For Indians and Pakistanis(and brits too if you want to comment)
Scroll to see replies
Original post by G550NDH
You forgot about Sikhs as well mate
Original post by G550NDH
You forgot about Sikhs as well mate
I'm sorry. Yes sikhs as well.
This isn't relevant to this discussion, but the Sikhs wanted a separate state around the early 80's I think. I don't know much about that, do you know why that came about?
Thank god you guys didn't get your own country though, sikhs are awesome people. Besides, who would we laugh at then? :P ..Jokes..
Just image the cricket team if they were still one country........... I didn't read the entire post, it was too long, so I'm not going to give proper answer to the question.
Original post by King-Panther
Just image the cricket team if they were still one country........... I didn't read the entire post, it was too long, so I'm not going to give proper answer to the question.
Haha yeah, on a lighter note, imagine Kapil Dev and Imran Khan in one team. Or Sachin and Inzamam, and now Zaheer Khan and Umar Gul opening the bowling. Lol
Original post by kalaghoda
I'm sorry. Yes sikhs as well.
This isn't relevant to this discussion, but the Sikhs wanted a separate state around the early 80's I think. I don't know much about that, do you know why that came about?
Thank god you guys didn't get your own country though, sikhs are awesome people. Besides, who would we laugh at then? :P ..Jokes..
This isn't relevant to this discussion, but the Sikhs wanted a separate state around the early 80's I think. I don't know much about that, do you know why that came about?
Thank god you guys didn't get your own country though, sikhs are awesome people. Besides, who would we laugh at then? :P ..Jokes..
Well the thing is, Punjab was essentially the Sikhs country wasn't it? You can even hear that in the language, descended from the Tsausareni prakit (I'm a historical linguist)
From a historical point of view partition was pretty ****ty, especially considering the central importance of the Punjab to the formation of Indian culture re language and religion.
I can't say I know much, or am overly interested in really modern history though. Who do people tend to blame for partition in India/Pakistan? This should prove an interesting discussion.
Original post by King-Panther
Just image the cricket team if they were still one country........... I didn't read the entire post, it was too long, so I'm not going to give proper answer to the question.
And also, **** players like Ajit Agarkar and Shoaib Malik wouldn't get into the team. Good times.
Original post by The Lyceum
Well the thing is, Punjab was essentially the Sikhs country wasn't it? You can even hear that in the language, descended from the Tsausareni prakit (I'm a historical linguist)
From a historical point of view partition was pretty ****ty, especially considering the central importance of the Punjab to the formation of Indian culture re language and religion.
I can't say I know much, or am overly interested in really modern history though. Who do people tend to blame for partition in India/Pakistan? This should prove an interesting discussion.
From a historical point of view partition was pretty ****ty, especially considering the central importance of the Punjab to the formation of Indian culture re language and religion.
I can't say I know much, or am overly interested in really modern history though. Who do people tend to blame for partition in India/Pakistan? This should prove an interesting discussion.
The three main people blamed are Jawaharlal Nehru, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Lord Mountbatten, I think.
Even now, if you talk to the Indian/Pakistani born Brits, they don't care if their friends are Muslim or Hindu. We've grown up in England around different faiths and views of different people.
In India, before the partition, I believed that this was the same case. Both Muslims and Hindus got on along well with eachother. Sai Baba of Shirdi preached peace between Muslims and Hindus, he was neither Hindu or Muslim, but encouraged everyone to follow their religion with devotion.
Most likely that our grandparents who were born after the partition still have hatred for one another, but why did it start? Did they orgininally hate them? No, of course not. The partition split the Muslims and Hindu's into two different countries, which I believe was the great fault of Jinnah. Why would you segregate two different cultures and religions when the majority originally got along with eachother? It doesn't make sense.
If you segregate the two cultures into different countries, it will obviously mean that they are not as open or as understand as they would have been prior to the partition. In Pakistan, Muslims will have only heard about Islam and in India, Hindus would of mainly heard about Hinduism, Sikhism and maybe some parts of Islam (Indian cricket team has a few Muslims.)
