India and Pakistan

McArmalite

Deleted User wrote: »

At the time of the East India Company, the whole region was a not one state but hundreds of individual (kingdoms - not sure if that's the correct terminology) that became one state under the Empire, dividing this "country" up was always going to be difficult whereever the lines were drawn. Imagine trying to split up Norm Iron between the two tribes, impossible to do without having many on the "wrong side" could YOU have divided up India without "engineering the secterian strife" I KNOW that I couldnt! and nor could anyone else.

India, often called a sub continent, is a huge country containing many religions, languages and ethnic diversity. Naturally throughout history their has been many conflicts, territorial disputes etc. The territorial area that the Indian Congress wished to form as the entity India consisted of that area ruled by the british from 1858 to 1947, basically, what would in geographic terms be called, the sub continent of India or the Indian tectonic plate. This includes the states of Pakistan and Bangladesh.

" could YOU have divided up India " I wouldn't have wanted to divide up India but would have agreed to Ghandi and the Indian Congress who wished to create a secular, democratic republic, with the aims of the state been run on federal lines, unlike britian who connived to create the sectarian state of Pakistan and the consequently civil strife with it. As I wrote before " Sure there was historical ill feeling between the 2 groups, but by 1921 Ghandi's Indian Congress had united both religions in the pursuit of an independent India ? In 1937 provincial elections the Congress won clear majority. Jinnah's Muslim league failed to win a single province. But still the brits maintained Jinnah and his organisation as a deciding entity in India's future ? "

Today India is a federal republic comprising twenty-eight states and seven union territories and the world's largest democracy. It's not a prefect Utopia ( where is ?) having such a diverse population, but the mass blood shed brought on by britian creating the sectarian entity of Pakistan could have been avoided.

What the brits done in India ( and that includes the Irish men who served in it's ranks ) was as comparable as the nazi's in Europe.

McArmalite

McArmalite wrote: »

" could YOU have divided up India " I wouldn't have wanted to divide up India but would have agreed to Ghandi and the Indian Congress who wished to create a secular, democratic republic, with the aims of the state been run on federal lines, unlike britian who connived to create the sectarian state of Pakistan and the consequently civil strife with it. As I wrote before " Sure there was historical ill feeling between the 2 groups, but by 1921 Ghandi's Indian Congress had united both religions in the pursuit of an independent India ? In 1937 provincial elections the Congress won clear majority. Jinnah's Muslim league failed to win a single province. But still the brits maintained Jinnah and his organisation as a deciding entity in India's future ? "

Do you seriously believe that Hindus & Muslims could have lived side by side - with many Indian provinces having a substansal Minority and the Hindus always being able to elect Hindu councillors and run these provinces their way (re: Norm Iron .....)

McArmalite wrote: »

Today India is a federal republic comprising twenty-eight states and seven union territories and the world's largest democracy. It's not a prefect Utopia ( where is ?) having such a diverse population, but the mass blood shed brought on by britian creating the sectarian entity of Pakistan could have been avoided.

It is now a relativly homogenious state, therefore the vast majority are like minded when it comes to how the country is run.

McArmalite wrote: »

What the brits done in India ( and that includes the Irish men who served in it's ranks ) was as comparable as the nazi's in Europe.

Care to elaborate on that statement or withdraw it!

Capt'n Midnight

McArmalite wrote: »

The territorial area that the Indian Congress wished to form as the entity India consisted of that area ruled by the british from 1858 to 1947, basically, what would in geographic terms be called, the sub continent of India or the Indian tectonic plate. This includes the states of Pakistan and Bangladesh.

The British did not rule all of India from 1858, there were even independent states in India after partition. Also the British ruled Burma too, are you saying the Indian Congress wanted it too ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princely_state#Accession

After independence in 1947, the princely states were forced to accede — and thus sign away their political autonomy — either to the secular, mainly Hindu dominion of India or the majority Islamic dominion of Pakistan (consisting of West Pakistan and East Pakistan; the latter would later break away as Bangladesh). The accession was to be chosen by its ruling Prince, not by the population, akin to the 16th century European principle of cuius regio eius religio. Most acceded peacefully, except for four: Junagadh, Hyderabad, Jammu and Kashmir and Tripura

McArmalite

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you seriously believe that Hindus & Muslims could have lived side by side - with many Indian provinces having a substansal Minority and the Hindus always being able to elect Hindu councillors and run these provinces their way (re: Norm Iron .....)

It is now a relativly homogenious state, therefore the vast majority are like minded when it comes to how the country is run.

