4 ms·

> The India-Pakistan debacle today is an extension of a nearly millennium-long Hindu-Muslim feud. Not really. A lot of these arbitrary borders in modern times

by u801e 4y ago

> The India-Pakistan debacle today is an extension of a nearly millennium-long Hindu-Muslim feud. Not really. A lot of these arbitrary borders in modern times came about due to actions of former colonial powers. Prior to colonial times, there were many individual kingdoms/territories throughout the subcontinent. Other examples of arbitrary borders include the Durand line, and the Wakhan corridor.

agileAlligator 4y ago
> A lot of these arbitrary borders in modern times came about due to actions of former colonial powers. By 1940, Jinnah had come to believe that the Muslims of the subcontinent should have their own state to avoid the possible marginalised status they may gain in an independent Hindu–Muslim state. In that year, the Muslim League, led by Jinnah, passed the Lahore Resolution, demanding a separate nation for Indian Muslims. - Wikipedia
- unmole 4y ago
  The Two-nation Theory is a joke and the world's been laughing since 1971.
- u801e 4y ago
  > an independent Hindu–Muslim state. A single state spanning most of the Indian subcontinent wasn't a political reality prior to colonial times. There were many individual kingdoms and territories prior to that time. The political structure set up by the British was a major contributing factor behind the partition. Another instance of a partition happened about 10 years prior to India's and Pakistan's independence. The British Raj decided to split Myanmar from India. Maybe if they had not done that, India would have extended further east to encompass present day Myanmar.
  - agileAlligator 4y ago
    > A single state spanning most of the Indian subcontinent wasn't a political reality prior to colonial times. There were many individual kingdoms and territories prior to that time. Never said it was. It came closest to the current boundaries under the Mauryan empire and Peshwai rule, however. > The political structure set up by the British was a major contributing factor behind the partition. Yes, the political structure that forced the majority of Muslims to vote for a separate Muslim state to be carved out of India. So sad, that the British did this to Indians. Without the British, there would be no enmity between the Hindus and Muslims. Truly a travesty.
    - u801e 4y ago
      >> A single state spanning most of the Indian subcontinent wasn't a political reality prior to colonial times. There were many individual kingdoms and territories prior to that time. > Never said it was. Had Europe been colonized and been organized into a single state, then, when the colonists relinquished power, areas with different ethniticies and/or religions would probably have voted to have more autonomy or be separate states altogether. The fact that there are many languages in India that are mutually unintelligible would indicate that gathering all of them in a single country is a relatively recent construct, and that the default arrangement was that control was much more local. >> It came closest to the current boundaries under the Mauryan empire and Peshwai rule, however. Just because political arrangements from centuries/millenia past existed doesn't mean that they're a good idea in modern times. Hence the reason we have many countries in Europe rather than a modern single political entity spanning an area similar to the Roman or Byzantine empire. > Yes, the political structure that forced the majority of Muslims to vote for a separate Muslim state to be carved out of India. Had the British Raj not split Myanmar off from India, it's likely they may have voted for a partition along similar lines based on religion (Budddhism vs Hinduism). Another example of strife caused by political structures set up by the British resulted in the civil war in Sri Lanka. In fact, the Tamils in Sri Lanka wanted to create their own independent state because of discrimination they faced from the Sinhalese majority. > Without the British, there would be no enmity between the Hindus and Muslims. Enmity really comes from trying to group people from different cultures, ethnicities, religions, etc under a single political entity where one group is a minority. Tyranny of the majority becomes a problem in those cases.