Call it patriotic or call it pride, it was a stupid idea, which should have never occured. When Gandhi was fasting to stop the violence between the two, I believe it was a story of Gandhi giving a Muslim boy (his father had been killed) to a Hindu, telling him to teach him everything about Islam and to make sure he grows up to be a faithful Muslim. I accept all religions and faiths, as should everyone else in society, but this hatred between Indians and Pakistani's (in Pakistan/India border) will not end until the conflicts in Kashmir are addressed and each Indian person will be able to call their fellow Pakistani's a friend (and vice versa).
In India, before the partition, I believed that this was the same case. Both Muslims and Hindus got on along well with eachother. Sai Baba of Shirdi preached peace between Muslims and Hindus, he was neither Hindu or Muslim, but encouraged everyone to follow their religion with devotion.
Most likely that our grandparents who were born after the partition still have hatred for one another, but why did it start? Did they orgininally hate them? No, of course not. The partition split the Muslims and Hindu's into two different countries, which I believe was the great fault of Jinnah. Why would you segregate two different cultures and religions when the majority originally got along with eachother? It doesn't make sense.
If you segregate the two cultures into different countries, it will obviously mean that they are not as open or as understand as they would have been prior to the partition. In Pakistan, Muslims will have only heard about Islam and in India, Hindus would of mainly heard about Hinduism, Sikhism and maybe some parts of Islam (Indian cricket team has a few Muslims.)
Call it patriotic or call it pride, it was a stupid idea, which should have never occured. When Gandhi was fasting to stop the violence between the two, I believe it was a story of Gandhi giving a Muslim boy (his father had been killed) to a Hindu, telling him to teach him everything about Islam and to make sure he grows up to be a faithful Muslim. I accept all religions and faiths, as should everyone else in society, but this hatred between Indians and Pakistani's (in Pakistan/India border) will not end until the conflicts in Kashmir are addressed and each Indian person will be able to call their fellow Pakistani's a friend (and vice versa).
The CRICKET TEAM would be even more AMAZING!
We would have tendulkar and shoeb akhtar and Dhoi we would have a bad ass team!
We would have tendulkar and shoeb akhtar and Dhoi we would have a bad ass team!
Original post by Ventura7
If it wasnt for the british your countries would still be a mess, still run by tribal leaders, no real democratic government and no real cities.
True, but they did have a role to play in the partition as well. I'm pretty fair as far as this is concerned. The British certainly did help the Indians/Pakistanis a lot HOWEVER, they did exploit us mercilessly, looted us and did everything for their own selfish gain.
This also warrants a different thread. This thread is about whether a united India would have been better. Cheers
Original post by Hemzo
Even now, if you talk to the Indian/Pakistani born Brits, they don't care if their friends are Muslim or Hindu. We've grown up in England around different faiths and views of different people.
In India, before the partition, I believed that this was the same case. Both Muslims and Hindus got on along well with eachother. Sai Baba of Shirdi preached peace between Muslims and Hindus, he was neither Hindu or Muslim, but encouraged everyone to follow their religion with devotion.
Most likely that our grandparents who were born after the partition still have hatred for one another, but why did it start? Did they orgininally hate them? No, of course not. The partition split the Muslims and Hindu's into two different countries, which I believe was the great fault of Jinnah. Why would you segregate two different cultures and religions when the majority originally got along with eachother? It doesn't make sense.
If you segregate the two cultures into different countries, it will obviously mean that they are not as open or as understand as they would have been prior to the partition. In Pakistan, Muslims will have only heard about Islam and in India, Hindus would of mainly heard about Hinduism, Sikhism and maybe some parts of Islam (Indian cricket team has a few Muslims.)