Care to elaborate on that statement or withdraw it!

If your not capable of understanding my posts, ask your Montessori teahcher.

McArmalite

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The British did not rule all of India from 1858, there were even independent states in India after partition. Also the British ruled Burma too, are you saying the Indian Congress wanted it too ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princely_state#Accession

Whatever Capt'n, I'm just about bored discussing this.

McArmalite

McArmalite wrote: »

If your not capable of understanding my posts, ask your Montessori teahcher.

I understand your post all too well! hence my response.

McArmalite

Deleted User wrote: »

I understand your post all too well! hence my response.

:rolleyes: Schoo fly.

McArmalite

McArmalite wrote: »

Whatever Capt'n, I'm just about bored discussing this.

McArmalite wrote: »

:rolleyes: Schoo fly.

Oh dear! McA's not playing anymore and he's run away with the ball!

History has shown that short of creatiing a large number of independant states , the division of the indian sub-continent was the best of a bad job.

McArmalite

In reply to that thick plank, dolanbaker -

" As it was in the US war of independance most of the colonalists were British in the first place! " Starting in the late 16th century, the British, the French, the Spanish, Swedes and the Dutch began to colonize eastern North America*. And of those listed as ' british ', I wonder how many of them were actually Irish or Scottish nationalists ( Highland Scots especially ) who certainly had no love of England or the british state. And if we take those whoose ethnicity was 'british', since many had been arriving since the Mayflower in 1620, by the time of the American war of Indepence in the 1770's, a period of 150 years, I would easily say that their feelings of loyalty and belonging to mother England had greatly diminished if not entirely gone, the success of the American Revoulotion proving that one. Obviously they were some loyal to britian but these were mostly the merchant sea class who did not want to see their trade with britian disrupted.


" The empire was largely lost due to the fact Britain as nearly bankrupted by the Great war & WWII " As for WW1, as Snickers man once posted -the british empire was actually larger after WW1 than before it was before, so much for the war for the freedom of small nations !!!

" along with some "lend/lease" with the US that had strings attached, one of these relating to dismanteling the empire. " Obviously britian was bankrupt ( although it has always been morally bankrupt ) after WW2. Although it was on the winning side thanks mainly to the USSR and America, but effectively it was a bankrupt and beaten country. I remember watching a programme a while ago ( the details are a bit hazy, correct me where I'm wrong, but I'll give the main details of the story ) and basically it told how the brits had to go cap in hand to Washington with a ass kissing letter " My dear, dear American friends.....how much we have struggled together etc " asking for a interest free loan. No can do said Uncle Sam. A privately infuriated britian then directed John Maynard Keynes to negotiate a loan with interest. The Yanks bargained with him, gave them something like a 50 year loan at 2% ( seems very reasonable ) and some small print. The brits having no other choice had to accept. Part of the small print insisted that commonwealth countries, if they wished, could trade with britian in US dollars and not just pounds as previously demanded by britian. These countries then started trading in dollars instead of pounds, the net effect of further reducing the pound in strength and weakening the british economy further. Three cheers for America !!!

" Do you seriously believe that Hindus & Muslims could have lived side by side - with many Indian provinces having a substansal Minority and the Hindus always being able to elect Hindu councillors and run these provinces their way (re: Norm Iron .....) "......" It is now a relativly homogenious state, therefore the vast majority are like minded when it comes to how the country is run. India is the second most culturally, linguistically and genetically diverse geographical entity after the African continent......Over 800 million Indians (80.5%) are Hindu. Other religious groups include Muslims (13.4%), Christians (2.3%), Sikhs (1.9%), Buddhists (0.8%), Jains (0.4%), Jews, Zoroastrians, Bahá'ís and others.[99] Tribals constitute 8.1% of the population.**

As I said in my previous posting - Today India is a federal republic comprising twenty-eight states and seven union territories and the world's largest democracy. It's not a prefect Utopia ( where is ?) having such a diverse population, but the mass blood shed brought on by britian creating the sectarian entity of Pakistan could have been avoided. ( Compare that to the british created secterian entity of Pakistan which is 96% Muslim. But ofcourse you would'nt be able to see that becasue your thick as a plank.)

" History has shown that short of creatiing a large number of independant states , the division of the indian sub-continent was the best of a bad job. " A situation engineered causing the death of approxiately 1 million people and 14 million refugees and he calls it " the best of a bad job ". You sick b@stard, but then sure your british, what else could be expected from you crowd, you just LOVE yourselves don't you.