      - agileAlligator 4y ago
        > Had Europe been colonized and been organized into a single state, then, when the colonists relinquished power, areas with different ethniticies and/or religions would probably have voted to have more autonomy or be separate states altogether. The fact that there are many languages in India that are mutually unintelligible would indicate that gathering all of them in a single country is a relatively recent construct, and that the default arrangement was that control was much more local. Partition would never have been so hotly contested if this was indeed the case. However, it wasn't. Thousands of Hindus and Sikhs had to flee the newly created Islamic nation of Pakistan, who knows exactly how many were killed in that process. > Had the British Raj not split Myanmar off from India, it's likely they may have voted for a partition along similar lines based on religion (Budddhism vs Hinduism) Buddhism and Hinduism have coexisted in relative peace (with a few exceptions) for millennia. No such thing would have happened. > Enmity really comes from trying to group people from different cultures, ethnicities, religions, etc under a single political entity where one group is a minority. Tyranny of the majority becomes a problem in those cases. By this point it is abundantly clearly that you are not educated on the history of the Hindu-Muslim conflict. Before you further embarrass yourself, have a gander at this page [1] and see the timescales involved. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus
delta_p_delta_x 4y ago
I'm not just talking about border disputes, and I don't make this connection lightly. Pakistan was explicitly founded as a country for 'Indian Muslims'. The 1971 war wasn't over a border dispute: West Pakistanis openly genocided and raped[1] Bengali Hindus (and Muslims, for that matter), declaring Bengali women 'war booty', which forced India to step in. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_genocide As for 'no united India before colonial times': what about the Maurya and Gupta empires, or even the Delhi and Hyderabad sultanates? They governed over a significant portion of modern-day India + Pakistan. If this is your sort of goalpost, then even relatively homogenous countries like Germany and Italy shouldn't really exist today, given that they only coalesced in the late 19th century.
- rramadass 4y ago
  Related: You might find the links (the comment is not applicable) i have listed here useful - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33556881 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33556881
- kamaal 4y ago
  >>If this is your sort of goalpost, then even relatively homogenous countries like Germany and Italy shouldn't really exist today, given that they only coalesced in the late 19th century. Yup. The Holy Roman empire, Roman Empire, Byzantines, Greeks, Hellenistic period etc etc. Over a period of long intervals the geographical boundaries of any and every region on earth expand and shrink. That's just fact of life. And boundaries are basically things written on a piece of paper, where one administration decides to start or end its control. Also what does things like 'new countries' even mean here. It is not like when people make new countries they take they dig up their region from beneath and relocate to Mars. They are just saying they don't wish to live under your political administration. There is no need to overthink these things beyond a certain point.
- random314 4y ago
  > If this is your sort of goalpost, then even relatively homogenous countries like Germany and Italy shouldn't really exist today, given that they only coalesced in the late 19th century. The strength of modern state propaganda is such that people have developed all kinds of crazy notions about history. The nation state is a modern invention and this involves myth building about the country going back to ancient times. The French spoken in southern France had much more in common with northern Italian. Its just common sense that it would be so. Modern French was forced down it's subjects just like Urdu in Pakistan, Standardized Mandarin in China and ongoing attempts for Hindu in India. The state has been elevated to the status of a mythical quasi religious entity. https://youtu.be/hdUbIlwHRkY https://youtu.be/hdUbIlwHRkY

