Splitting India

[Armstrong]

that is a question... try again...

Your name is Pinky Marshall !

 

[livingdead]

Your name is Pinky Marshall !

I guess you are missing @Marshmallow ..

 

[KS]

By 2100, Muslim pop is India is said to reach 18% of the total pop. So, you need to wait at least a couple of centuries for your dream to come true. God knows what will happen in 200 years. As time goes people change and religion may not be a factor by then.. WHO KNOWS.

For now, enjoy your wet dreams.

According to unofficial leaks from the 2011 census, the muslim count in india is already near to 20%. What are you on about muslims reaching 18% by 2100 ?

 

[Tambram]

There was nothing in behaviour of british that would suggest they would indeed consider India as their home, and work for betterment of Indians. They will not be serving India's interst but interest of another country.

I have no issues british staying or ruling (an italian is ruling, so why not brit) if they agree to principle of equality.

BTW do you have data about poverty and malnutrition during british raj, I presume it was much worse. how can they allow famine to happen even though there was food grain available.

So greatly patriotic you are! Bird prefers a gilded cage to being free?

 

[livingdead]

So greatly patriotic you are! Bird prefers a gilded cage to being free?

we are not birds...
if people want to live with us as equals, I dont see any cage in that.

 

[Tambram]

we are not birds...
if people want to live with us as equals, I dont see any cage in that.

But you have no problem in being ruled by foreigners? The British, or any other nation ever going to let you rule over them? This is not their country, so what business they have being here?

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

Absolutely ! My intent wasn't to advocate for the Royals or anything like it but simply to explore the irony with which people question Pakistan's need to exist or not or whether the decision made in '47 was correct or not & even go a step further to extrapolate everything that has happened in the past 65 years back to '47 & yet never....ever think to ask themselves 'Oiii....whether there was a need for British India to become Pakistan & India, to beginwith or not ?' because somehow in our collective consciousness that was unequivocally the right decision....in fact it was so right that one doesn't even need to talk about it !

What is this ? Don't we do the 'Pakistan - To be or not to be, critiques' on the same suppositions ?

And I agree with you ! I was reading, the other, an interview of the Quaid in which the interviewer had asked him that some have commented that Pakistan would be economically weak or unfeasible (I can't recall what the exact thing was) & so maybe it shouldn't be created & the Quaid asked a counter question in turn to the British Journalist 'Would you want to live in a economically weak, independent Britain or an economically strong Britain under Germany ?' & naturally the guys reaction was as it was expected to be ! The point I think that the Quaid was making was that the aspirations of the People can't be weighed in such petty quantifiable things because that unsaid qualitative aspect that compels a people to root for a cause & then achieve it is justification enough for it to happen because after all who is answerable to whom for what one does in one's own land, to one's own family in aspiration for one's own future, irrespective of how one defines it to be !

I've always been fascinated by that discourse where one is a fact beyond reproach while the other requires or is presumed to require justifications one way or the other !

I understood your point. It is ironic how those who question Pakistan's existence never question the need for independence from the British in the first place. There are plenty of reasons in my mind to justify Pakistan's existence apart from religion, although it's a known fact that religion was used to achieve independence. I agree with your analysis of the point Quaid-i-Azam was trying to make by questioning the British journalist regarding the desire to choose between freedom or economic prosperity. Freedom from the British was desired for a number of reasons, the most obvious of which is that no one desires to be ruled by a foreign power. No matter how honorable, noble, or just a foreign ruler is, most people would desire to be in charge of their own destiny, & that is essentially the crux of the matter. There were some good things during the British era that I have heard from others, one of them is the strict observance of law & order. For instance, it's said that a woman could travel alone from Lahore to Dhaka on train & no one would dare to bother her. The British also managed to reduce death rates in the Sub-Continent by introducing the vaccination for Small Pox, training local doctors in modern medical practices & treatments, & killing pests. Another thing to note is that Pakistan has great economic potential. It's just that nepotism, rampant corruption, extremism, & a lack of moral values, nationalism, & patriotism have to be eradicated. That is a difficult job, but it's definitely not impossible. Have you read the story of Lucretia? It's an interesting story of what led the Romans to struggle against a tyrannical King to form the Roman Republic.

