superior stock !, i do not see a developing Pakistan, when you are saying that you are saying that to your own people a large part of them are form this region south asia.
sir, people who came to spread the religion have only perished in the end, what has happened to the great British Christian empire, south asia saw the invasion of two religions and India is formed willing only to be accommodating, the future is only for countries which are secular moderate and accommodating all divisions of human beings, as i said this world is big enough for all religion, only a country with a great mix of people will lead one great example in America, you may say America is a Christian country but it is mix of Europeans, Africans, South Asians, Indians, Chinese, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus etc., you may say India is a Hindu country but the truth is that India is a Union off 29 states each state speaking its own language with thousands of religions, casts, and subdivisions.
ho ! come on, in 1971 estimated 2 lack Bengali speaking east Pakistani womens where raped by west Pakistan Army, Baluch women rebels are kept in prison without any cloths and are being raped regularly in Pakistan.
when you put lacks of men as security because of the terrorist of Pakistan, there are going to be few men who are obviously not mahatmas who are involved in crime against women and those men are and will be convicted, thousand of girls get raped all around India by men.
The Britsh were never a Christian empire. The Britsh east India company was bussines holding. It was about profit and nothing more. Later it was taken over directly by the Britsh govt, under Queen victoria. Never was it a relgious based empire.
And secularism and modernism are both great, But they are two seperate animals. Secualrism doesnt always imply modernism, or vice versa.
And what exactly is modernism? The very definition is open to debate. So simply sayng your are secualr and "modern" is meaningless unless youhave a common understanding on what it actually means to be modern...
For example, for many Indians, being modern means wearing a thong on Indian beaches, while the same term has completely different meaning to some farmer in UP.
And again, having a society thats multiethnic is sounds nice, but then the argument can also be made that a world divided along nations based on ethnicity may actually prove benefcial. Take the example of the Checkoslovakia. The fact that India has had vioelnt ethnic tensions in annumber states points to this reality. While plurality makes for great sound bites, it doesnt change the fact that Countless thousands lost their lives in Khlaistan, Kashmir, and all of the other places in India where people are struggling to be free of India.
Look at the plight of Ethnic kurds. Perhaps you should preach your pluralism to them. Or maybe the Zionist Jews who left their multiethnic homes across the world to seek refuge among their own..
As for Bangladesh. First of, historyis written by the vistors. In this case, the Benglais and Indians. But assuming the highly exagerated accounts are accurate, my point would be as follows.
Bangldesh crimes were not commited in the name of PAKSITANIS. Paksitanis never knew what was happening there. The govt was not elected and hence the actions of the Pak govt were not supported by her people. Regardless, the people of Paksitan do not hold a grudge and are genuinly grieved by the suffering of the people in the in East of the country.
In Kashmir, the crimes of your govt are plain for ALL to see.
The govt is elected by Indians and has the support of Indians. Hence you are culpible for the crimes of your nation.
Indians, being completely informed of their nations crimes, choose to turn a blind to hese crimes.
Thats what makes us different from Indians.