India showing its obsession with Pakistan?

In a very simplistic nutshell, I have no idea where you live, but image that your local town is governed by the French. One day they decide that everyone with surnames A-M must live on one side of the town and everyone else must live on the other.

In the case of India and Pakistan it wasn't surnames, it was religion that was used as the dividing factor and it wasn't the French, it was us, the Brits. We decided that Muslims had to live in Pakistan and Sikhs in India. As a result of 10-12 million people being displaced by this move, there was extreme mob violence amongst some religious factions against those they felt had got a better deal. This was the start of a deep suspicion between the two sides which still remains to this day. It was absolutely horrendous and another example of how the British have screwed over what was otherwise a peaceful multi-faith society, Palestine and Israel being another example of a British botch job.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India

Reply 4

nulli tertius

Original post by ByEeek

In a very simplistic nutshell, I have no idea where you live, but image that your local town is governed by the French. One day they decide that everyone with surnames A-M must live on one side of the town and everyone else must live on the other.

In the case of India and Pakistan it wasn't surnames, it was religion that was used as the dividing factor and it wasn't the French, it was us, the Brits. We decided that Muslims had to live in Pakistan and Sikhs in India. As a result of 10-12 million people being displaced by this move, there was extreme mob violence amongst some religious factions against those they felt had got a better deal. This was the start of a deep suspicion between the two sides which still remains to this day. It was absolutely horrendous and another example of how the British have screwed over what was otherwise a peaceful multi-faith society, Palestine and Israel being another example of a British botch job.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India

The Muslim leaders decided they wanted a Muslim led state. That wasn't us. We did not compel anyone to move. Putative Indians and Pakistanis chose to move for the understandable reasons that they were being massacred. We weren't doing the massacring.

Our responsibility was in failing to manage the disengagement process to minimise bloodshed. India and Pakistan came into existence without knowing their borders, so by the time trouble happened we had no authority to deal with the trouble.

Reply 5

Hazard28

13

Original post by nulli tertius

The Muslim leaders decided they wanted a Muslim led state. That wasn't us. We did not compel anyone to move. Putative Indians and Pakistanis chose to move for the understandable reasons that they were being massacred. We weren't doing the massacring.

Our responsibility was in failing to manage the disengagement process to minimise bloodshed. India and Pakistan came into existence without knowing their borders, so by the time trouble happened we had no authority to deal with the trouble.

If you think the British weren't responsible for the partition of India then you are one seriously deluded pro-imperialist individual.

Reply 6

Original post by waqaspk3

I dont get the point like on the news or youtube videos why the Indians and Pakistanis always fighting?

If you want to understand why India still considers Pakistan a threat today, watch this documentary about the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks. Pakistan hosts Islamic fundamentalist terrorist training camps within its territory, and allows (and often directs) these terrorists to attack within India.

[video="youtube;lkfeUKUUz5M"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkfeUKUUz5M[/video]

The documentary is quite interesting (and creepy) because it has audio from when Indian intelligence was intercepting the phone calls between these terrorists while they were carrying out their attack, and their ISI (Pakistani intelligence) controllers who were directing their attack. Pakistan is a regional menace.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 7

nulli tertius

Original post by Hazard28

If you think the British weren't responsible for the partition of India then you are one seriously deluded pro-imperialist individual.

I beg your pardon. The British would have loved to have kept India together. Jinnah wouldn't accept it.

Reply 8

Trapz99

Original post by ByEeek

In a very simplistic nutshell, I have no idea where you live, but image that your local town is governed by the French. One day they decide that everyone with surnames A-M must live on one side of the town and everyone else must live on the other.