Call it patriotic or call it pride, it was a stupid idea, which should have never occured. When Gandhi was fasting to stop the violence between the two, I believe it was a story of Gandhi giving a Muslim boy (his father had been killed) to a Hindu, telling him to teach him everything about Islam and to make sure he grows up to be a faithful Muslim. I accept all religions and faiths, as should everyone else in society, but this hatred between Indians and Pakistani's (in Pakistan/India border) will not end until the conflicts in Kashmir are addressed and each Indian person will be able to call their fellow Pakistani's a friend (and vice versa).
In India, before the partition, I believed that this was the same case. Both Muslims and Hindus got on along well with eachother. Sai Baba of Shirdi preached peace between Muslims and Hindus, he was neither Hindu or Muslim, but encouraged everyone to follow their religion with devotion.
Most likely that our grandparents who were born after the partition still have hatred for one another, but why did it start? Did they orgininally hate them? No, of course not. The partition split the Muslims and Hindu's into two different countries, which I believe was the great fault of Jinnah. Why would you segregate two different cultures and religions when the majority originally got along with eachother? It doesn't make sense.
If you segregate the two cultures into different countries, it will obviously mean that they are not as open or as understand as they would have been prior to the partition. In Pakistan, Muslims will have only heard about Islam and in India, Hindus would of mainly heard about Hinduism, Sikhism and maybe some parts of Islam (Indian cricket team has a few Muslims.)
Call it patriotic or call it pride, it was a stupid idea, which should have never occured. When Gandhi was fasting to stop the violence between the two, I believe it was a story of Gandhi giving a Muslim boy (his father had been killed) to a Hindu, telling him to teach him everything about Islam and to make sure he grows up to be a faithful Muslim. I accept all religions and faiths, as should everyone else in society, but this hatred between Indians and Pakistani's (in Pakistan/India border) will not end until the conflicts in Kashmir are addressed and each Indian person will be able to call their fellow Pakistani's a friend (and vice versa).
As someone has said before on this thread, it was partly a power and ego issue too. Both Nehru and Jinnah craved power and wanted to rule a free India. Jinnah probably realized that Nehru would have the backing of the Hindu majority and thus demanded a new state. Maybe.
How long before they unite? I think it will be long and hard many many years...
The British were to blame for a lot of the problems coming out of colonial rule and the partition.
However, without the British, there would never have been such a thing as 'India'. The subcontinent was a mishmash of different disunited and warring kingdoms, empires and ethnic groups, and by binding it together with a strong civil service and railway (which is still vital to modern India), it laid the ground for the creation of an Indian national identity.
However, without the British, there would never have been such a thing as 'India'. The subcontinent was a mishmash of different disunited and warring kingdoms, empires and ethnic groups, and by binding it together with a strong civil service and railway (which is still vital to modern India), it laid the ground for the creation of an Indian national identity.
Original post by blueray
How long before they unite? I think it will be long and hard many many years...
Never. Atleast not in our lifetime.
Original post by EssexDan86
The British were to blame for a lot of the problems coming out of colonial rule and the partition.
However, without the British, there would never have been such a thing as 'India'. The subcontinent was a mishmash of different disunited and warring kingdoms, empires and ethnic groups, and by binding it together with a strong civil service and railway (which is still vital to modern India), it laid the ground for the creation of an Indian national identity.
However, without the British, there would never have been such a thing as 'India'. The subcontinent was a mishmash of different disunited and warring kingdoms, empires and ethnic groups, and by binding it together with a strong civil service and railway (which is still vital to modern India), it laid the ground for the creation of an Indian national identity.
That is true Dan. The British also had a role to play in abolishing some horrible social customs.
However, we want OUR Kohinoor Diamond(still in the Tower of London) back. On second thoughts, it's better if you keep it. There'd be yet another fight between India and Pakistan to determine who gets it.
Original post by kalaghoda
Don't you think India should never have been partitioned into India and Pakistan? Hindus and Muslims were living together in peace for centuries before the British adopted the 'Divide and Rule' policy and influenced certain Muslim leaders to push for Pakistan.