 

[livingdead]

But you have no problem in being ruled by foreigners? The British, or any other nation ever going to let you rule over them? This is not their country, so what business they have being here?

yes, british do allow Indians to rule here... you need to accept citizenship.. there are many indian origin MPs here.
even without accepting citizenship, you can vote in their election( as a citizen of commonweath country)
so read my point again, this time slowly. focus on equality bit.

 

[HRK]

You completely missed my point !

Go to Trafalgur Square & dance butt-naked to 'I'm so lonely' being played as background music - As punishment !

' @HRK Bhai aaap bhiii meriii above two posts pei kuch tubsaraa kareiiin !

Dear what you are debating is a debate with no logical bases.....(sorry for this......... )

it is a discussion of "What If" , some circles do debate about this subject (India, Pakistan, British India....and so on) with their 'What if scenarios' & every other person who participate in this debate have his or her own What If ..... therefore, discussion becomes debate for sake of debate ...... hypothetical scenario build-ups for past events, which could not undo present, is waste of time.

it is a matter of fact that both India and Pakistan have not attained that social standard which was desired by the people and the leaders of that time for their coming generations. This is our status of 'PRESENT', the vision of our ancestors is the goal which we have to attain is ‘OUR FUTURE’

My dear any discussion of past should only be limited to understand the events of the past not more than this, otherwise one become past himself without creating history, so my dear we should focus more on current events and strive to craft future.

It’s my personal view...... it may be right or may not be wrong........

 

[scorpionx]

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.

The difference is had not Pakistan sent the tribal militia along with regular Army troops in Kashmir,the state could have been well yours.The state of Kashmir could easily be annexed to Pakistan despite the fact that majority of the state wanted to be independent rather a part of India or Pakistan either.

But the Pathan militia under the command of Khurshid Anwar marched on Kashmir,killing innocents making no discrimination between Muslims and Kaffirs what so ever. Situation soon got out of hand of Anwar and soon tribal council was considering to execute him. The horrible tale of murder,plundering and rape of Kashmirs shuddered the Maharaja which made him compelled to sign the annexation treaty as soon as possible.

 

[eastwatch]

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

Mughals were Indian Emperors, they were not Turko-Afghan rulers of central Asia. The family was outsider to begin with but is no less than an Indian family like millions other families who also immigrated to the then rich India.

I think, the reinstated Mughal dynasty could have saved British India from being split into three parts.

 

[anonymus]

Free Tibet!!!
Free Xinjiang!!!
Free Hong Kong....

+ Free Manchuria

+ Outer Mongolia given back to it's rightful owner,Mongolia.


Morally china should be butchered up in small pieces and limited to their historical area

 

[Tambram]

yes, british do allow Indians to rule here... you need to accept citizenship.. there are many indian origin MPs here.
even without accepting citizenship, you can vote in their election( as a citizen of commonweath country)
so read my point again, this time slowly. focus on equality bit.

Derek O' Brian is an MP of Irish origin. We have no problems with that, and if that is what you are arguing about, there is nothing to even discuss about.

 

[Pakistanisage]

By 2100, Muslim pop is India is said to reach 18% of the total pop. So, you need to wait at least a couple of centuries for your dream to come true. God knows what will happen in 200 years. As time goes people change and religion may not be a factor by then.. WHO KNOWS.

For now, enjoy your wet dreams.

I think most people agree that Muslims are over 20% of India's Population and that Indian Censors lie about the Population because of Political reasons. This especially becomes evident at the Election time when these Politicians come begging for the votes.

Bengal and Assam are already exceeding 30% and climbing and once over 50% they may want AZADI just like the Kashmiris. Kerala exceeding 25% and Muslim Population growing by leaps and bounds must be keeping you awake at night.

 

[anonymus]

I think most people agree that Muslims are over 20% of India's Population and that Indian Censors lie about the Population because of Political reasons. this especially becomes evident at the Election time when these Politicians come begging for the votes.

Well according to Census, Muslim population is 13.8% and Census is an statistical instrument which is most difficult to be gamed among all statistical instruments.

Politicians come begging for muslim vote because they vote en-mass and do it in name of mullah and allah. It is convenient for a politician as he would not have to provide any developmental services for muslims in exchange for their votes.