In the case of India and Pakistan it wasn't surnames, it was religion that was used as the dividing factor and it wasn't the French, it was us, the Brits. We decided that Muslims had to live in Pakistan and Sikhs in India. As a result of 10-12 million people being displaced by this move, there was extreme mob violence amongst some religious factions against those they felt had got a better deal. This was the start of a deep suspicion between the two sides which still remains to this day. It was absolutely horrendous and another example of how the British have screwed over what was otherwise a peaceful multi-faith society, Palestine and Israel being another example of a British botch job.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India

The British only really decided to create two separate states because there was a lot of demand for a Muslim country in South Asia for South Asian Muslims. Britain didn't decide that they should live in separate states against their will, there was a lot of popular support for a partition from south Asian Muslims at the time since there was no country in South Asia that was run as a Muslim country following Sharia law. It's understandable that they would want such a country and the British delivered. Perhaps the partition process itself could have been planned better in advance to avoid the scuffles that took place, and Britain should claim responsibility for the poor execution of the partition, but the actual partition is very much supported by the vast majority of Pakistanis today.

Reply 9

Trapz99

Original post by AlexanderHam

If you want to understand why India still considers Pakistan a threat today, watch this documentary about the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks. Pakistan hosts Islamic fundamentalist terrorist training camps within its territory, and allows (and often directs) these terrorists to attack within India.

[video="youtube;lkfeUKUUz5M"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkfeUKUUz5M[/video]

The documentary is quite interesting (and creepy) because it has audio from when Indian intelligence was intercepting the phone calls between these terrorists while they were carrying out their attack, and their ISI (Pakistani intelligence) controllers who were directing their attack. Pakistan is a regional menace.

You call Pakistan a regional menace but India itself is guilty of numerous war crimes against Pakistan and against Kashmiris. It's not a matter of it just being Pakistan's fault- India is also to blame. For example, India still continues to occupy Kashmir despite Kashmiris wanting to leave India and Indian police recently killed six civilians while they were organising an opinion poll on the issue (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/09/six-die-indian-police-open-fire-kashmir-poll-protesters-budgam-district). As well as this, India conducted strikes in Pakistani territory, passing the Line of Control, which have killed 200+ Pakistani civilians as well as 50+ Pakistani soldiers. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/India–Pakistan_military_confro ntation_(2016–present) )

Both sides are very much to blame, not just Pakistan.

Reply 10

offsetWHOOP

Original post by AlexanderHam

If you want to understand why India still considers Pakistan a threat today, watch this documentary about the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks. Pakistan hosts Islamic fundamentalist terrorist training camps within its territory, and allows (and often directs) these terrorists to attack within India.

[video="youtube;lkfeUKUUz5M"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkfeUKUUz5M[/video]

The documentary is quite interesting (and creepy) because it has audio from when Indian intelligence was intercepting the phone calls between these terrorists while they were carrying out their attack, and their ISI (Pakistani intelligence) controllers who were directing their attack. Pakistan is a regional menace.

This is incredibly one-sided. India aren't exactly angels as you seem to portray.

Reply 11

Harold98

12

Original post by AlexanderHam

If you want to understand why India still considers Pakistan a threat today, watch this documentary about the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks. Pakistan hosts Islamic fundamentalist terrorist training camps within its territory, and allows (and often directs) these terrorists to attack within India.

[video="youtube;lkfeUKUUz5M"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkfeUKUUz5M[/video]

The documentary is quite interesting (and creepy) because it has audio from when Indian intelligence was intercepting the phone calls between these terrorists while they were carrying out their attack, and their ISI (Pakistani intelligence) controllers who were directing their attack. Pakistan is a regional menace.

Take it from a half-Brit half-Indian, India has been almost as much of a regional menace as Pakistan, especially considering what the Indian army did in Sri Lanka during the 80s and its occupation of Kashmir.

Reply 12

NickAlex12

14

Both countries are run by awful corrupt governments who fail to improve the standards of living for their citizens and instead focus on stirring up tensions against Indians and Pakistanis, Muslims and Hindus, urban dwellers and villagers to stop everyone realising how much their governments are screwing them over. Most Indians and Pakistanis aren't born hating each other, they hate each other because their governments strongly encourage it

Reply 13

Haniftheking

It's funny cause at the end of the day they both have so much in common- for example, both are third world despite that smell like armpits, both have high rates of open defecation, water borne diseases, infant mortality, child marriage, forced marriage, weird religious practices, slum dwellers, rape, overcrowding, and pretty much everything that's bad

Perhaps they should stop fighting about who is a better country and whose fault everything is and start improving the lives of their citizens

Reply 14

Original post by offsetWHOOP

This is incredibly one-sided.