" Care to elaborate on that statement or withdraw it! " I'm not going to spoon feed you as your too thick and such a great british patriot to be told anything different, you have to be a brit to spout all that racist sh!te about the neccessity of partition India, or Ireland or Cyprus for that matter. As I said in a previous posting in reply to ejmaztec - What's your version on the partition of India, let me guess, - a benign and well meaning britain unfortunately misunderstood a very complex situation and innocently created the partition of the country ? You lot just LOVE yourselves don't you.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_america
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India#Demographics

Fratton Fred

I do laugh at the way mcArm accuses me of hijacking threads, then goes off on another very predictable anti British rant.

India has become a major international economy whilst Pakistan appears to be ravaged by internal violence. Maybe McArm can get us back on topic by explaining how this came about.

By the way, I heard that the British were to blame for bed bugs. According to Frank McCort they were not in Ireland before the British came.:D

McArmalite

[rant]

McArmalite wrote: »

In reply to that thick plank, dolanbaker -

" As it was in the US war of independance most of the colonalists were British in the first place! " Starting in the late 16th century, the British, the French, the Spanish, Swedes and the Dutch began to colonize eastern North America*. And of those listed as ' british ', I wonder how many of them were actually Irish or Scottish nationalists ( Highland Scots especially ) who certainly had no love of England or the british state. And if we take those whoose ethnicity was 'british', since many had been arriving since the Mayflower in 1620, by the time of the American war of Indepence in the 1770's, a period of 150 years, I would easily say that their feelings of loyalty and belonging to mother England had greatly diminished if not entirely gone, the success of the American Revoulotion proving that one. Obviously they were some loyal to britian but these were mostly the merchant sea class who did not want to see their trade with britian disrupted.


" The empire was largely lost due to the fact Britain as nearly bankrupted by the Great war & WWII " As for WW1, as Snickers man once posted -the british empire was actually larger after WW1 than before it was before, so much for the war for the freedom of small nations !!!

" along with some "lend/lease" with the US that had strings attached, one of these relating to dismanteling the empire. " Obviously britian was bankrupt ( although it has always been morally bankrupt ) after WW2. Although it was on the winning side thanks mainly to the USSR and America, but effectively it was a bankrupt and beaten country. I remember watching a programme a while ago ( the details are a bit hazy, correct me where I'm wrong, but I'll give the main details of the story ) and basically it told how the brits had to go cap in hand to Washington with a ass kissing letter " My dear, dear American friends.....how much we have struggled together etc " asking for a interest free loan. No can do said Uncle Sam. A privately infuriated britian then directed John Maynard Keynes to negotiate a loan with interest. The Yanks bargained with him, gave them something like a 50 year loan at 2% ( seems very reasonable ) and some small print. The brits having no other choice had to accept. Part of the small print insisted that commonwealth countries, if they wished, could trade with britian in US dollars and not just pounds as previously demanded by britian. These countries then started trading in dollars instead of pounds, the net effect of further reducing the pound in strength and weakening the british economy further. Three cheers for America !!!

" Do you seriously believe that Hindus & Muslims could have lived side by side - with many Indian provinces having a substansal Minority and the Hindus always being able to elect Hindu councillors and run these provinces their way (re: Norm Iron .....) "......" It is now a relativly homogenious state, therefore the vast majority are like minded when it comes to how the country is run. India is the second most culturally, linguistically and genetically diverse geographical entity after the African continent......Over 800 million Indians (80.5%) are Hindu. Other religious groups include Muslims (13.4%), Christians (2.3%), Sikhs (1.9%), Buddhists (0.8%), Jains (0.4%), Jews, Zoroastrians, Bahá'ís and others.[99] Tribals constitute 8.1% of the population.**

As I said in my previous posting - Today India is a federal republic comprising twenty-eight states and seven union territories and the world's largest democracy. It's not a prefect Utopia ( where is ?) having such a diverse population, but the mass blood shed brought on by britian creating the sectarian entity of Pakistan could have been avoided. ( Compare that to the british created secterian entity of Pakistan which is 96% Muslim. But ofcourse you would'nt be able to see that becasue your thick as a plank.)

" History has shown that short of creatiing a large number of independant states , the division of the indian sub-continent was the best of a bad job. " A situation engineered causing the death of approxiately 1 million people and 14 million refugees and he calls it " the best of a bad job ". You sick b@stard, but then sure your british, what else could be expected from you crowd, you just LOVE yourselves don't you.

