3 ms·
Why wouldn’t Hindus have a country? Muslims got two in the partition.
by steponlego 4y ago
Why wouldn’t Hindus have a country? Muslims got two in the partition.
- 22SAS 4y agoWhat does my post have to do with Hindus having/not having a land of their own?
- steponlego 4y agoIt seems extremely obvious if you just think for a second. Are you aware that British India was partitioned along ethno-religious lines? I’m a little shocked that you’re so confused…
- selimthegrim 4y agoI guess Nepal is chopped liver then?
- shaan7 4y ago[flagged]
- steponlego 4y agoAre you aware that there are many dozens of such countries?
- shaan7 4y agoYes, hence the "should". Just because something exists doesn't mean it is always justified or sensible.
- steponlego 4y agoWho are you to judge them though? Seems like a colonizer’s attitude.
- shaan7 4y agoI am not in a position to judge them. I am asking _you_ why you believe religion is a good basis to define a country.
- steponlego 4y agoI’m a Christian, it’s right in our Bible. God divided the nations. For most of the history of nations, division along ethnic and religious lines wasn’t controversial and was in fact the default. You’ll find large numbers of Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, and Buddhists among others who agree. Perhaps, the vast majority of all of them. It might not sound that progressive but nobody ever told us what we’re progressing towards, that’s a whole separate problem though.
- selimthegrim 4y agoYou might want to Google "Ganga-Jamni tehzeeb" and "composite culture" and read a little and then get back to us here. And by the way my family lived that, it wasn't some academic thing historians cooked up.
- tw600040 4y agoIt's like weapons policy. If country A is going to have them country B will be foolish not to have them.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- vinay427 4y agoAssuming you mean Pakistan and Bangladesh, the latter was not formed in the partition and was a province of Pakistan.