‘Indian air force a third of China’s’

[RAGHAVHZ]

Now I don't understand what you are saying. Are you under the impression that India wants Pakistan back inside? That is not the case at all. May be there is a 1% or less crowd that may feel that way but I haven't come across ANYONE who wants that.

Now. many Indians, including me, are angry at Pakistan for attacks in Kashmir and Kargil etc. That is different from wanting to bring Pakistan back.

Of course borders change over time.

People in India (who have some knowledge of politics, defence etc ) may not be eager to bring back pakistan to their fold. But then again they are not averse to that idea either as far as i know.

Then again, there are many who severly oppose that as it would increase the influence of muslims in the sub-continent.

Irrespective of all this, historically, culturally, racially etc etc the entire subcontinent is very diverse. North india is different from south, North east india is different from rest of india. Even during british india, pakistan was/is different from rest of india / even bangladesh. Even within current day pakistan, there is lot of diversity. But amidst all this diversity, there are quiet a few things which would overlap as well, may be in terms of language, food or culture. Anyway, this is a very complex topic and might need a seperate thread.

[Med911]

Now I don't understand what you are saying. Are you under the impression that India wants Pakistan back inside? That is not the case at all. May be there is a 1% or less crowd that may feel that way but I haven't come across ANYONE who wants that.

Now. many Indians, including me, are angry at Pakistan for attacks in Kashmir and Kargil etc. That is different from wanting to bring Pakistan back.

Of course borders change over time.

No.. You werent following the debate with A1Fishcurry.

He claimed Pakistan is some kind of anomaly. That somehow Pakistans creation meant the division of India. Implying that Pakistan is territory that was lost by India.

My argument was that such notions of a "greater" India are false. There was no "India" for Pakistan to cede from. And that independant states within the Subcontinent were the norm. So Pakistan is not an anomaly by any stretch.

And someone who makes such claims as regards Pakistan, which inherently implies the belief that somehow Pakistan is or was "Indian," should also be as bitter in losing other regions that were also once considered "Indian" by their own definition.
So if your going to use the ancient Hindu Indian empires to justify your claim over Pakistan, then I would also wonder why you wouldnt be torn over losing Afghanistan?!?!

[Med911]

not necessarily. There is no indication that it was loose or tight. The emperors were interested in two things: acknlowdgement of superiority by the vassals and payment of tributes (money). And they got both.

In some cases adminsitrative convenience with two flavors - one the emperor appointed / crowned a close servant or friend as the king of the vassal state. In other cases the local leader/king was so crowned.

Whether majority of states accept or not, in those days there was were no trains cars and planes.Even small distances by today';s standards were very long journeys. In that scenario, control is only possible by presence. There was no choice. That is why ever civilized empire had to so organize - I gave you the exampel of Romans.

Originally agreed upon by both parties, the deal was nose dived on the part of Nehru. sure that could have been. Nehru and Jinnah did not get along and both made mistakes

I don't know what you mean by 'traditional form of governance in India'. DO you mean they should have taken us back to emperor and vassal states with kings? No thank you.

Patel did a yeoman job in pulling the states together; the constitution defined very clear center/state/concurrent lists (of authority & responsibilty).

By the way did you know that the archietct of Indian constitution was Babasaheb Ambedkar was a dalit?

The point I am trying to make is that there always was India, it was not a hodgepodge of states

As for the relation between the emperor and the states he ruled, however tenuously or otherwise, the bottom line is that there was degree of autonomy.
The finer details of this system I suppose are irellevant.
But as you yourself said, these states were given a degree of Autonomy.

So when I say the traditional form of rule in India, I mean this system of vassal states with a degree of autonomy which you have been talking about.

Now as for Pakistan. Many members in the Congress itself blame Nehru for this HUGE blunder. Infact, for all intents and purposes, one could even say that had it not been for Nehru, India would still be united as a hodgepodge of states that you mentioned. Lets acknowledge this fact.

Now if your argument is that a degree of Autnomy has been the traditional form of governance in India, by that I mean, the historical relation between the center and the states, then the Mission plan was very much in line with this form of governance. Infact, it was even better as it allowed an equitable relation between the center and the autonomous states, contrary to the relation between the emperor and the states.

Again, its you guys who mentioned this traditional relationship in India between the states and the emperor. The Emperor is not relevant. Whats relevant is the fact that traditionally, the form of governance in India has been characterized by a degree of autonomy.
This is what the Authors of Pakistan had agreed upon, and thats exactly what was denied to them.

Whats ironic is that for some odd reason, India has allowed a considerable amount of autonomy to her states since partition, yet still torpedoed the autonomy package that would have avoided the partition! Classic case of cutting of your nose to spite your face.

My point once again, the borders of India have been constantly changing.
Some claim Pakistan falls with these traditional borders, thus, its always been a part of the Indian that "always was."
So I have to ask, why dont Indian also feel the same of Afghanistan or even Nepal? Both these states were once within the borders of the India that "always was" and yet people like A1 Fishcurry dont seem to bothered by the fact these countries are independant!
So why is Pakistan, which was once within the traditional borders of India, considered some how a lost territory of the India that "always was," yet others states that were also part of this traditional India with its hodgepodge of states, are not accorded such high honors?

[Med911]

People in India (who have some knowledge of politics, defence etc ) may not be eager to bring back pakistan to their fold. But then again they are not averse to that idea either as far as i know.

Then again, there are many who severly oppose that as it would increase the influence of muslims in the sub-continent.

Irrespective of all this, historically, culturally, racially etc etc the entire subcontinent is very diverse. North india is different from south, North east india is different from rest of india. Even during british india, pakistan was/is different from rest of india / even bangladesh. Even within current day pakistan, there is lot of diversity. But amidst all this diversity, there are quiet a few things which would overlap as well, may be in terms of language, food or culture. Anyway, this is a very complex topic and might need a seperate thread.

Certainly... I mean what is this traditional India that so many Indians are always refering too? Where were its borders? Whats states are Indian and what arent?

Some Indians feel bitter over losing what they consider to be Indian territory... But what are they basing this notion on?

[hhunaeh]

@Med911

Some Indians feel bitter over losing what they consider to be Indian territory... But what are they basing this notion on?

Nobody in India is bitter over losing pakistan. Some people pretend to be bitter because it helps them to brand themselves as righter than the right wing. Most of the Akhand Bharat talk is meant for the local Indian populace and has to do with local issues.

Whenever an Indian politician brings up the "Akhand Bharat talk", what it translates to is "I can win this constituency by garnering only the Hindu votes. I cannot talk about any real issues so let me scare the Hindu population into voting for me by telling them that the Muslims are out to get them. So let me scare the hindus into thinking that the local muslims will take away their business, their land, just like 1947, when we were all living together but they decided they wanted their own country. Now vote for me and i'll prevent that"

[Jalaluddin]

Re: ‘Indian air force a third of China’s’

Med911 - the one thing that is constant is change. I don't think we should use past as anything more than for selective learning. For example emporer Ashoka gave up brutal warfare after surveying the battlefield with the blood and gore, even though he won. Does that mean we cannot just take the "don't fight wars" part without first fighting a gore battle?

If your point is that Indians should not want to rejoin Pakistan with India that's fine. If your point however is Indians shouldn't feel a sense of loss about separation of Pakistan, how do you go about telling people how they should 'feel'? I personally think partition made both sides weak but it's done we move on.

Both people and the lands predate nations, so it is kind of pointless to try and recreate any past associations between the two in the name of nations since there will always be a time further back where that border was not true.