" Care to elaborate on that statement or withdraw it! " I'm not going to spoon feed you as your too thick and such a great british patriot to be told anything different, you have to be a brit to spout all that racist sh!te about the neccessity of partition India, or Ireland or Cyprus for that matter. You lot just LOVE yourselves don't you.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_america
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India#Demographics

[/rant]

Strange most of this reply actually concurs with a lot of what I said, as for Cyprus, the invading Turkish army had a lot to do with that partition.

Fratton Fred

Deleted User wrote: »

Strange most of this reply actually concurs with a lot of what I said, as for Cyprus, the invading Turkish army had a lot to do with that partition.

come on now, lets not let truth get in the way of a good rant.

(Actually, it would be fair to say that Turkey had everything to do with the partition but at least it gives the Irish defence Force somewhere warm to go)

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I do laugh at the way mcArm accuses me of hijacking threads, then goes off on another very predictable anti British rant.

India has become a major international economy whilst Pakistan appears to be ravaged by internal violence. Maybe McArm can get us back on topic by explaining how this came about.

By the way, I heard that the British were to blame for bed bugs. According to Frank McCort they were not in Ireland before the British came.:D

My responce was to the statement in the OP " I think Jinnah was mostly right to split Pakistan from India. The sectarianism and tribalism would probably have erupted in violence eventually. " as I have pointed out before and will probably have to do so again for the benefit of that other brit dolanbaker. Discussing britian's invovlement in the creation of Pakistan and the subsquent nature of it's society is not hijacking a thread, it's completely relevant. Now if I came on, the IRA did this, the IRA did that, the IRA did the other like you have done to wreck any thread mildly critical of britian, it would indeed be a hijack as the IRA have nothing got to do with the partition of Pakistan and it's resulting society.

As for " India has become a major international economy whilst Pakistan appears to be ravaged by internal violence. Maybe McArm can get us back on topic by explaining how this came about. " As I said on the 21st "As for the " current problems in Pakistan ", much of it is due to the frivolous expenditures on the military in it's competition with the much larger India, and also with it the resultant military influence in political descision making to the determent of economic and democratic development. Can'nt blame it all on the brits, but they did contribute to the whole malaise in a very major way "

As for Frank McCourt, never read much he had to say, the guy is a total crank from what I have heard.

One important thing I have noticed though, there has been a considerable upping of the ante with McArmalite in the last few days, you been joined by fellow brit dolanbaker and your old friend, the closet unionist, croppyboy1798 who has appeared on the scene by coincidence having been absent for a long time. Should I have to muster the Republican cavalry ?? Did my posting regard Fred's hijacking of threads critical of britan have anything to do with it ??

SpitfireIV

McArmalite wrote: »

croppyboy1798 who has appeared on the scene by coincidence having been absent for a long time.

Nah, I'm still here matey, but this forum has become such a joke as of late that I just dont bother with it anymore as it seems all thread go the same way :rolleyes:. Lots of armchair historians and wiki bashers.

McArmalite

CroppyBoy1798 wrote: »

Nah, I'm still here matey, but this forum has become such a joke as of late that I just dont bother with it anymore as it seems all thread go the same way :rolleyes:. Lots of armchair historians and wiki bashers.

Oh God, that reply was quick, not bad for a closet unionist All of Freds friends are have got very busy this last few days. Coincidence ?

going back to the original query, here is the transcript of one Mountbattens reports regarding the division of India

http://www.movinghere.org.uk/deliveryfiles/BL/L_PJ_10_79__ff235-40__277-277v/0/1.pdf

http://www.movinghere.org.uk/deliveryfiles/BL/L_PJ_10_79__ff235-40__277-277v/0/2.pdf

Draw your own conclusions

McArmalite

Deleted User wrote: »

going back to the original query, here is the transcript of one Mountbattens reports regarding the division of India

http://www.movinghere.org.uk/deliveryfiles/BL/L_PJ_10_79__ff235-40__277-277v/0/1.pdf

http://www.movinghere.org.uk/deliveryfiles/BL/L_PJ_10_79__ff235-40__277-277v/0/2.pdf

Draw your own conclusions

The orginal query was not about Mountbatten and the division of India, but basically " Where did it all go so wrong for Pakistan? "*

( My first responce - was to the statement in the OP " I think Jinnah was mostly right to split Pakistan from India. The sectarianism and tribalism would probably have erupted in violence eventually. " as I have pointed out before and will probably have to do so again for the benefit of that other brit dolanbaker). Did'nt take too long before I did have to repeat it



* You could possibly stick this thread in Politics, but as I'm mostly looking backward in time, I think History is more apt.

