4 ms·

I have no intention of defending the NY Times or the person you are replying to. I have a general question. Why is it necessarily good that the country is kept

• bruceb 11y ago
  I guess it depends if you think the country is more powerful together and in the end the avg Indian is better off. Yes, some might argue that separate states would be better.Of course some might argue "true India" is India+Pakistan & Bangladesh. I would like to hear some Indians say what they think in response to your question.
  • rubberstamp 11y ago
    India and world would've been better off without partition. It has only created regional instability. The government could do a lot better, I mean there are still many archaic laws, from before India got freedom, in the constitution. Overall India seems to be on better track even though the progress is slow. Amount of educated youth is also rising. Corruption is declining as a result of media coverage. There is a lot of room to improve, but the fundamentals look good. Because of partition part of british india was turned into Pakistan. Pakistani civilians do not hold any grudge against Indians is my general opinion. Its their Army and ISI that does not like peace for very silly reasons. I do not get what they are trying to achieve. I hope they'll clean up the mess they have created and finally become a good, democratic and progressive country.
• fractalb 11y ago
  >Would India be better off if, e.g., partition had not happened? That would have been an even greater feat than what it is now.