4 ms·

>> A single state spanning most of the Indian subcontinent wasn't a political reality prior to colonial times. There were many individual kingdoms and territori

by 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
- u801e 4y ago
  > Partition [between would never have been so hotly contested if this was indeed the case. > Buddhism and Hinduism have coexisted in relative peace (with a few exceptions) for millennia. No such thing would have happened. They weren't forced exist under a single political entity where one group was a substantial majority of the total. The civil war in Sri Lanka[1] is the result of trying to do so. The actions[2][3] of the Myanmar government towards people originally from India residing in Burma suggest that your assertion isn't really true. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Civil_War [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burmese_Indians#Anti-Indian_sentiments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burmese_Indians#Anti-Indian_se... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burmese_Indians#The_Second_World_War_and_after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burmese_Indians#The_Second_Wor... > 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 First off, your assertion about my knowledge of the subject is false. Second, you're resorting to ad hominems.
  - agileAlligator 4y ago
    > They weren't forced exist under a single political entity where one group was a substantial majority of the total. See: The Mauryan Empire, various Khmer kings. The Kings were previously Hindu, converted to Buddhism with no conflicts arising from this change. There was no iconoclasm, no discrimination against Hindus, no mass genocide. > [1] See the main article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_Sri_Lankan_civil_war# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_Sri_Lankan_civi... In the entire article the word "Buddhism" is mentioned but once. "Moreover, the British pushed for the dominance of Christianity and the removal of privileging Buddhism in the state government, the main religion followed by the Sinhalese" > [2] "Indians played a prominent role in the British administration and became the target of Burmese nationalists. Racial animosity toward Indians because of their skin-colour and appearance also played a role. Meanwhile, the price of rice plummeted during the economic depression of the 1930s and the Chettiar from South India, who were prominent moneylenders in the rice belt, began to foreclose on land held by native Burmese." Literally nothing to do with their religion > [3] "After he seized power through a military coup in 1962, General Ne Win ordered a large-scale expulsion of Indians. Although many Indians had been living in Burma for generations and had integrated into Burmese society, they became a target for discrimination and oppression by the junta. This, along with a wholesale nationalisation of private ventures in 1964, led to the emigration of over 300,000 ethnic Indians from Burma. Indian-owned businesses as well as Burmese businesses were nationalised due to the so-called "Burmese way to Socialism". Many Indians returned and were given 175 kyat for their trip to India." The common thread between your assertions are that one side is predominantly Buddhist and the other side is predominantly Hindu, however this does not mean the religion is the source of the conflict. Deeper investigation reveals in fact that the conflict was anything but religious. Nationalistic, linguistic, cultural, yes. But not religious. There isn't any bad blood between Hinduism and Buddhism the way there is between Hinduism and Islam. Stop trying to manufacture a conflict between Buddhism and Hinduism where none exists. These two religions have coexisted for millenia in relative peace, unlike Islam and literally any other religion.

by u801e 4y ago

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

u801e 4y ago
> Partition [between would never have been so hotly contested if this was indeed the case. > Buddhism and Hinduism have coexisted in relative peace (with a few exceptions) for millennia. No such thing would have happened. They weren't forced exist under a single political entity where one group was a substantial majority of the total. The civil war in Sri Lanka[1] is the result of trying to do so. The actions[2][3] of the Myanmar government towards people originally from India residing in Burma suggest that your assertion isn't really true. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Civil_War [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burmese_Indians#Anti-Indian_sentiments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burmese_Indians#Anti-Indian_se... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burmese_Indians#The_Second_World_War_and_after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burmese_Indians#The_Second_Wor... > 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 First off, your assertion about my knowledge of the subject is false. Second, you're resorting to ad hominems.
- agileAlligator 4y ago
  > They weren't forced exist under a single political entity where one group was a substantial majority of the total. See: The Mauryan Empire, various Khmer kings. The Kings were previously Hindu, converted to Buddhism with no conflicts arising from this change. There was no iconoclasm, no discrimination against Hindus, no mass genocide. > [1] See the main article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_Sri_Lankan_civil_war# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_Sri_Lankan_civi... In the entire article the word "Buddhism" is mentioned but once. "Moreover, the British pushed for the dominance of Christianity and the removal of privileging Buddhism in the state government, the main religion followed by the Sinhalese" > [2] "Indians played a prominent role in the British administration and became the target of Burmese nationalists. Racial animosity toward Indians because of their skin-colour and appearance also played a role. Meanwhile, the price of rice plummeted during the economic depression of the 1930s and the Chettiar from South India, who were prominent moneylenders in the rice belt, began to foreclose on land held by native Burmese." Literally nothing to do with their religion > [3] "After he seized power through a military coup in 1962, General Ne Win ordered a large-scale expulsion of Indians. Although many Indians had been living in Burma for generations and had integrated into Burmese society, they became a target for discrimination and oppression by the junta. This, along with a wholesale nationalisation of private ventures in 1964, led to the emigration of over 300,000 ethnic Indians from Burma. Indian-owned businesses as well as Burmese businesses were nationalised due to the so-called "Burmese way to Socialism". Many Indians returned and were given 175 kyat for their trip to India." The common thread between your assertions are that one side is predominantly Buddhist and the other side is predominantly Hindu, however this does not mean the religion is the source of the conflict. Deeper investigation reveals in fact that the conflict was anything but religious. Nationalistic, linguistic, cultural, yes. But not religious. There isn't any bad blood between Hinduism and Buddhism the way there is between Hinduism and Islam. Stop trying to manufacture a conflict between Buddhism and Hinduism where none exists. These two religions have coexisted for millenia in relative peace, unlike Islam and literally any other religion.