Looking at the current problems in Pakistan, and the advances being made in India, you'd have to ask yourself: Where did it all go so wrong for Pakistan?

I think Jinnah was mostly right to split Pakistan from India. The sectarianism and tribalism would probably have erupted in violence eventually.

That said, India manages it own variety (races, sects, religions, languages, etc) quite well relatively speaking. And looking at the major reason for the India/Pakistan schism - I believe there's actually more Muslims living in India than in Pakistan.

McArsalite

No, haven't gone away:D

ejmaztec

McArmalite wrote: »

First, this thing is this is getting dragged out, so hopefully this will have to be the last post (no chance) I have to reply to your comments started by you on 19th " so I don't think that you can pin all of this on the Brits. "

" I'm sorry that you don't appreciate a good sense of humour ". No probs with my sense of humor, but you've obviously given up your line of attack by trying to be a ' funny guy ' and now trying it by been bitchy and dismissive.

Oh dear, what more can I say?

McArmalite wrote: »

I would say that 1% of their content is probably just about ok for submission to a history forum, but the balance, which, according to my Montessori teacher, would be 99%, is more suited to a Political Ranting forum. "

However, in all the of the comments I have made e.g. " Although he (Jinnah) is obviously partly to blame as he acted as a british puppet in the travesty, it was britian who was the real driving force behind partition...... In 1937 provincial elections the Congress won clear majority. Jinnah's Muslim league failed to win a single province. But still the brits maintained Jinnah and his organisation as a deciding entity in India's future ? etc, " you haven't made a single point to counter me, only replying by been bitchy and making personal comments about me and avoiding discussing the subject. What's your version on the partition of India, let me guess, - a benign and well meaning britain unfortunately misunderstood a very complex situation and innocently created the partition of the country ? If anyone is ranting here it's you pal.

Sorry, never heard of britian, so couldn’t comment. You’re wasting your time if you think that I would involve myself in a pointless discussion on any matter with you. With regard to your admission in another Boards forum, I also cannot bring myself to believe anything that you write. As for my ranting – where was this exactly?

McArmalite wrote: »

One question for you. Why did it take our ancestors 800 years to get rid of the British, when all of the other former colonies did the job in a much shorter time? I think that they must have liked them a lot more than you do, for some reason. "

McArmalite wrote: »

That must surely rate as the most ridiculous comment ever made on this board.

You must be referring to your own signature.

McArmalite wrote: »

I would have thought that anyone with an ounce of intelligence would see that the history of this country for 800 years has been dominated with attempts to get rid of foreign rule, far from the vast majority having " liked them ".

" Why did it take our ancestors 800 years to get rid of the British " Firstly we're not totally rid of them, their still occupying the six north eastern counties of the country. Secondly, did it ever not occur to you Einstein that britain having much larger forces and proximity to Irealnd (Ireland?), and aided directly by local collaborators and indirectly by internal squabbling between chieftains/leaders ( same happened with Scotland, also the French resistance for that matter between communists and anarchists and Basque nationalists etc but that's another story ) managed to keep keep it's occupation ?

" get rid of the British, when all of the other former colonies did the job in a much shorter time " Apart from America and the Afghan's kicked them out also as far as I knew, when we broke from from britian, if not the first, then one of the earliest to break away, and initiated the great crack in the british empire - if today we lose Ireland, tomorrow we will lose the empire I think Churchill said in 1919. I'm not going to say we where totally responsible for it's downfall, but we certainly can be proud of the part we did play and punched well above our weight for our size

The British got everything that they wanted when Ireland became independent – they even gave the Free-Staters use of a variety of military hardware and stood back to watch Irish people killing Irish people during the civil war. Huge tracts of land were still in the hands of the Anglo-Irish and still are today. The Bolsheviks, they did proper revolutions, and had a clean sheet to work with when they defeated their enemies – after annihilating them. The British simply prepared a profit and loss account, cut their losses and stepped aside. Ireland was then run by its own version of Robert Mugabe i.e. DeValera, who, for a mathematician, wasn’t very good at sums, especially where the Irish economy was involved. Irish people left this country in droves, worked their balls off in the UK, the US, and anywhere else they went. They could have stayed here and watched their families starve to death to promote DeValera’s idyllic farm-yard Ireland. It was the money that these people earned in Britain etc, that subsidised Ireland’s paupers. Now, Ireland is run, for the most part, by the chinless descendants of the last men standing in 1922. “Vote for me, my grandfather was a Civil-War victor”. Ireland is full of these mini-monarchies – and people are still voting for them! Whilst you’re belly-aching about the British and the 800 years, you’re oblivious to the cause of Ireland’s woes during the last 80.