Jinnah was the most secular person and didn't even practice Islam. I don't know how he ever got the idea of creating a separate state for Pakistan. I'm reading a book 'The true story of India's Partition'. The author has stated that Jinnah, on his deathbed, remarked, "I have got what I wanted, but I have committed the greatest blunder of my life".
I just feel that it would have been so much better and life would be so much easier today if India had never been partitioned.
Jinnah was the most secular person and didn't even practice Islam. I don't know how he ever got the idea of creating a separate state for Pakistan. I'm reading a book 'The true story of India's Partition'. The author has stated that Jinnah, on his deathbed, remarked, "I have got what I wanted, but I have committed the greatest blunder of my life".
I just feel that it would have been so much better and life would be so much easier today if India had never been partitioned.
I'd say it should not have been done. But only if Britian did not launch the divide and rule policy. By 1947 it was starting to flare into violence. At this point partition was the only way to stop an even bigger bloodbath
I think you guys are paying too much attention to the 'great man' school of thinking on this one.
The people at the top had very little impact apart from drawing up maps and seperating areas. what drove the conflict was an inflated sense of nationalism, religion, and economic factors.
I highly doubt even if partition had gone well there wouldnt still have been deepseated nationalist feeling on behalf of the pakistanis, especially if they were being ruled by a secular state.
The Brits failed miserably to prevent conflict. but to continue blaming them for the problems of partitioning detatches from the agency that the Indian and Pakistani people had at the time, it was their choices to undertake certain actions which led to war.
Events and individuals are over-rated, look at the clergy and economics to understand why conflicts occur
The people at the top had very little impact apart from drawing up maps and seperating areas. what drove the conflict was an inflated sense of nationalism, religion, and economic factors.
I highly doubt even if partition had gone well there wouldnt still have been deepseated nationalist feeling on behalf of the pakistanis, especially if they were being ruled by a secular state.
The Brits failed miserably to prevent conflict. but to continue blaming them for the problems of partitioning detatches from the agency that the Indian and Pakistani people had at the time, it was their choices to undertake certain actions which led to war.
Events and individuals are over-rated, look at the clergy and economics to understand why conflicts occur
Original post by EssexDan86
The British were to blame for a lot of the problems coming out of colonial rule and the partition.
However, without the British, there would never have been such a thing as 'India'. The subcontinent was a mishmash of different disunited and warring kingdoms, empires and ethnic groups, and by binding it together with a strong civil service and railway (which is still vital to modern India), it laid the ground for the creation of an Indian national identity.
However, without the British, there would never have been such a thing as 'India'. The subcontinent was a mishmash of different disunited and warring kingdoms, empires and ethnic groups, and by binding it together with a strong civil service and railway (which is still vital to modern India), it laid the ground for the creation of an Indian national identity.
On the other hand I can imagine the country being put together on the basis of somelike Ashoka or Chandragupta or many of the other similar figures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka
Though I see your point, I thought I'd make a post mainly just to share an interesting figure with a bizarre textual history.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- do girls like Pakistanis over Indians?
- Drop ur ethnicity
- Do Japanese/ Korean girls like Indian/ Pakistan/ Bangladesh guys?
- I think I love her
- Food: Indian vs Turkish
- Pakistani vs Indian men
- why are asians (pakistanis) all about money
- I feel like people don't want to date me because of my race
- Indian men
- how to reconnect with my roots as a brown girl living in the UK
- Caucasus International University in Georgia
- Learning to love my culture
- Im 18 My lazy Asian parents forces me to do chores like a maid along with my studies
- Can anyone here speak an asian language?
- Student Accommodation AVAILABLE Birmingham!
- Is Zante busy in August?
- Crush on black girl at uni ? (Uofg)
- brown girls: have you ever been in a relationship with a white guy?
- westminister sixth form review
- Black girl and Pakistani guy
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