Err, how? Are you saying the programme is not fair to the terrorists?

India aren't exactly angels as you seem to portray.

I don't say the Indians are angels. I do say that they are nowhere near being the sort of rogue state Pakistan is.

Does India have Hindu terrorist training camps on its soil, and protect those camps and use them to direct Hindu attacks inside Pakistan? No.

The Pakistani ISI is a regional menace. It has supported the Afghan Taliban. Elements of the Pakistani military sheltered Osama bin Laden. There have been numerous attacks inside India by terrorists from Lashkar-e-Taiba, who are ultimately controlled by ISI

Reply 15

offsetWHOOP

Original post by AlexanderHam

Err, how? Are you saying the programme is not fair to the terrorists?

I don't say the Indians are angels. I do say that they are nowhere near being the sort of rogue state Pakistan is.

Does India have Hindu terrorist training camps on its soil, and protect those camps and use them to direct Hindu attacks inside Pakistan? No.

The Pakistani ISI is a regional menace. It has supported the Afghan Taliban. Elements of the Pakistani military sheltered Osama bin Laden. There have been numerous attacks inside India by terrorists from Lashkar-e-Taiba, who are ultimately controlled by ISI

Why does the fact that Pakistan may be worse make a difference? Surely it makes sense to condemn both sides instead of siding with India by saying that since it's the lesser of two evils, they are justified in hating Pakistan?

Again, that's all great. But just because India doesn't have an equivalent opposite of whatever Pakistan has, doesn't make them good or better. That's incredibly lazy thinking. You've just ignored what India has done, as pointed out by Trapz99.

Reply 16

Original post by Harold98

Take it from a half-Brit half-Indian, India has been almost as much of a regional menace as Pakistan, especially considering what the Indian army did in Sri Lanka during the 80s

Right. Something that happened thirty years ago. India pulled out within a couple of years.

And India has done nothing that even comes close to the support within the Pakistani military/intelligence apparatus for the Afghan Taliban, the sheltering of Osama bin Laden, the support for Lashkar-e-Taiba and the accommodation of LeT training camps, ISI's support for Islamist attacks inside of India (including attacks on the Indian parliament itself).

So yes, there are huge differences between how India and Pakistan conduct themselves. India could be a trustworthy partner to the West, and increasingly it is drawing away from Russia and allying itself with the US. And the US is increasingly realise that Pakistan is a duplicitous and treacherous "ally" who stabbed us in the back for years while taking its money.

ISI and elements of the Pak military provided support to the Afghan Taliban. While the US was transferring billions to the Pakistani military, some of that money was going out the backdoor to support and train Afghan terrorists who would then go and kill American soldiers.

Pakistan's military is not to be trusted, and the scales are finally falling from the West's eyes on this

occupation of Kashmir.

This obsession with putative "occupations" is what gets Muslims in trouble so often. Leaving aside India's superior claim to Kashmir, what is the problem with a Kashmiri Muslim being a part of India? There are hundreds of millions of Muslims in India who get along with their neighbours and live in harmony and have perfectly normal lives.

Reply 17

Original post by offsetWHOOP

Why does the fact that Pakistan may be worse make a difference?

How does it not make a difference? Pakistan is far worse in its conduct. That is a fact. Given the relationship between the two countries, ultimately one has to come to a conclusion about which country we would like to ally with. My judgment is we are better off allying with India.

Again, that's all great. But just because India doesn't have an equivalent opposite of whatever Pakistan has, doesn't make them good or better.

You are using rather crude and imprecise language. This has nothing to do with "good". It has to do with which country is funding and supporting international terrorism, including terrorism that has resulted in the deaths of British and American soldiers, and which has not.

If you do not think there is a difference between a country that has supported groups killing British soldiers, and one that hasn't, then you are clearly beyond rational debate in this matter.

Reply 18

offsetWHOOP