McArmalite wrote: »

Hopefully this answers all your comments Einstein)

(surely you jest).

I should point out, finally, that the British Empire is dead and gone, completely down the toilet, buried, never to be again, but you seem to think that it’s still alive and kicking. Any complaints – write to George Bush, he’ll let you know how the US inherited it.

Fratton Fred

I’d like to try and resurrect this, as I think it is an interesting subject, maybe we could all try and avoid the bitching (Myself included). I had some general thoughts on this whilst driving home last night and I thought I would share them, for discussion purposes.

National borders are, generally speaking, decided by some form of conflict. This may be expanding borders ala the British/Spanish/French/Belgian Empires or post war Soviet Bloc, or establishing borders when an “Empire” or regime breaks up, such as India/Pakistan or the former Yugoslavia.

Now then, back to the subject of this thread and the point I am trying to make. When a nation takes over another and rules it with a strong fist as the British Empire did, then all the inter racial tension that has gone before is effectively removed or managed by that regime. When that controlling country leaves, then all the inter racial tension comes back but there is no governing imperial nation to control it, for example Rwanda/Congo.

Pakistan is a country that is very tribal in areas and has several different forms of Islam varying from what we would consider moderate, to the extremes of the Taliban on the Afghan border. There is also I believe a mix of Shia and Sunni. Maybe, the reason a more bloody conflict has not broken out is because of the way Pakistan is governed, with a very strong military, but a military that is struggling to cope. India on the other hand has a very strong government and whilst a moderate secular democracy, it has a strong army and police force who can keep order.

Maybe the answer to Pakistan’s problems is breaking it up further, along tribal borders or even merging parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan to create a new nation (Although this would, I suggest, create a threat to world security again). If Pakistan were part of India then I don’t believe it would have made any difference, it would just be India’s problem rather than a solely Pakistani one.

Please discuss freely (And courteously:))

jmayo

Fratton Fred wrote: »

National borders are, generally speaking, decided by some form of conflict. This may be expanding borders ala the British/Spanish/French/Belgian Empires or post war Soviet Bloc, or establishing borders when an “Empire” or regime breaks up, such as India/Pakistan or the former Yugoslavia.

Now then, back to the subject of this thread and the point I am trying to make. When a nation takes over another and rules it with a strong fist as the British Empire did, then all the inter racial tension that has gone before is effectively removed or managed by that regime. When that controlling country leaves, then all the inter racial tension comes back but there is no governing imperial nation to control it, for example Rwanda/Congo.

Pakistan is a country that is very tribal in areas and has several different forms of Islam varying from what we would consider moderate, to the extremes of the Taliban on the Afghan border. There is also I believe a mix of Shia and Sunni. Maybe, the reason a more bloody conflict has not broken out is because of the way Pakistan is governed, with a very strong military, but a military that is struggling to cope. India on the other hand has a very strong government and whilst a moderate secular democracy, it has a strong army and police force who can keep order.


Please discuss freely (And courteously:))

Fred, you have inadvertently hit the nailon the head.
A lot of countries that exist today (particularly those in Africa but Pakistan and formerly Yugoslavia would be other examples) have borders that were created by the ex colonisers. The problem with that is that the borders cut through existing tribal, religious and ethnic groups.

Zaire (or Congo) should not really exist as a complete nation.
The only reason it exists today with it's current borders is because it is the area that was formerly conquered and run by the King of Belgium.
Was the area ever a nation or country before the Belgians arrived?
The Belgians were able to impose order, using very cruel methods as was exposed by Casement, but once that rule was removed racial/tribal tensions reignited.
This argument goes for almost every African state.

Pakistan and India's borders were created by an Englsihman that had never been near the place before he got the job. He tried his best to break the borders based on the religious breakdown of the areas.
That resulted in ethnic cleansing, millions of refugees and the split of Kashmir.

Added to this Pakistan is a very tribal country, there is one area that the Army has no real control over. Afghanistan was and is basically the same.
The Mujahideen were broken down on tribal grounds and often actually fought each other and not the Soviets. The Taliban were primarily of the Pashtun tribe and Sunni Muslim.

