A question about Pakistan.

[MAXlMUS]

seeing as how pakistan is historically a part of india, that they speak the same language and basiacally the same peoples, and that there are large numbers of muslims in india, what is the justification for pakistan to exist as an independant country, besides colonial era considerations? shouldn't they just reunite, or shouldn't india just invade and annex pakistan and stop the country from being a breeding ground for terrorists once and for all?

[Enemy of the State]

The same reason India was divided in the first place, faith. If India annexed Pakistan there would be eternal civil war. The insurgents would only grow in power.

[CiviC]

Pakistan was created as a homeland for Muslims on the Indian Subcontinent. Religion as the only foundation ground for a nation is very retarded in my opinion. And as history showed, in a few decades Bangladesh separated as it had nothing in common with Pakistan. But I can't say that Pakistan has no right to exist, as long the Pakistanis wills it, it's their choice.

[Atlaas]

Religion as the only foundation ground for a nation is very retarded in my opinion.

What about Israel ?

[A Demented Goldfish]

What about Israel ?

israel is retarded

[Poet]

You guys don't understand one thing, it is extremely stupid and ignorant to say that Muslims of India was happy and living amicably with Hindus and all of a sudden they became mad and demanded a new country. Jinnah was known as ambassador of Hind-Muslim unity, why he demanded for Pakistan? Was he mad? Did he lose his mind? Was it so easy for a minority to demand and get a new country? no. Hindus with their behavior showed our ancestors that as soon as British leave India, India would not be a safe place for Muslims (for example look what they are doing with Indian Muslims, especially with Kashmiris), so our leaders realized that there is no way else but to demand and fight for and get a new country, that's what they did. As far as invading Pakistan is concerned, all big Indian cities would be turned into ash, the moment India would invade us. Any one is free to feel the pain in his ass because of our existence and our nukes, we exist and would exist for ever insha Allah.

Edit: Bangladesh's separation was not because of lack of any similarity, they are passionate Muslims and we had Islam in common, problem was that they were not given their rights, so they rightfully left us.

[CiviC]

You guys don't understand one thing, it is extremely stupid and ignorant to say that Muslims of India was happy and living amicably with Hindus and all of a sudden they became mad and demanded a new country. Jinnah was known as ambassador of Hind-Muslim unity, why he demanded for Pakistan? Was he mad? Did he lose his mind? Was it so easy for a minority to demand and get a new country? no. Hindus with their behavior showed our ancestors that as soon as British leave India, India would not be a safe place for Muslims (for example look what they are doing with Indian Muslims, especially with Kashmiris), so our leaders realized that there is no way else but to demand and fight for and get a new country, that's what they did. As far as invading Pakistan is concerned, all big Indian cities would be turned into ash, the moment India would invade us. Any one is free to feel the pain in his ass because of our existence and our nukes, we exist and would exist for ever insha Allah.

I don't understand what would have happened with Muslims in India as India is a secular state (while Pakistan isn't) and 138 million Muslims live in India compared with 170.6 million in Pakistan and 162 million in Bangladesh. More likely Muslims wanted their own state not for fear of Hindus but to have a state based on Islam with legislation based on Sharia. Not to neglige the contribution of Muslim elites in creating a Muslim national movement - these elites had their own interest to have their own state to rule then to be a minority in India with limited access to power.

Edit: Bangladesh's separation was not because of lack of any similarity, they are passionate Muslims and we had Islam in common, problem was that they were not given their rights, so they rightfully left us.

Or maybe because Islam isn't enough to create a bond, Bangladeshis are so much diferent from Pakistanis from ethnic, linguistic and cultural point of view, and so far geografically that it was only logical that they will seceede.

[Poet]

I don't understand what would have happened with Muslims in India as India is a secular state (while Pakistan isn't) and 138 million Muslims live in India compared with 170.6 million in Pakistan and 162 million in Bangladesh. More likely Muslims wanted their own state not for fear of Hindus but to have a state based on Islam with legislation based on Sharia. Not to neglige the contribution of Muslim elites in creating a Muslim national movement - these elites had their own interest to have their own state to rule then to be a minority in India with limited access to power.

In history it never was easy for weak nations and minorities to get freedom, if Jinnah needed to rule only, he was offered to be the ruler of joint India, but he chose what was best in his nation's interest. He was a patient of T.B. and was going to die, he knew this, so what he did was not for a state to rule but for his nation.

Or maybe because Islam isn't enough to create a bond, Bangladeshis are so much diferent from Pakistanis from ethnic, linguistic and cultural point of view, and so far geografically that it was only logical that they will seceede.

