if it did, we wouldn't have left simply at the President's request. We helped Sri Lanka defeat the LTTE, and though we suffered heavy casualties, we assaulted towns like Jaffna successfully, something Sri Lanka had failed to do for years. Their Government asked us to leave after the assassination of their President. The eternal whiners claim that us defeating the LTTE is the reason for the assassination. And see where they are now? It took 'em 20 frikking years to beat that ragtag group.

Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indian Peace Keeping Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maldives? Are you talking about this?

1988 Maldives coup d'état - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We actually saved the country from a coup.

What state sponsored terrorism in Bhutan and Nepal? They are our friends. And Pakistan? Whiners. The BLA is not done by RAW, nor is the TTP. They are all results of Pakistan's policy.

 

[Juice]

Why Pakistani and Indians don't get along?

Because ideologically, we are as opposite as it gets. Pretty simple answer...

India and Pakistan are poles apart. I would even go as far as arguing that no two countries are as dissimilar as India and Pakistan.

Actually juuust close enough in heritage and culture to reaaaly get the hate going. Kind of like nature...if there is no overlap...no competition

 

[shbaziz]

IMHO - there is no chance for peace, because the indian state in it's current form is a hegemony - This is being a realist.

If they had avoided Israel, things might have been much better.

 

[Dubious]

You surely have zero knowledge about Indian history, Khariboli, Urdu and Hindi.

Let's get a Persian to evaluate rather than a Hindi speaker, shall we?

I have lived with Iranians for a while and yes their language is different, but we never claimed Urdu to be Iranian...there is a reason it is called derived from...The Iranians I lived with said they could understand a few words I spoke but not full sentences!

Urud is claimed to be a mixture of Hindi, Persian, Arabic and maybe a little bit of Turkish...

Mind you, when I watched Ashoka the movie I had to use subtitles because I understood very little...So, maybe the Hindi you are thought is mixed or similar to Urdu than Hindi?

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

Well, lets just say we are a variety that makes Pakistan! From Iran, Arabic and some Indian descents!

Anyway, who cares who lived here before...because if you want to count all that..According to archaeology, the 1st man came from Africa! Then again back then the lands were closer and joint-ish like the Panjia (forgot the spelling too lazy to check)!

So the the chain of our ancestors end in Africa ?

what about those who don't believe in creation....this chain of ancestors keep continue in backward direction for those who dont believe in creation at any point in time

 

[Dubious]

Thank you for admitting and not coming with evidence of your claims to the history of Pakistan from IVC to 7th century

Understanding a language is affected by a lot of factors. Last year I went to Kazakhstan for few moths on a business trip. Kazakh language has loads of similarities with Persian and Urdu in terms of vocabulary, yet its impossible to understand for me because of pronunciation, sentence structure. Urdu originated from India and it must have some similarities to native language of this region. But you are blowing things out of proportions. Just as a swastika was enough for you to have a claim on IVC, a civilization that ceased to exist some 200 years before the Hinduism was founded.



I had already mentioned Maurya Empire, Nanda and Maurya Empire existed for over a 100 years or so!

I heard the Khazakh language it was soo different! I would have passed it as Russian though the girl was telling me Russians can not understand her...Than again I only know 1 girl from there and there is only soo many words of Khazakh she spoke to me in her language as I wanted to hear it...So I can't judge but to me it sounded very different, but yes, she did say they picked up some words from Arabic...

The problem with Few "Historian" Pakistanis are that they have confused Identity crisis. When we talk them that are you "son of soil" then they will show family roots somewhere in Middle east from Saudi to Iran to Turkey but then they will claim IVC to their history. Only those who are officially converts can logically claim the traditional culture of region. So tell me your choice?

I have read these words "have confused Identity crisis" all over the forums...Why is this soo often brought up?

We are a mixed race! From Persian, Turkish, Moghul, Some Indians to Arabs...BASICALLY WE ARE PAKISTANI - no ID prob there!

Actually, they have. 2-3 years ago Scientists in India did Sample DNA tests across India and then they found that there is no Genetic difference which few historian segregated as Aryan Vs Dravidian culture. Secondly, IVC has cultural impact as per Vedic Culture and originating language which South Indians follow in same way as North Indians..

Dude did you read that reports correctly, I want to get my hands on those papers...surprisingly I have seen them being quoted but never actually got to read those genetic papers...