by u801e 4y ago

agileAlligator 4y ago

> A lot of these arbitrary borders in modern times came about due to actions of former colonial powers. By 1940, Jinnah had come to believe that the Muslims of the subcontinent should have their own state to avoid the possible marginalised status they may gain in an independent Hindu–Muslim state. In that year, the Muslim League, led by Jinnah, passed the Lahore Resolution, demanding a separate nation for Indian Muslims. - Wikipedia

unmole 4y ago
The Two-nation Theory is a joke and the world's been laughing since 1971.
u801e 4y ago
> an independent Hindu–Muslim state. A single state spanning most of the Indian subcontinent wasn't a political reality prior to colonial times. There were many individual kingdoms and territories prior to that time. The political structure set up by the British was a major contributing factor behind the partition. Another instance of a partition happened about 10 years prior to India's and Pakistan's independence. The British Raj decided to split Myanmar from India. Maybe if they had not done that, India would have extended further east to encompass present day Myanmar.
- agileAlligator 4y ago
  > A single state spanning most of the Indian subcontinent wasn't a political reality prior to colonial times. There were many individual kingdoms and territories prior to that time. Never said it was. It came closest to the current boundaries under the Mauryan empire and Peshwai rule, however. > The political structure set up by the British was a major contributing factor behind the partition. Yes, the political structure that forced the majority of Muslims to vote for a separate Muslim state to be carved out of India. So sad, that the British did this to Indians. Without the British, there would be no enmity between the Hindus and Muslims. Truly a travesty.
  - u801e 4y ago
    >> A single state spanning most of the Indian subcontinent wasn't a political reality prior to colonial times. There were many individual kingdoms and territories prior to that time. > Never said it was. Had Europe been colonized and been organized into a single state, then, when the colonists relinquished power, areas with different ethniticies and/or religions would probably have voted to have more autonomy or be separate states altogether. The fact that there are many languages in India that are mutually unintelligible would indicate that gathering all of them in a single country is a relatively recent construct, and that the default arrangement was that control was much more local. >> It came closest to the current boundaries under the Mauryan empire and Peshwai rule, however. Just because political arrangements from centuries/millenia past existed doesn't mean that they're a good idea in modern times. Hence the reason we have many countries in Europe rather than a modern single political entity spanning an area similar to the Roman or Byzantine empire. > Yes, the political structure that forced the majority of Muslims to vote for a separate Muslim state to be carved out of India. Had the British Raj not split Myanmar off from India, it's likely they may have voted for a partition along similar lines based on religion (Budddhism vs Hinduism). Another example of strife caused by political structures set up by the British resulted in the civil war in Sri Lanka. In fact, the Tamils in Sri Lanka wanted to create their own independent state because of discrimination they faced from the Sinhalese majority. > Without the British, there would be no enmity between the Hindus and Muslims. Enmity really comes from trying to group people from different cultures, ethnicities, religions, etc under a single political entity where one group is a minority. Tyranny of the majority becomes a problem in those cases.
    - agileAlligator 4y ago
      > Had Europe been colonized and been organized into a single state, then, when the colonists relinquished power, areas with different ethniticies and/or religions would probably have voted to have more autonomy or be separate states altogether. The fact that there are many languages in India that are mutually unintelligible would indicate that gathering all of them in a single country is a relatively recent construct, and that the default arrangement was that control was much more local. Partition would never have been so hotly contested if this was indeed the case. However, it wasn't. Thousands of Hindus and Sikhs had to flee the newly created Islamic nation of Pakistan, who knows exactly how many were killed in that process. > Had the British Raj not split Myanmar off from India, it's likely they may have voted for a partition along similar lines based on religion (Budddhism vs Hinduism) Buddhism and Hinduism have coexisted in relative peace (with a few exceptions) for millennia. No such thing would have happened. > Enmity really comes from trying to group people from different cultures, ethnicities, religions, etc under a single political entity where one group is a minority. Tyranny of the majority becomes a problem in those cases. By this point it is abundantly clearly that you are not educated on the history of the Hindu-Muslim conflict. Before you further embarrass yourself, have a gander at this page [1] and see the timescales involved. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus

delta_p_delta_x 4y ago

I'm not just talking about border disputes, and I don't make this connection lightly. Pakistan was explicitly founded as a country for 'Indian Muslims'. The 1971 war wasn't over a border dispute: West Pakistanis openly genocided and raped[1] Bengali Hindus (and Muslims, for that matter), declaring Bengali women 'war booty', which forced India to step in. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_genocide As for 'no united India before colonial times': what about the Maurya and Gupta empires, or even the Delhi and Hyderabad sultanates? They governed over a significant portion of modern-day India + Pakistan. If this is your sort of goalpost, then even relatively homogenous countries like Germany and Italy shouldn't really exist today, given that they only coalesced in the late 19th century.

rramadass 4y ago
Related: You might find the links (the comment is not applicable) i have listed here useful - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33556881 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33556881
kamaal 4y ago
>>If this is your sort of goalpost, then even relatively homogenous countries like Germany and Italy shouldn't really exist today, given that they only coalesced in the late 19th century. Yup. The Holy Roman empire, Roman Empire, Byzantines, Greeks, Hellenistic period etc etc. Over a period of long intervals the geographical boundaries of any and every region on earth expand and shrink. That's just fact of life. And boundaries are basically things written on a piece of paper, where one administration decides to start or end its control. Also what does things like 'new countries' even mean here. It is not like when people make new countries they take they dig up their region from beneath and relocate to Mars. They are just saying they don't wish to live under your political administration. There is no need to overthink these things beyond a certain point.
random314 4y ago
> If this is your sort of goalpost, then even relatively homogenous countries like Germany and Italy shouldn't really exist today, given that they only coalesced in the late 19th century. The strength of modern state propaganda is such that people have developed all kinds of crazy notions about history. The nation state is a modern invention and this involves myth building about the country going back to ancient times. The French spoken in southern France had much more in common with northern Italian. Its just common sense that it would be so. Modern French was forced down it's subjects just like Urdu in Pakistan, Standardized Mandarin in China and ongoing attempts for Hindu in India. The state has been elevated to the status of a mythical quasi religious entity. https://youtu.be/hdUbIlwHRkY https://youtu.be/hdUbIlwHRkY