4 ms·

The people I know from Pakistan are plenty happy with it, given the anti-Muslim sentiment in the Indian government these days. India itself is a relatively thri

The people I know from Pakistan are plenty happy with it, given the anti-Muslim sentiment in the Indian government these days. India itself is a relatively thriving nation, for all its faults. I don't think partition was a failure.

ra7 7y ago
Over 1.5 million deaths, families separated, 4 wars fought and countless other small conflicts, extreme animosity towards each other to this day, all of which can be traced back to the wounds of partition. I don't know how you can say partition was not a failure.
- throwaway123x2 7y ago
  Touche - you are right, the human cost was immense. In that sense, partition was a failure. I guess I meant my comment in the sense of how satisfied people are right now with the status quo.
threwa55467 7y ago
Oh please! The Muslim population voted in large part to create a religious state cut off from the Indian civilization. These people largely consider themselves (much like the Anglo-Saxons, Christians, West...) as having done India a favor by destroying its grand old self, and continue in this 'noble' goal of 'civilizing the natives' by constantly waging genocide against the natives (even inside India). Little wonder, the subcontinental Muslims are extremely violent, and are almost single handedly responsible for most medieval forms of barbarism that Islamism breeds. Disliking such a community, which identifies India's natives as its mortal enemies is only natural. Would you fault native Americans for doing the same ? No ? Why? Beaucause they've lost, that's why. Europeans and Islamists aren't too different from each other... Little wonder they've historically been allies in the war with India.
- throwaway123x2 7y ago
  This is a very inflammatory comment. Many of the Pakistanis and Indian Muslims I know are proud of their South Asian heritage and actually turn their noses up at the Arabicization of their culture. Not all obviously - but enough that I know that your broadstroke painting of Indian Muslims is an extremely unfair characterization. Indian Muslims and Pakistans and Bangladeshis are no less natives of the subcontinent than the Hindus or the Buddhists or the Jains are - they just happen to practice a different religion.
  - threwa55467 7y ago
    Sure they are. None of the surveys, nor the vote before the partition, nor the numerous Hindu genocides, nor the thousands of temple destroyed, nor the millennia of (continuing) barbaric violence - nothing is evidence for what you are selling. I'm not surprised that you're here peddling the 'break India' theory which the American academia (surprise, surprise) also loves to indulge in.
    - throwaway123x2 7y ago
      I'm not peddling theories, I'm raising honest questions that I hope rational minds on HN can challenge me on. Peddling hate won't convince me. :) I'll assume for a second that you're Indian... let's say your brother were to become Muslim tomorrow. Would he be any less Indian after the fact? Or any less your brother? No he wouldn't. Muslims in India aren't Arabs who invaded and settled, they're Indians who converted. Go back far enough and you probably have a common, Indian ancestor with most of them.
      - pinkfoot 7y ago
        Have you tried your experiment with the Muslim converting? Typically involves a good stoning. Except in Malaysia - there they file it under a mental disorder. If you are going to play the we are all brothers card…
        throwaway123x2 7y ago
silentsea90 7y ago
The anti-Muslim sentiment may have prevailed over time, but Muslims still prosper and grow in India. Do know that mainstream anti Muslim sentiment was a consequence of the Muslim League asking for a separate nationhood for Muslims. It may have been a fringe belief but not as mainstream to ask for a separate country until this. Said differently, if the Muslim league hadn't existed and the countries were united, we may not have seen these divisions fester the way they have with the seeds sown back in the early-mid 1900s
- throwaway123x2 7y ago
  This is indeed quite possible and I won't dispute it. My point still stands though - the current Indian government has given plenty of current-generation Pakistanis (ie. those born three generations after Partition) to rediscover an appreciation for having a separate country. (My sources are Pakistani Americans, so take that how you will)
  - legolas2412 7y ago
    Or maybe it is the fault of establishing Pakistan as a theocratic islamist country that forments the hatred. We could be United and stayed secular together, but secularism was not acceptable to the Muslim league.
    - throwaway123x2 7y ago
      Are you seriously blaming the formation of Pakistan for Modi's anti-Muslim policies three generations later?
      - legolas2412 7y ago
        You are using it to retroactively justify creation of a theocratic state. And yes, creation of that theocratic state, the violence of partition, and the terrorism caused by that theocratic state is the reason most Hindus don't like Pakistan and have an inherent distrust of Muslims. Btw, my understanding of causality is not agreement of the riots and the violence.

