2 ms·
Its funny how you mentioned only India and Pakistan and completely forgot about Bangladesh. There were three entities that came out of that partition, not two.
by Ahmd72 6y ago
Its funny how you mentioned only India and Pakistan and completely forgot about Bangladesh. There were three entities that came out of that partition, not two. These tensions are mostly man-made and not even related to independence, its mostly about India's claim that the two countries should be united and the people living there are similar to them while on the other hand Pakistan claims, they are different, Factually speaking, the Western part of Pakistan is more similar to Afghanistan and Iran, the Northern to China and only the East has some similarities with Northern India, not even the whole. Then there is Kashmir, should we blame that on the poorly-managed independence too? What about the province of Hyderabad or cities of Junagadh? Did the rulers there wanted to join India? It's not a competition about who is tolerant or not, its more about how to play this tolerance game so that they can rule easily and sadly only the common man suffers.
- keiferski 6y agoWell, I couldn’t include the entire history of India in a HN comment. I didn’t include Bangladesh as the initial question was related to regional tensions and Indian-Bangladeshi relations are pretty good, as compared to Indian-Pakistani ones. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh–India_relations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh–India_relations I also said mostly which most commenters seem to be missing. In any case, I only made the comment to point out Aurangzeb, not engage in a debate on British India.
- Ahmd72 6y agoFair enough but there is no "mostly" and Bangladesh used to be part of Pakistan before its independence so I am not sure how well relations actually are.