Splitting India

[Chronos]

Well, I did some reasearch, and in terms of economy, India is ranked 130th and Pakistan 138th in terms GDP per capita Source: Global Finance.

In terms of women's rights

India is ranked 105 while pakistan is ranked 135 Source: Global Gender Gap report 2012

Now corruption index

India is ranked 94th and Pakistan 139th. Source: transparency international.

There are other areas Pakistan is better than India.


But what I am reading in this thread is Indians and pakistanis bashing each other, when obviously massive improvements have to be made to make both countries prosperous

 

[bronxbull]

for a change,yes that would be true.

Uf u cant win the war,u make a compromise,thats what the nizam did,he did not commit suicide for losing his honour.

 

[Aka123]

Well, I did some reasearch, and in terms of economy, India is ranked 130th and Pakistan 138th in terms GDP per capita Source: Global Finance.

In terms of women's rights

India is ranked 105 while pakistan is ranked 135 Source: Global Gender Gap report 2012

Now corruption index

India is ranked 94th and Pakistan 139th. Source: transparency international.

There are other areas Pakistan is better than India.


But what I am reading in this thread is Indians and pakistanis bashing each other, when obviously massive improvements have to be made to make both countries prosperous

Why are you working so hard? People are in troll mode now.... No point in putting logic here any more....

 

[ghilzai]

Why you want such people in your religion who can sell it for whisky?

Each and every religion is good enough to fix your meeting with god in good terms if its practiced with heart and humanity. Those who convert from one to another can never respect any religion. They are confused and greedy. They think just following a particular religion will give them heaven.



Why you think a muslim cant be loyal to its nation, its birthplace?

We are very loyal to our nation, our religion is the foundation of our nation, to most their country is their identity, to us our identity is our religion and our nation is representative of that identity.

How are we not loyal to our nation?, we may have problems but what nation doesn't, we are a very diverse nation, we may have differences but we are one we are Pakistanis all united.

 

[ghilzai]

Ok lets unite, have it named greater pakistan. What say?

Sounds good to me, with capital islamabad, shariah law, and of course the ghilzais at the throne.

 

[eastwatch]

So a dynasty rule after british raj slavery.

You BD people are so funny. And another genius liked the idea.

So what you think - just prevention of split was the whole purpose or putting India on a path of democracy and freedom? If some family had to be reinstated, what was wrong with british? All hail queen!!

I am not talking about a dynastic rule. It could have been only symbolic. Think of all those monarchs in England, Spain, Japan, Thailand etc. The Monarchs do not rule, they only reign. They remain symbols of unity and democracy rule the country. However, reinstating the Mughals in Delhi could have worked as a catalyst to keep the country undivided.

 

[ghilzai]

@faithfulguy

Just look at this forum how pakistani boast of their skin color and all. How would they have treated hyderabadi south indians generally black and talking telgu?

Dont we know how they suppress not so pakistani looking bangladeshis communicating in bangla?



And the world including Jinnah, Azad were idiot who used the terms like partition and split.

He is right, they came they compressed many different nations and named it British India, when they left they divided British India, Pakistan was born and then another nation was born with the name India a day after.

I am not talking about a dynastic rule. It could have been only symbolic. Think of all those monarchs in England, Spain, Japan, Thailand etc. The Monarchs do not rule, they only reign. They remain symbols of unity and democracy would have ruled. However, reinstating the Mughals in Delhi could have been a catalyst to keep the country undivided.

I don't think the mughals or for that matter any turco afghan would have accepted the symbolic rule for long.

 

[ghilzai]

I knew you will dig this topic to defend your stance on Hyderabad First accept India's claim on Hyderabad is legitimate then we will discuss Kashmir,ok?

You avoided the question we are just asking the difference.

Well nothing to discuss after the wobble you have shown, hardly any credibility left is there.

 

[notsuperstitious]

He is right, they came they compressed many different nations and named it British India, when they left they divided British India, Pakistan was born and then another nation was born with the name India a day after.

By your logic, the current nation state of Pakistan was born in December 1971, NOT 1947.

 

[INDIC]

By your logic, the current nation state of Pakistan was born in December 1971, NOT 1947.

Bengalis and ancestors of Muhajirs created Pakistan, Punjabis were busy in unionist politics. Now, both Muhajirs and Bengalis were cornered in new Pakistan.

 

[ghilzai]

By your logic, the current nation state of Pakistan was born in December 1971, NOT 1947.

Bangladesh was suppose to be a separate nation with separate working mechanism this was envisioned before independence in 1947, this was not put in to practice but it reached its original objective in 71.

 

[notsuperstitious]

Bangladesh was suppose to be a separate nation with separate working mechanism this was envisioned before independence in 1947, this was not put in to practice but it reached its original objective in 71.

And India was a founding member of league of nations in 1918. Self rule for this nation was envisaged by some and a part of India decided to split and those took place in 1947. Just the same way some in Pakistan decided to split in 1971, does not mean Pakistan was created in 1971 does it?

 

[ghilzai]

Bengalis and ancestors of Muhajirs created Pakistan, Punjabis were busy in unionist politics. Now, both Muhajirs and Bengalis were cornered in new Pakistan.

Every community played their role to make Pakistan, i understand you find it hard to digest that.

 

[ghilzai]

And India was a founding member of league of nations in 1918. Self rule for this nation was envisaged by some and a part of India decided to split and those took place in 1947. Just the same way some in Pakistan decided to split in 1971, does not mean Pakistan was created in 1971 does it?

You mean British India, India didn't exist in in 1918, it was born in 47.

 

[notsuperstitious]

You mean British India, India didn't exist in in 1918, it was born in 47.

On the founding documents of league of nations, it says India. Thousands of years ago, in the chronicles of greek historians it says India, a thousand years ago in the hadiths of muslim imperialists its says Hind, but Pakistan will only be found in record around 1940s and Bangladesh around 1970s.

Evey time rulers change a new nation is not created, ming and qing both ruled china, not different nations.

These are facts, otherwise by your own logic, today's Pakistan was created in Dec 1971. Pick one.