The one I did read told me there is VERY LITTLE gene pool between the North and South Indians and it went on about due to different in cast system and so on...I think I probably had a racist article!

 

[shbaziz]

I heard the Khazakh language it was soo different! I would have passed it as Russian though the girl was telling me Russians can not understand her...Than again I only know 1 girl from there and there is only soo many words of Khazakh she spoke to me in her language as I wanted to hear it...So I can't judge but to me it sounded very different, but yes, she did say they picked up some words from Arabic...



I have read these words "have confused Identity crisis" all over the forums...Why is this soo often brought up?

We are a mixed race! From Persian, Turkish, Moghul, Some Indians to Arabs...BASICALLY WE ARE PAKISTANI - no ID prob there!

Well! while I was there i had chat with my colleagues and my Turkish boss sometimes. Out of lets say 10 words, 3/4 would be same that we use in Urdu, but of course with difference in pronunciation. You could sit with a Kazakh and ask him/her questions like "what you call this in Kazakh". Like Dukaan (Shop) is Dukayn in Kazakh, more over Pyala (Bowl) to name a few. Its not same as Russian except that its script was changed from Arabic to Russain after Soviet invasion.

 

[neutral_person]

Firstly, this is mostly a nonsense debate going on, the difference between Pakistan and India is the difference between Dharmic (native Indian subcontinent religions like Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism) and Islamic religious values and cultures. Bringing in needless things like race, ethnicity, ancient empires, language, genetics, etc really makes no sense and unnecessarily complicates an issue which is pretty straightforward. A simple litmus test would be that is Pakistan today were to turn 100% Hindu/Sikh/Buddhist/Jain, or conversely India today would turn 100% Muslim, then would we still be separate nations? Or would there be calls from both sides to unify? I think that it would be the latter.

To Pakistanis saying that IVC belong to them due to genetical links, simple research would show you the fact that the IVC completely disappeared from the face of the Earth and that is even today one of the biggest mysteries of History. Many Historians claim that this happened because the ancient rivers in the Civilization areas dried up due to climate change. There are two theories as to what happened with the IVC in general after its demise in Pakistan, Northern India and Western India (as well as parts of Iran and Afghanistan):

1) They moved further East to (central, East) India, and continued their civilization in the Gangetic plains. Some historians point to the fact that some idols that were worshipped in the IVC were later worshipped in the Gangetic plains, which indicate a migration pattern.

2) They completely died off the thee droughts due to climate change and there is no "descendent" of IVC in this world.

 

[Dubious]

Now you are slowly coming on the track. You can't claim 2 roots simultaneously. If you were belonging to any religion and then changed it to Islam, You have absolutely full right on the history we shared and I have mentioned the same in my earlier points. The point is then Will your religion will allow to accept the same?

So If you claim IVC and it has roots in Vedic civilization which is based on Vedas holy book of Hindus and it supports few points which Islam rejects like idol worshiping hence accepting it becomes "Shirk". I hope you dont want to do that.

The points is Faith, believe and history sometimes get confusing but once we start seeing it in overall way then i think people will get the answers and for this I respect Iranians.

Why can't we? The migration patterns of Human are complex!!

People can be associated with more than 1 land! FOR SURE! The best is the 1 with the most diverse gene pool...meaning they have moved and have intermarriages and the offsprings have moved again...

PLUS it takes 2 to reproduce...1 mother and 1 father than each have 2 getting 4 grandparents and so on!!....1 could be Irani, 1 could be Turk, 1 could be Indian and 1 could be Arab! Any problem?

Before you go bashing my cheerful self...This is just a hypothesis! Some people in Pakistan are a mixture of 2 ...That's no identity crisis it is called diversity!

Now you are slowly coming on the track. You can't claim 2 roots simultaneously. If you were belonging to any religion and then changed it to Islam, You have absolutely full right on the history we shared and I have mentioned the same in my earlier points. The point is then Will your religion will allow to accept the same?

So If you claim IVC and it has roots in Vedic civilization which is based on Vedas holy book of Hindus and it supports few points which Islam rejects like idol worshiping hence accepting it becomes "Shirk". I hope you dont want to do that.

The points is Faith, believe and history sometimes get confusing but once we start seeing it in overall way then i think people will get the answers and for this I respect Iranians.