That's a bit true. In fact Islam means, justice and equality, when justice and equality was not given to Bengalis, they left us. Simple.

[The Noble Lord]

You guys don't understand one thing, it is extremely stupid and ignorant to say that Muslims of India was happy and living amicably with Hindus and all of a sudden they became mad and demanded a new country. Jinnah was known as ambassador of Hind-Muslim unity, why he demanded for Pakistan? Was he mad? Did he lose his mind? Was it so easy for a minority to demand and get a new country? no. Hindus with their behavior showed our ancestors that as soon as British leave India, India would not be a safe place for Muslims (for example look what they are doing with Indian Muslims, especially with Kashmiris), so our leaders realized that there is no way else but to demand and fight for and get a new country, that's what they did. As far as invading Pakistan is concerned, all big Indian cities would be turned into ash, the moment India would invade us. Any one is free to feel the pain in his ass because of our existence and our nukes, we exist and would exist for ever insha Allah.

Mohammad Ali Jinnah was right to demand the separate state for the sub-continent's Muslim population because he knew that realistically they would never be secure and equal in Independent India because of the historical reasons and also because of the nationalist euphoria that has infected the masses at that time!

[Central Asian Qaghan]

seeing as how pakistan is historically a part of india, that they speak the same language and basiacally the same peoples, and that there are large numbers of muslims in india, what is the justification for pakistan to exist as an independant country, besides colonial era considerations? shouldn't they just reunite, or shouldn't india just invade and annex pakistan and stop the country from being a breeding ground for terrorists once and for all?

Hindi and Urdu are nothing alike. Hindi is a Hindu language while Urdu is a language with Persian and Turkish roots. They are not the same at all.

And besides Hindus would have treated the Muslims like it does now, as second class citizens. Oh sure they made a token muslim guy the president, but we are taking about a general population not one token guy. I for one am glad Pakistan exists where I can live freely and not be under the Hindu boot.

As for invasion, they can certainly try. They will die in droves before they set one foot on Pakistani soil.

[Exarch]

i'm going to be cynical and suggest that British home office were in support of the idea of 'divide and rule'

[MAXlMUS]

You guys don't understand one thing, it is extremely stupid and ignorant to say that Muslims of India was happy and living amicably with Hindus and all of a sudden they became mad and demanded a new country.

i'm not saying that, of course they were pissed - muslims (monotheists) never liked polytheists (see koran). as well as centuries of sectarian violence

Jinnah was known as ambassador of Hind-Muslim unity, why he demanded for Pakistan? Was he mad? Did he lose his mind? Was it so easy for a minority to demand and get a new country? no. Hindus with their behavior showed our ancestors that as soon as British leave India, India would not be a safe place for Muslims (for example look what they are doing with Indian Muslims, especially with Kashmiris), so our leaders realized that there is no way else but to demand and fight for and get a new country, that's what they did.

personal ambition? i don't know much about him, but if they were being mistreated for centuries, why did he join the indian national congress?

Edit: Bangladesh's separation was not because of lack of any similarity, they are passionate Muslims and we had Islam in common, problem was that they were not given their rights, so they rightfully left us.

so, a modern state can be based solely on religious identity? just like israel?

In history it never was easy for weak nations and minorities to get freedom, if Jinnah needed to rule only, he was offered to be the ruler of joint India, but he chose what was best in his nation's interest. He was a patient of T.B. and was going to die, he knew this, so what he did was not for a state to rule but for his nation.

a dying person is rarely in a rational state of mind...

That's a bit true. In fact Islam means, justice and equality, when justice and equality was not given to Bengalis, they left us. Simple.

then why were almost all religious minorities expelled to india, while most indian muslims stayed in india?

that racist and highly ignorant

yea i know, but i'm in a trolling mood

Hindi and Urdu are nothing alike. Hindi is a Hindu language while Urdu is a language with Persian and Turkish roots. They are not the same at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urdu#Urdu_and_Hindi

wiki:

Because of their identical grammar and nearly identical core vocabularies, most linguists do not distinguish between Urdu and Hindi as separate languages — at least not in reference to the informal spoken registers. For them, ordinary informal Urdu and Hindi can be seen as variants of the same language (Hindustani) with the difference being that Urdu is supplemented with a Perso-Arabic vocabulary and Hindi a Sanskritic vocabulary. Additionally, there is the convention of Urdu being written in Persio-Arabic script, and Hindi in Devanagari. The standard, "proper" grammars of both languages are based on Khariboli grammar — the dialect of the Delhi region. So, with respect to grammar, the languages are mutually intelligible when spoken, and can be thought of as two written variants of the same language

seems more like different dialects rather then different languages. because a language is influenced by turkic or iranian languages dosen't change the roots of that language

As far as invading Pakistan is concerned, all big Indian cities would be turned into ash, the moment India would invade us. Any one is free to feel the pain in his ass because of our existence and our nukes, we exist and would exist for ever insha Allah.

