^ none whatsoever... hatred towards india is taught from an early age in pakistan.
And there is nothing wrong with that.
The children should have pride in being Pakistani and muslim from an early age. The children should also me made aware of the fact that india has always been our enemy
And there is nothing wrong with that.
The children should have pride in being Pakistani and muslim from an early age. The children should also me made aware of the fact that india has always been our enemy
"Believer",
Then why do u show "holier than thou" attitude whenever you speak of "Unbelievers" (majority indians) hating or loving pakistanis?
Going 5000 years back to prove Pakistan was not part of India is ridiculous. As far we know that before 1947, Pakistan was integral part of India.
This is close but not quite accurate. But to say that Pakistan was an integral part of India is misleading. Pakistan was an integral part of an administrative unit that INCLUDED India, but which was an artifical creation of the Mughals and the British.
Under the Mughal Empire, part of the land that's now Pakistan was integrated with the land that's now India and the land that's now Bangladesh (the NWFP and Balochistan were historically Persian, not Indian).
In fact, under the British Empire that followed, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Burma, and Sri Lanka were administered together, each an integral part of a greater whole, British India.
The identity that Pakistanis held 100 years ago was, after all, an Indian identity (the very name of the party behind the Pakistan movement was the All-India Muslim League).
I feel it is stupid to argue that our country is historically different from India. Two nation theory is that the Muslims of India are different to the Hindus of India; the difference is the people and not the land.
Christopher Colombus did not reach the American mainland until his third voyage in 1498. So are you saying that America or that land did not exist before then? Pakistan or the piece of land that now constitutes Pakistan (call it A, B, C or Pakistan, but it's the same land) has existed ever since the creation of earth. 5000 year's history is what we know about. If anything we know very little about our history.
Yes, but this discussion is like one side arguing that arguing that Canada separated from the USA and the other trying to make a case that Canada was never part of the USA
Christopher Colombus did not reach the American mainland until his third voyage in 1498. So are you saying that America or that land did not exist before then? Pakistan or the piece of land that now constitutes Pakistan (call it A, B, C or Pakistan, but it's the same land) has existed ever since the creation of earth. 5000 year's history is what we know about. If anything we know very little about our history.
You are mixing up geography and history.
History of a land mass is different from that of a country. Land mass changes over millions of years, countries change in hundreds or less years!
If you are saying that Pakistan is simply renaming of a particular piece of real estate and nothing more it would be wrong since the Pakistan of 1947 is not Pakistan on 1972 even by real estate criteria.
To be a country there has to be some sort of governing structure. That did not exist before 1947. Hence my view that 'history' cannot be before that. Now if you think origins, anthropology etc, that is different.
Sometimes I think it would have been better if partition would never have been accepted by Nehru.
There should have been a civil war, if already a million died, so what if another 5 million were killed - it would have settled things once and for all, and stopped this constant fighting & bitterness between us.
The American civil war was bloody - but atleast they are strong & united today.
The partition or a civil war in the sub-continent without a partition is simply not comparable to the American civil war.
In the American civil war, the majority on both sides were white anglo-saxon and that is why they were able to reconcile their differences after the civil war.
In the sub-continent, the muslim-hindu divide is big and can never be reconciled. A bloody civil war instead of partition in 1947 could have possibly led to the sub-continent being further partitioned into a doxen different countries
Wrong. South was crushed by North. South wanted slavery and white supremacy, where as North was against slavery. Pockets of white supremacy group still alive in US and Canada. Destroying of Waco Texas cult resulted in bombing of Oklahoma building where more than 150 people/children died. White supremacy has never reconciled with more liberal groups.
Please read India Wins Freedom written by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, how he had opposed this division. What he predicted more than six decades became reality.
The partition or a civil war in the sub-continent without a partition is simply not comparable to the American civil war.
In the American civil war, the majority on both sides were white anglo-saxon and that is why they were able to reconcile their differences after the civil war.
In the sub-continent, the muslim-hindu divide is big and can never be reconciled. A bloody civil war instead of partition in 1947 could have possibly led to the sub-continent being further partitioned into a doxen different countries
True! My famliy lost lot of its relatives in the carnage that followed- trains coming from Eastern part of Punjab were always full of dead-bodies where as muslims from western Punjab were trying to secure safe passage for Hindus and Sikhs by keeping them shelter and saving them from people's anger. Most of victims of 1947 rioting, looting and murder/rape were muslims of the sub-continent. It is sad since the whole rioting was started by Sikhs and Hindus. Britishers had promised muslim league entire Punjab and Kashmir but as Quaid put it,"Moth-eaten truncated" Pakistan was offered to Muslim League. Cities like Gurdaspur and Amritsar had muslim majorities and yet they fell to Hindustan.
^^you didn't count as to who were killed more. Moreover, it is hard to believe that majority community in those areas got killed more than the minority.
^^ sirjee, Ask any Western Punjabi and he'll tell you horrors of Pakistan. In my village alone, my grandfather helped save lives on 1000s of sikhs and Hindus by helping them convert to Islam. There were hopes back then that entire Punjab, Kashmir and Hyderabad would be given to Pakistan and the Hindu/Sikh population would be re-settled somewhere else or converted to Islam- but that didn't happen :(
^^ sirjee, Ask any Western Punjabi and he'll tell you horrors of Pakistan. In my village alone, my grandfather helped save lives on 1000s of sikhs and Hindus by helping them convert to Islam. There were hopes back then that entire Punjab, Kashmir and Hyderabad would be given to Pakistan and the Hindu/Sikh population would be re-settled somewhere else or converted to Islam- but that didn't happen :(
^^ sirjee, Ask any Western Punjabi and he'll tell you horrors of Pakistan. In my village alone, my grandfather helped save lives on 1000s of sikhs and Hindus by helping them convert to Islam. There were hopes back then that entire Punjab, Kashmir and Hyderabad would be given to Pakistan and the Hindu/Sikh population would be re-settled somewhere else or converted to Islam- but that didn't happen :(
In the American civil war, the majority on both sides were white anglo-saxon and that is why they were able to reconcile their differences after the civil war.
In the sub-continent, the muslim-hindu divide is big and can never be reconciled.
Wrong on boath counts.
The American civil war did not end by reconciliation - the South (Confederacy) lost to the Union.
Also you forget India has one of the top 3 or top 2 muslim populations in the world, so your statement about divide is bakwas.
