1. Pakistan was created by and for the Rich muslims of the subcontinent like Zamindars and Zagirdars, not for the poor ones. That's why feudalism was never abolished.
Nonsense statement, Muslim League was indeed full of the richest muslims of British India but their purpose was to elevate the ever worsening situation of Indians Muslims. Jinnah was not a feudal, he made himself after his family lost all the money they had.
The other leaders were a part of old and known dynasties who were the rightful leaders of the people. This includes Sir Aga Khan, Sir Zafarullah Khan, Sir Feroz Khan Noon, Sir Abdul Qayyum etc who were the leaders of their communities or areas.
Similarly we had many self made Leaguers like Allama Iqbal, Suharwady, Fazlur Rahman, Mian Mohammed Salik etc.
The leadership comes from the top and most of them gave up a lot of their land/business holdings for the sake of the Muslims of India by creating Pakistan.
Pakistan also was working on the land reform in the 50's, my own grandfather gave up the land offered to him because we wanted Pakistan to progress forward but the feudals did not want to loose their power and through their power, they stopped land reforms from occurring. Had Jinnah lived, he would have abolished feudalism but his early demise and the rise of feudals as regional leaders made it an impossible task.
But we did so well up till the 80's with feudals that this matter was overlooked, however rest assured, it will happen.
2. Indian muslims have more religious freedom than Pakistanis as an Ahmedi , Shia or a muslim of any sect could follow their religion freely without persecution.
The thing is that these sects had a big hand in creating Pakistan and as they were very well off, they were a natural target for the Mullahs of Pakistan. As yo might know, Jinnah was a Shia and we have had a high number of Shia leaders, they have been a succesful and productive sect but the rise of Wahabi ideology has caused problems for them but we are in the midst of an ideological war and the minorities are feeling the heat.
As for Ahmadi's, they are one of the richest groups (the other being Aga Khani's and Parsis') with the highest literacy rates in Pakistan, you might know some very famous Ahmadi's who were a part of Muslim League and many others who have made names for themselves after the creation of Pakistan. The list includes Sir Zafarullah Khan, Mirza Muzaffar Ahmed, Sahibzada Abdul Qayyum, Dr Abdus Salam, Gen Iftikhar Janjua, Gen. Akhtar Hussain Malik, Gen Abdul Malik, Gen. Nasir Ahmed, The Shahnawazs and the a few Nawabs who hold high places in Pakistan. They were a natural target for the Mullahs since its inception because of doctrinal differences but the state always sided with them because of their role in creating Pakistan but much like the Shia situation, post Bhutto's appeasement of Mullahs, they were targeted.
But again we are in an ideological war and we aim to correct it.
3. Indian Hindu fanaticism and Pakistani Islamic fanaticism are a mirror image of each other and feeds of each other.
This is a very good point, the increase of fundamentalism and extremism has an enduring effect on nations around the one being effected by these societal problems. Pakistan was a liberal, well to do and progressive state but with the increasing fundamentalism in its neighborhood during the late 70's and 80's had a very negative impact on Pakistan. The Afghan war opened up a chance for Pakistan to get involved in a war that made the country a playground for a violent ideology that seeped our society, the klashankov culture, drugs and the other ill's came with the war. Similarly the Iranian revolution made Pakistan weak because the Shia-Sunni population of our country was going to see an eventual clash and it did happen when a proxy war by the Saudi's and the Irani's was fought in Pakistan.
This is a common impact through what occurs in your neighborhood, Pakistan has been changed because of what occurred in our neighboring countries and the same will happen to India.
4. A secular India is not in Pakistani interest as it questions Pakistan's creation. So Pakistan would be happy if there are religious riots as it legitimizes their existence. Pakistani media and people deliberately ignore the flourishing the Indian islam and culture . Eg. they tend to ignore the urdu scholars of India even when they travel to Pakistan.
A secular Pakistan is also not in the interest of India's creation as it will be able to allow Pakistan to concentrate on tolerance, progress and peace within. If Pakistan stands up tomorrow as a secular nation where people work side by side, we will only threaten the Indian hegemony in economic and militaristic terms.
That is why India would want an radicalized Pakistan whose image is tarnished by terrorism, killing and sectarian violence. This would mean that India has no threat in the neighbourhood and we will continue to slide down. Indian deliberately overlook our success pre Zia days where violence against minorities or sects was rare and we were a very progressive nation.
Indian media would never highlight the well to do minorities of Pakistan or the modernization because they want to make Pakistan look like the worst place for comparisons sake.
The argument works both ways.
Time for some Shairi, I guess.