As for invasion, they can certainly try. They will die in droves before they set one foot on Pakistani soil.

oy, i was only joking about india invading pakistan...

[Babur]

Hindi and Urdu are nothing alike. Hindi is a Hindu language while Urdu is a language with Persian and Turkish roots. They are not the same at all.

Modern Hindi and Urdu are both descended from the khariboli dialect of Hindi.Urdu developed under the patronage of the rulers of Delhi and Lucknow It has inherited the structure of Hindi and is quite unlike Farsi in this regard hence why Urdu is not classified as an Iranian language but rather an Indo-Aryan one.Urdu and the khariboli dialect of Hindi can trace their origins to Hindavi which was what Amir Khusro Dehlavi wrote some of his poetry in.As someone who has grown up exposed to Iranian culture and Farsi via my best friend (I have celebrated Nowruz and done the Sizdah behdar and hope to do Chaharshanbe Suri at one point), I feel that although there is a lot of common vocab in the khariboli dialect of Hindi and Urdu, the structure of both languages is different to Farsi in terms of word placement etc.Whatever common vocab which Urdu and Turkish (or Hindi and Turkish for that matter) might share is via Arabic or Persian, which I noticed during my Istanbul trip a few weeks ago through words such as Vatan,Cumhuriyet or Padişah etc.Urdu's main influences in terms of vocab come from Arabic and Farsi, but despite the influence of vocab from these languages one cannot call Urdu a Semitic or Iranian language.

We really need Babur in this thread as he's knowledgeable in this area.

I am here

well the divisions between Hindus and Muslims were encouraged by the British.I guess the demands of Pakistan were also rooted in a nostalgia for the days when Muslim ruled North India.

[Poet]

i'm not saying that, of course they were pissed - muslims (monotheists) never liked polytheists (see koran). as well as centuries of sectarian violence

It was not about liking or disliking, Hindu majority which even in presence of British rulers started "shudhdhi" movement of forcing Muslims to come back in Hinduism, what they could not do if they were totally in power? That was the fear and fear based on facts and their real behavior which caused demand of Pakistan.

personal ambition? i don't know much about him, but if they were being mistreated for centuries, why did he join the indian national congress?

again wrong, one person who gives much value to personal ambition, would like to be ruler of big, united India, instead of small Pakistan. He was a saint, not a man. When some Muslims chanted, "Jinnah, the king of Pakistan", he corrected them instantly, and said that he is not a monarch and monarchy is unIslamic, he is just a servant and leader of his nation, and you say "personal ambitions", two extremely ignorant posts in one thread. Go read history first.

so, a modern state can be based solely on religious identity? just like israel?

Israel was founded on stolen land and with extreme violence, Pakistan is a result of a peaceful political movement, learn to differ.

a dying person is rarely in a rational state of mind...

Man! (I am helpless ) he was not on death bed, but just was aware of the fact that he was going to die in some years.

then why were almost all religious minorities expelled to india, while most indian muslims stayed in india?

What an idiotic and ignorant post, read history again, more than 2/3rd of Indian Muslims left India and made Pakistan.

well the divisions between Hindus and Muslims were encouraged by the British.I guess the demands of Pakistan were also rooted in a nostalgia for the days when Muslim ruled North India.

Extreme of hypocrisy. Demands of Pakistan are rooted in retarded and narrow-minded behavior of Hindu majority, what they still have with poor untouchable Hindus and other minorities of India, or why Orissa and Gujrat massacre (bloodiest two of many in short history of modern India) occurred? Why Indian Court gave ruling against Babri Masjid, even in presence of Archeological reports denying presence of Ram mandar in any era of History, and that mosque (main building) has been given to Hindus. This kind of typical Hindu behavior made Pakistan inevitable.

[Ciabhán]

It was not about liking or disliking, Hindu majority which even in presence of British rulers started "shudhdhi" movement of forcing Muslims to come back in Hinduism, what they could not do if they were totally in power? That was the fear and fear based on facts and their real behavior which caused demand of Pakistan.

This is different from Muslims who think anyone who isn't Muslim damn well better be or else, how?

What an idiotic and ignorant post, read history again, more than 2/3rd of Indian Muslims left India and made Pakistan.

Followed shortly thereafter by nearly 2/3 of Pakistani Muslims leaving Pakistan and forming Bangladesh...

