Haha Bother Raj_ind you are very funny indeed.
Some say sarcasm is the lowest form of whit. I say it's still funny.
I am cool it's just sometimes my evil Fanatic alter ego leaps the boundary.......
Ok seriously looking back i can see that i have been somewhat brutal in my Hindu Bashing.... i actually sound like some sort of opposite activists thug to hindu extremism.
Wait i forgot how Hindu's also offer human sacrifices...Ok it's on a small scale but still it's not very nice is it?
Or is it true how many now want Pakistan to become a secular state so than in future both countries can become one.
Sorry but that's sounding like another indian wet dream to me. haha see the link?
Anyway neither country is perfect. However your right in some things you have said about how we muslims are also so backward and ever increasingly fundamentalist.
However good friend this is one of these strange philosophical paradoxes again. You see for muslims to advance they must either relent to moderate views or go full on extreme. Same for any race not just muslims.
You see in Ancient Greece Athens was the leading civilised state. It had a democratic system an organised government, a forward thinking public, social infrasture and offcourse a formal army and navy. It even humbled the Persian on land in the battle of Marathon and at sea in Salamis.
Compare Athens with the backwater dictatorship of sparta which had no formal civic system of infrastructure in place, no governmental or administraive system apart form slavery and serfdom like pre communist Russia it was a nation of slaves and masters, built by a formidable if not technologically limited army.
However it was Athens that lost the Peloponesian war. Sparta today is hailed as the saviour of European democracy and civilazation from the later persian invasions. Funny how the slayers of democracy got the credit for it's saving eh?
Like the Spartan system Islam is not that far apart. However when you encourage democracy into the equation you ruin it. All you do is give spartans a voting system that wont change them in any way except for the worse. The way i can see Indo-Pak relations going is down this ancient road. pakistan is very much the Sparta of it's age whereas Indai plays the Athenian role very well. there are some minor differences of course but the correlations are far greater.
Like i said earlier a tiger is a Tiger. Pakistan like Sparta, i believe, has only one hope which is to fall ever deeper into the role of the Islamic state. If peace does come it will only be through a medium in our past. True our islamic history is awash with blood, but no more so than judaism, christianity or even Hinduism. Peace can only come through mutual acceptance of who and what we are. We don't have to change much, we can keep the same roles and traditions but India and Pakistan are vulnerable to outsider influence, as has been the case not just in recent times.
Aside the dark inevitability you may be aware of actually how close the two countries came to mutual peace and it would have indeed happened in the early stages of 1947/48.
Kashmir did not have to be an issue if both sides had curbed thier ambitions, the map of Hindustan would have looked a lot more colourfull and subcontinental if all the traditional areas had been retained, as was agreed prior to partition.
I don't see why people cannot accept that Instead of two(or rather three) states there could have actually been a proper subcontinent of many states ruled by locals sadly this was not to be. However the percieved benefits of such a system may never be known becuase it never happened.
So as it is we can either break tradition and be friends but then have a friendship built on having broken something.
Or we can be enemies who keep our own traditions and fight for what we believe and to keep what we believe as superior.
This is something i dwell on often however as far as the topic of mahmood of ghazni goes he** was not a looter**
Full stop.
Finis