ra7 7y ago

Over 1.5 million deaths, families separated, 4 wars fought and countless other small conflicts, extreme animosity towards each other to this day, all of which can be traced back to the wounds of partition. I don't know how you can say partition was not a failure.

throwaway123x2 7y ago
Touche - you are right, the human cost was immense. In that sense, partition was a failure. I guess I meant my comment in the sense of how satisfied people are right now with the status quo.

threwa55467 7y ago

Oh please! The Muslim population voted in large part to create a religious state cut off from the Indian civilization. These people largely consider themselves (much like the Anglo-Saxons, Christians, West...) as having done India a favor by destroying its grand old self, and continue in this 'noble' goal of 'civilizing the natives' by constantly waging genocide against the natives (even inside India). Little wonder, the subcontinental Muslims are extremely violent, and are almost single handedly responsible for most medieval forms of barbarism that Islamism breeds. Disliking such a community, which identifies India's natives as its mortal enemies is only natural. Would you fault native Americans for doing the same ? No ? Why? Beaucause they've lost, that's why. Europeans and Islamists aren't too different from each other... Little wonder they've historically been allies in the war with India.

throwaway123x2 7y ago
This is a very inflammatory comment. Many of the Pakistanis and Indian Muslims I know are proud of their South Asian heritage and actually turn their noses up at the Arabicization of their culture. Not all obviously - but enough that I know that your broadstroke painting of Indian Muslims is an extremely unfair characterization. Indian Muslims and Pakistans and Bangladeshis are no less natives of the subcontinent than the Hindus or the Buddhists or the Jains are - they just happen to practice a different religion.
- threwa55467 7y ago
  Sure they are. None of the surveys, nor the vote before the partition, nor the numerous Hindu genocides, nor the thousands of temple destroyed, nor the millennia of (continuing) barbaric violence - nothing is evidence for what you are selling. I'm not surprised that you're here peddling the 'break India' theory which the American academia (surprise, surprise) also loves to indulge in.
  - throwaway123x2 7y ago
    I'm not peddling theories, I'm raising honest questions that I hope rational minds on HN can challenge me on. Peddling hate won't convince me. :) I'll assume for a second that you're Indian... let's say your brother were to become Muslim tomorrow. Would he be any less Indian after the fact? Or any less your brother? No he wouldn't. Muslims in India aren't Arabs who invaded and settled, they're Indians who converted. Go back far enough and you probably have a common, Indian ancestor with most of them.
    - pinkfoot 7y ago
      Have you tried your experiment with the Muslim converting? Typically involves a good stoning. Except in Malaysia - there they file it under a mental disorder. If you are going to play the we are all brothers card…
      - throwaway123x2 7y ago

silentsea90 7y ago

The anti-Muslim sentiment may have prevailed over time, but Muslims still prosper and grow in India. Do know that mainstream anti Muslim sentiment was a consequence of the Muslim League asking for a separate nationhood for Muslims. It may have been a fringe belief but not as mainstream to ask for a separate country until this. Said differently, if the Muslim league hadn't existed and the countries were united, we may not have seen these divisions fester the way they have with the seeds sown back in the early-mid 1900s

throwaway123x2 7y ago
This is indeed quite possible and I won't dispute it. My point still stands though - the current Indian government has given plenty of current-generation Pakistanis (ie. those born three generations after Partition) to rediscover an appreciation for having a separate country. (My sources are Pakistani Americans, so take that how you will)
- legolas2412 7y ago
  Or maybe it is the fault of establishing Pakistan as a theocratic islamist country that forments the hatred. We could be United and stayed secular together, but secularism was not acceptable to the Muslim league.
  - throwaway123x2 7y ago
    Are you seriously blaming the formation of Pakistan for Modi's anti-Muslim policies three generations later?
    - legolas2412 7y ago
      You are using it to retroactively justify creation of a theocratic state. And yes, creation of that theocratic state, the violence of partition, and the terrorism caused by that theocratic state is the reason most Hindus don't like Pakistan and have an inherent distrust of Muslims. Btw, my understanding of causality is not agreement of the riots and the violence.