I know I am going to be labelled anti Muslim for this comment, but Pakistan is yet another example of the fact that there are very few Islamic democratic states. If you have a large group of Islamic fundementalists then you do not have democracy. Add to this the tribal dimension and you have recipe for turmoil.
People should remember the Taliban began affectively in the religious schools in Pakistan.

India has had it's own troubles with Sikhs (golden temple, assination of Ghandi) and fundamentalist Hindus, but it appears to be on more even keel than it's neighbour.

Capt'n Midnight

Lets not forget the whole Indian involvement with the Tamil Tigers.

McArmalite

Deleted User wrote: »

History has shown that short of creatiing a large number of independant states , the division of the indian sub-continent was the best of a bad job.

REPLY - " A situation engineered causing the death of approxiately 1 million people and 14 million refugees and he calls it " the best of a bad job. You sick b@stard, but then sure your british, what else could be expected from you crowd, you just LOVE yourselves don't you. "

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you seriously believe that Hindus & Muslims could have lived side by side .......It is now a relativly homogenious state, therefore the vast majority are like minded when it comes to how the country is run.

REPLY - " India is the second most culturally, linguistically and genetically diverse geographical entity after the African continent......Over 800 million Indians (80.5%) are Hindu. Other religious groups include Muslims (13.4%), Christians (2.3%), Sikhs (1.9%), Buddhists (0.8%), Jains (0.4%), Jews, Zoroastrians, Bahá'ís and others. Tribals constitute 8.1% of the population. "*

And STILL he comes out with " actually concurs with a lot of what I said " What a clown. But he's trying the old Fred Fratton routine - whatever facts and historical detail are producded to counter the vanity, and you canot get bigger vanity than in a brit, it's head in the sand time, britian knows best, our boys can do no wrong, we will fight them on the beaches etc, etc,

And best of all, this guy actually claims in his profile to be an " IT Engineer " - SERIOUS !!!!!

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India#Demographics
** As for Cyprus, if ' Enosis ', that is the union of Cyprus and Greece which the vast majority wanted in 1960 but was not denied by britian, then there would have been no resulting conflict between Greece and Turkey in 1974 and partition with it. Anyway, it's incidental information, heading off topic.

( Even your 'friend' Fred said - " India on the other hand has a very strong government and whilst a moderate secular democracy " Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot ).

McArmalite

McArsalite wrote: »

No, haven't gone away:D

India 1945 - 1948, Palestine 1945 - 1948, Mayala 1948 - 1960, Korea 1950 - 1953, Kenya, 1955 - 1959, Cyprus 1952 - 1960 , Aden 1955 - 1967, Suez 1956, the Six Counties 1969 - 1994, Malvina's 1982, Afghanistan and Iraq at present. And, before I forget, there was Wembley in 1966.


You go to all the trouble of creating a user just to post that silly, childish sh!te - your sad pal, very, very sad. Still, just goes to show how much McArm presses your buttons.....

McArmalite

McArmalite wrote: »

REPLY - " A situation engineered causing the death of approxiately 1 million people and 14 million refugees and he calls it " the best of a bad job. You sick b@stard, but then sure your british, what else could be expected from you crowd, you just LOVE yourselves don't you. "

REPLY - " India is the second most culturally, linguistically and genetically diverse geographical entity after the African continent......Over 800 million Indians (80.5%) are Hindu. Other religious groups include Muslims (13.4%), Christians (2.3%), Sikhs (1.9%), Buddhists (0.8%), Jains (0.4%), Jews, Zoroastrians, Bahá'ís and others. Tribals constitute 8.1% of the population. "*

And STILL he comes out with " actually concurs with a lot of what I said " What a clown. But he's trying the old Fred Fratton routine - whatever facts and historical detail are producded to counter the vanity, and you canot get bigger vanity than in a brit, it's head in the sand time, britian knows best, our boys can do no wrong, we will fight them on the beaches etc, etc,

And best of all, this guy actually claims in his profile to be an " IT Engineer " - SERIOUS !!!!!

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India#Demographics
** As for Cyprus, if ' Enosis ', that is the union of Cyprus and Greece which the vast majority wanted in 1960 but was not denied by britian, then there would have been no resulting conflict between Greece and Turkey in 1974 and partition with it. Anyway, it's incidental information, heading off topic.

( Even your 'friend' Fred said - " India on the other hand has a very strong government and whilst a moderate secular democracy " Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot ).

