3 ms·

> 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

by 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.
- u801e 4y ago
  > Stop trying to manufacture a conflict between Buddhism and Hinduism where none exists. The point I'm trying to make is that these conflicts are caused by trying to place people of different ethnicities, religions, traditions, etc under the same political entity when they did not consent to it. It has nothing to do with particular religions. I've posted examples of various artificial partitions in previous comments that had nothing to do with religion, yet those borders still exist today. For example, the Durand Line dividing Pakistan and Afghanistan. That has nothing to do with religion, yet the line still exists because of the British. Many of the country borders in the Middle East were decided based on negotiations between France and the UK. Religion is one of the reasons behind the divisions, but you seem to be focused on that reason to the exclusion of all others. Just like you're overly focused on the partition of Pakistan and India to the exclusion of all other examples that have been presented.
  - agileAlligator 4y ago
    > Religion is one of the reasons behind the divisions My brother it is literally in the founding documents of Pakistan. There is no other reason. There is no ethnic, cultural, genetic or other such divide between Pakistanis and Indians - we are the same for all intents and purposes except for religion.
    - u801e 4y ago
      > it is literally in the founding documents of Pakistan. Have you looked into any of the other examples I cited in the last several comments I made? Why do you keep circling back to Pakistan and religion when I literally just told you that there are many other reasons why conflicts exist. For an ethnic Tamil living in the Tamil Nadu state in India, Pakistan isn't even relevant to them. They definitely would be more focused on what's happening in their state and Sri Lanka. Similarly, someone living in the Uttar Pradesh state wouldn't really be following what happens in Sri Lanka. I'm looking at this from a more holistic point of view and trying to show that there are multiple factors beyond religion. I said religion is one of the reasons, but I didn't say it was the sole reason or primary one. This is referring to many examples of political entities and artificial devisions between them in general. You're not really using the most charitable interpretation of what I'm stating when responding.

by u801e 4y ago

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.

u801e 4y ago
> Stop trying to manufacture a conflict between Buddhism and Hinduism where none exists. The point I'm trying to make is that these conflicts are caused by trying to place people of different ethnicities, religions, traditions, etc under the same political entity when they did not consent to it. It has nothing to do with particular religions. I've posted examples of various artificial partitions in previous comments that had nothing to do with religion, yet those borders still exist today. For example, the Durand Line dividing Pakistan and Afghanistan. That has nothing to do with religion, yet the line still exists because of the British. Many of the country borders in the Middle East were decided based on negotiations between France and the UK. Religion is one of the reasons behind the divisions, but you seem to be focused on that reason to the exclusion of all others. Just like you're overly focused on the partition of Pakistan and India to the exclusion of all other examples that have been presented.
- agileAlligator 4y ago
  > Religion is one of the reasons behind the divisions My brother it is literally in the founding documents of Pakistan. There is no other reason. There is no ethnic, cultural, genetic or other such divide between Pakistanis and Indians - we are the same for all intents and purposes except for religion.
  - u801e 4y ago
    > it is literally in the founding documents of Pakistan. Have you looked into any of the other examples I cited in the last several comments I made? Why do you keep circling back to Pakistan and religion when I literally just told you that there are many other reasons why conflicts exist. For an ethnic Tamil living in the Tamil Nadu state in India, Pakistan isn't even relevant to them. They definitely would be more focused on what's happening in their state and Sri Lanka. Similarly, someone living in the Uttar Pradesh state wouldn't really be following what happens in Sri Lanka. I'm looking at this from a more holistic point of view and trying to show that there are multiple factors beyond religion. I said religion is one of the reasons, but I didn't say it was the sole reason or primary one. This is referring to many examples of political entities and artificial devisions between them in general. You're not really using the most charitable interpretation of what I'm stating when responding.