I am just a little confused here...What does our religion now have to do with what our ancestors were worshiping? They are long dead!

Now you are slowly coming on the track. You can't claim 2 roots simultaneously. If you were belonging to any religion and then changed it to Islam, You have absolutely full right on the history we shared and I have mentioned the same in my earlier points. The point is then Will your religion will allow to accept the same?

So If you claim IVC and it has roots in Vedic civilization which is based on Vedas holy book of Hindus and it supports few points which Islam rejects like idol worshiping hence accepting it becomes "Shirk". I hope you dont want to do that.

The points is Faith, believe and history sometimes get confusing but once we start seeing it in overall way then i think people will get the answers and for this I respect Iranians.

I am just a little confused here...What does our religion now have to do with what our ancestors were worshiping? They are long dead!

 

[shbaziz]

Firstly, this is mostly a nonsense debate going on, the difference between Pakistan and India is the difference between Dharmic (native Indian subcontinent religions like Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism) and Islamic religious values and cultures. Bringing in needless things like race, ethnicity, ancient empires, language, genetics, etc really makes no sense and unnecessarily complicates an issue which is pretty straightforward. A simple litmus test would be that is Pakistan today were to turn 100% Hindu/Sikh/Buddhist/Jain, or conversely India today would turn 100% Muslim, then would we still be separate nations? Or would there be calls from both sides to unify? I think that it would be the latter.

Well said my friend. Pakistan was created burying the idols of race and regional prejudice and was created on the basis of an ideology, just as Jinnah had said

"Islam is NOT only a set of rituals, traditions and spiritual doctrines. Islam is also a code for every Muslim, which regulates his life and his conduct in even politics and economics and the like. It is based upon highest principles of honour, integrity, fair play and justice for all........ Come forward as servants of Islam, organize the people economically, socially, educationally and politically and I am sure that you will be a power that will be accepted by everybody.” [ 5th March, 1948]

Regarding the bold part. I agree a 100% Muslim India might trigger unification. But a 100% Hindu Pakistan may not be powerful enough to overcome the regional prejudice. I believe and have seen with my own eyes that it has always been Islam which has kept Pakistan united despite may cultures and languages. No wonder! all the nationalists movements in Pakistan were run by secularists. On the other hand Hinduism alone is not powerful enough to keep such diversity intact. Unfortunately division of humanity somehow found its way into the religious texts of Hinduism and caused a lot of corruption and dissidents like Dr Ambedkar.

 

[Dubious]

Actually You are twisting logic here. Even if my son/daughter changes religion here then their roots will be belonged to the place where they are born and will suddenly it will not be changed to Middle east as few one shows that. And if you read it carefully, I mentioned that those who are converted from any religion to Islam and claim IVC then they have equal rights same as us.

There are two things accepting and believing. Iranians believe in Islam but accept their Aryan roots and somewhere connection to IVC/zoroastrianism. Hence if someone accepts their root and continue believing in their faith does not harm anywhere in faith.

I have read that bit a lot on this forum...Will the Pakistani who became a Muslim suddenly called himself Arab please stand up or raise your hand...Need a word with you!

So the the chain of our ancestors end in Africa ?

what about those who don't believe in creation....this chain of ancestors keep continue in backward direction for those who dont believe in creation at any point in time

Well, those who don't believe in creation can claim their ancestor was an ape! I know mine wasn't an ape but a perfect couple which ALLAH created from nothing = ADAM AND HAWA!

Well! while I was there i had chat with my colleagues and my Turkish boss sometimes. Out of lets say 10 words, 3/4 would be same that we use in Urdu, but of course with difference in pronunciation. You could sit with a Kazakh and ask him/her questions like "what you call this in Kazakh". Like Dukaan (Shop) is Dukayn in Kazakh, more over Pyala (Bowl) to name a few. Its not same as Russian except that its script was changed from Arabic to Russain after Soviet invasion.

Ahh..that's enlightening!

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

I have read that bit a lot on this forum...Will the Pakistani who became a Muslim suddenly called himself Arab please stand up or raise your hand...Need a word with you!

Well Arab culture is not same as Pakistani culture although we boht are the follower of Islam but our culture is different. There were/are many things in Arab culture which Islam opposed and were rejected and same is the case with our culture. Most Arabs were also pagans before Islam so i dont get it when people think that Islam is the exclusive religion of Arab when no Arab is better than non arab in Islam

Secondly when Indians say that Pakistani have no right of IVC because they are Muslim then what about Muslims and Christians of India?.