:rolleyes::D

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Pakistan is a country that is very tribal in areas and has several different forms of Islam varying from what we would consider moderate, to the extremes of the Taliban on the Afghan border. There is also I believe a mix of Shia and Sunni. Maybe, the reason a more bloody conflict has not broken out is because of the way Pakistan is governed, with a very strong military, but a military that is struggling to cope. India on the other hand has a very strong government and whilst a moderate secular democracy, it has a strong army and police force who can keep order.

Maybe the answer to Pakistan’s problems is breaking it up further, along tribal borders or even merging parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan to create a new nation (Although this would, I suggest, create a threat to world security again). If Pakistan were part of India then I don’t believe it would have made any difference, it would just be India’s problem rather than a solely Pakistani one.

Please discuss freely (And courteously:))

Here we go again. Trying to portray the partition of India as " britain knows best what's good for the natives....bearing the white man's burden etc " Once again it's head in the sand time, britian knows best, our boys can do no wrong...etc - In 1937 provincial elections the Congress won clear majority. Jinnah's Muslim league failed to win a single province. But still the brits maintained Jinnah and his organisation as a deciding entity in India's future. - Obviously, the people of India did not know what was best for them, perfidious Albion did :rolleyes: And ofcourse, britain did not have any evil. perverted ulterior motive :mad:

What was the central policy of britian in India - Divide and Rule. Divide and Rule, is perpetrated by cultivating one section over another (often a minority), instigating historical animosity, with the intentional outcome of this is to make the communities hostile to one another, rather than uniting against their real enemy. For anyone to suggest that the british Empire was anything other than a perverted, cowardly, degenerated episode in human histroy is nothing short of a hard necked liar. Creating millions of African slaves, forcing the Chinese to buy Opium even though the consumption of it in britain was banned, concentration camps used decades before the Nazi's, the list of war crimes perpetrated by it is almost endless. All this twisted scheme to yield an enormous amount of money for the british aristocracy.

Still it could be said that the present situation in Pakistan with all the other instability in the region is a case of the ' chickens coming home to roost '. How many british men and women will be killed/maimed in the coming years out there ? And how many of them with psychological problems will be slashing their wrists, ending up dangling from the end of a rope ?? All this for some conceited idea of britian been some sort of an important military power.

PHB

Lads, would you all just grow up. Any more random insulting in this thread will result in a permanent ban from this forum.

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

Here we go again. Trying to portray the partition of India as " britain knows best what's good for the natives....bearing the white man's burden etc " Once again it's head in the sand time, britian knows best, our boys can do no wrong...etc - In 1937 provincial elections the Congress won clear majority. Jinnah's Muslim league failed to win a single province. But still the brits maintained Jinnah and his organisation as a deciding entity in India's future. - Obviously, the people of India did not know what was best for them, perfidious Albion did :rolleyes: And ofcourse, britain did not have any evil. perverted ulterior motive :mad:

What was the central policy of britian in India - Divide and Rule. Divide and Rule, is perpetrated by cultivating one section over another (often a minority), instigating historical animosity, with the intentional outcome of this is to make the communities hostile to one another, rather than uniting against their real enemy. For anyone to suggest that the british Empire was anything other than a perverted, cowardly, degenerated episode in human histroy is nothing short of a hard necked liar. Creating millions of African slaves, forcing the Chinese to buy Opium even though the consumption of it in britain was banned, concentration camps used decades before the Nazi's, the list of war crimes perpetrated by it is almost endless. All this twisted scheme to yield an enormous amount of money for the british aristocracy.

Still it could be said that the present situation in Pakistan with all the other instability in the region is a case of the ' chickens coming home to roost '. How many british men and women will be killed/maimed in the coming years out there ? And how many of them with psychological problems will be slashing their wrists, ending up dangling from the end of a rope ?? All this for some conceited idea of britian been some sort of an important military power.

Please explain what Concentration camps and opium sales to china has to do with India and Pakistan?

I extended an olive branch to try and get this back on civilised terms. Until you take the anti British chip (or is it a full blown redwood) it is impossible to have a decent discussion.

Maybe your anti Britishness is similar to your homophobia?

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Please explain what Concentration camps and opium sales to china has to do with India and Pakistan?

I extended an olive branch to try and get this back on civilised terms. Until you take the anti British chip (or is it a full blown redwood) it is impossible to have a decent discussion.

Maybe your anti Britishness is similar to your homophobia?

ME, homophobia? Well if two good looking lesbian hotties invited me back for tea and biscuits and maybe something else.........do you think I'd turn them down ??

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

ME, homophobia? Well if two good looking lesbian hotties invited me back for tea and biscuits and maybe something else.........do you think I'd turn them down ??

looks like we actually agree on something