[Tiberios]

Israel was founded on stolen land and with extreme violence, Pakistan is a result of a peaceful political movement, learn to differ.

Lol. Yet within a year it was involved in a war with India. Doesn't sound very peacefull to me.

Extreme of hypocrisy. Demands of Pakistan are rooted in retarded and narrow-minded behavior of Hindu majority, what they still have with poor untouchable Hindus and other minorities of India, or why Orissa and Gujrat massacre (bloodiest two of many in short history of modern India) occurred? Why Indian Court gave ruling against Babri Masjid, even in presence of Archeological reports denying presence of Ram mandar in any era of History, and that mosque (main building) has been given to Hindus. This kind of typical Hindu behavior made Pakistan inevitable.

Yes we get it. . It's always the Hindu's. The Muslims in India at the time was not blame. The victomhood complex again. This is getting old.

Poet, from what I've read about Indian and Pakistani independence I know that both Hindu's and Muslims acted equally retarded and both sides conducted their fair share of atrocities. Certain elements of the Indian muslims were also to blame for that mess. The only victims of this war was all the innocents that got caught in the middle.

[Babur]

Extreme of hypocrisy. Demands of Pakistan are rooted in retarded and narrow-minded behavior of Hindu majority, what they still have with poor untouchable Hindus and other minorities of India, or why Orissa and Gujrat massacre (bloodiest two of many in short history of modern India) occurred? Why Indian Court gave ruling against Babri Masjid, even in presence of Archeological reports denying presence of Ram mandar in any era of History, and that mosque (main building) has been given to Hindus. This kind of typical Hindu behavior made Pakistan inevitable.

so only evil Hindus are to blame for this?.Jinnah's political career was threatened by the rise of Gandhi.Hinduism may have its faults but the demand of Pakistan were partly rooted in Jinnah's own political goals in the 1940s.It wasn't inevitable since there were proposals for a federation of Hindu and Muslim areas.

[Central Asian Qaghan]

so only evil Hindus are to blame for this?.Jinnah's political career was threatened by the rise of Gandhi.Hinduism may have its faults but the demand of Pakistan were partly rooted in Jinnah's own political goals in the 1940s.It wasn't inevitable since there were proposals for a federation of Hindu and Muslim areas.

It entirely was. Maybe you like to have a Hindu overlord, but many, many Muslims do not. THe reason for Pakistan's creation is simple, self evident and frankly correct on all count. You just want to see Pakistan and Muslims be under the Hindu boot because thats the way you are.

Pakistan was created as a haven for Muslims. Unfortunately, it was we who messed it up, but we can survive and indeed we shall. We do not need India and her Hindu boot to survive. You maybe enjoying the fruits of being a second class citizen under the Hindu's with a bone thrown now and then in the form of a token seat or being president, but the people in Pakistan didn't want to and will never want to.

You insult my grandfather and those of us who believed in Pakistan and spit on their graves.

[Poet]

so only evil Hindus are to blame for this?.Jinnah's political career was threatened by the rise of Gandhi.Hinduism may have its faults but the demand of Pakistan were partly rooted in Jinnah's own political goals in the 1940s.It wasn't inevitable since there were proposals for a federation of Hindu and Muslim areas.

Any source for this disgusting allegation? That Jinnah did this political goals or political career. In fact a hypocrite like Gandhi was never a match for a Himalaya of truthful politics like Jinnah. Jinnah is less known to world because of incompetency of his nation in regards of propaganda, Hindus are good at propaganda so Gandhi is painted like a saint.

Jinnah has no personal political agenda, such people who have such personal agendas do get personal benefits too, and Jinnah was the person who gave his valuable property earned by handwork, to his newly born and weak country. There is no match between both.

It is evident from history that even in British rule Hindu majority dared to start movements like "shudhdhi", (forceful conversion to Hinduism), this one movement was alone enough to justify the demand of Pakistan, but there were some other factors too, for example Muslims were kept poor and deprived of education by proper planning, (as now Indian Muslims are kept poor, uneducated and unemployed), so for our own economy we needed Pakistan, we have it.

[Copperknickers II]

Hindi and Urdu are nothing alike. Hindi is a Hindu language while Urdu is a language with Persian and Turkish roots. They are not the same at all.

Urdu is effectively Hindi spoken by Perso-Arabs. There is more grammatical difference in Bengali than Urdu when both are compared with the closest Hindi dialect to Urdu.

seeing as how pakistan is historically a part of india

I'm sorry? India has only existed for 60 years or so, and Pakistan has never been part of it. They have been united under the British and Mughal empires, but that hardly makes them part of the same country. The Muslim and Hindu cultures are completely different.