 

[Pride]

I have read that bit a lot on this forum...Will the Pakistani who became a Muslim suddenly called himself Arab please stand up or raise your hand...Need a word with you!

Sorry Talon was away for some time. If you have read a lot about that in this forum then you might have encountered the other version of the same like we ruled them for 1000 years which many Pakistanis believe in. Does it mean all of them are Mughals or came with Muhammad Bin Qasim? Do you think so?

Accepting a new religion does not lose root or authority on culture. I am not sure how many times I have to explain that. The confused identity factor comes when one say we ruled them and suddenly say that it is our culture.

I wish I can get old mods sparklingway's analysis for them.

 

[Dubious]

Well Arab culture is not same as Pakistani culture although we boht are the follower of Islam but our culture is different. There were/are many things in Arab culture which Islam opposed and were rejected and same is the case with our culture. Most Arabs were also pagans before Islam so i dont get it when people think that Islam is the exclusive religion of Arab when no Arab is better than non arab in Islam

Secondly when Indians say that Pakistani have no right of IVC because they are Muslim then what about Muslims and Christians of India?.

I know Arab culture is different...I was asking about this nonesense I have been reading all over the forum...

Where people keep saying about Pakistanis having an identity crisis...and then they laugh at a weird joke which is really weird:

Why or even how can a person who was a Hindu change to Muslim and claim to have Arab ancestors...I am like huh? Sorry did I miss something...

Did someone who convert suddenly say he is from Arab descent just because he became Muslim? So, I asked that culprit to stand up or raise his hand so I can have a word with his split mentality and inferior issues...I have yet to meet such a person!!

TO ALL THOSE who put this forward please point me to that man/ people!

Sorry Talon was away for some time. If you have read a lot about that in this forum then you might have encountered the other version of the same like we ruled them for 1000 years which many Pakistanis believe in. Does it mean all of them are Mughals or came with Muhammad Bin Qasim? Do you think so?

Accepting a new religion does not lose root or authority on culture. I am not sure how many times I have to explain that. The confused identity factor comes when one say we ruled them and suddenly say that it is our culture.

I wish I can get old mods sparklingway's analysis for them.

The part about who ruled whom and when is ancient history...what does it proof? IF you talk about land yes I can understand...But if you intermix culture with religion or vice versa it is craziness!

Well, apparently the points are

Pakistanis do not claim the same ancestors as Indians!
Paksitanis have the IVC on their land and hence, say their root is that.

Because they do not have similar ancestors so the land on our side of the border belongs to our ancestor not Indian because they believe in different lineage! That I can digest...

BUT WHAT is this nonesense about how can you be an Arab...haha?

I mean why can't 1 have an Arab descent? Why can't 1 have a Persian descent? What is sooo wrong about that?

Human beings migrate alot! It is common to have different ancestors to the land we live on...what is soo funny about it or so undigestable that it keeps being brought on this forum??

Sorry Talon was away for some time. If you have read a lot about that in this forum then you might have encountered the other version of the same like we ruled them for 1000 years which many Pakistanis believe in. Does it mean all of them are Mughals or came with Muhammad Bin Qasim? Do you think so?

Accepting a new religion does not lose root or authority on culture. I am not sure how many times I have to explain that. The confused identity factor comes when one say we ruled them and suddenly say that it is our culture.

I wish I can get old mods sparklingway's analysis for them.

Thank you Pride...All the questions were answered except the question about WHO ON EARTH claimed a different ancestry after conversion?

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

Sorry Talon was away for some time. If you have read a lot about that in this forum then you might have encountered the other version of the same like we ruled them for 1000 years which many Pakistanis believe in. Does it mean all of them are Mughals or came with Muhammad Bin Qasim? Do you think so?

Accepting a new religion does not lose root or authority on culture. I am not sure how many times I have to explain that. The confused identity factor comes when one say we ruled them and suddenly say that it is our culture.

I wish I can get old mods sparklingway's analysis for them.

I think they don't talk about Pakistani rule but Muslim rule and that is also during heated debate when people get in emotions while talking about wars,conflict and i am mighty than you etc etc. It is also like if a person convert into Hinduism from different beliefs and he will also have proud on any achievement of Hindus civilisation in past