India and Pakistan

donaghs

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.

donaghs

Would it be a good idea moving this to Politics? Theres lots of lively debate there on Musharraf, etc.

I starting to think the History forum is fairly moribund except for people who view the entire world through the prism of "Provos good" or "Provos bad". All the active threads have that feel to them.

brianthebard

I'm interested in the topic, but the way you've presented it is a bit...it just feels like you've dumped a century or so of history on the screen and said "sort this". I mean are there some points that interest you more than others?

donaghs

With the current problems in Pakistan, I can't help but wonder how the two countries ended up in such differing condition, 60 years later.

gurramok

Pakistan seems to have more militancy from Islamists which cannot be controlled, only contained.
This contrasts with India which don't have a serious threat within its borders which helps India develop more.

Hence, alot of Pakistans resources have been tied up in fighting internal wars unlike India which really only has a small Maoist problem.

Fratton Fred

I think you need to look at the tribalism around the Afghan border and the Muslim fundamentalism there to get some sort of understanding.

India by the way is a secular country, whereas Pakistan (I believe) is a Muslim country. I see Pakistan as a kind of the flash point between Muslim extremism and middle of the road Muslims, hence the infighting.

donaghs

So Fred, do you think if Pakistan had embraced a more secular outlook from the beginning of its existance, it wouldn't face as many problems as it does now?

General Zia's (late 70s) increasing the use of Islam in public life probably also helped create of lot of the problems that Musharref is struggling with now.

Fratton Fred

donaghs wrote: »

So Fred, do you think if Pakistan had embraced a more secular outlook from the beginning of its existance, it wouldn't face as many problems as it does now?

General Zia's (late 70s) increasing the use of Islam in public life probably also helped create of lot of the problems that Musharref is struggling with now.

I don't think it would have made any difference. The areas around the Afghan border are pretty tribal and the local chiefs pretty much make the rules.

From what I gather, and I am happy to be corrected on this, is that when the Mujahadeen (sp?) were busy fighting the Soviet army in Afghanistan, their families all lived in refugee camps in Pakistan, where all the kids were brought up to mirror their older brothers and fathers as fighters and the only education was through strict fundemental schools run by hard line Immams. This is where the Taliban came from (with lot of funding from a certain well known Saudi terror chief). The low level of literacy is not an accident, the Immams there only teach what they want people to believe and the Kouran is very widely open to interpretation, so you seem to have a whole generation whose only reading ability is the Kouran and they interpret it the way their radical teacher has taught them. They can't gat anyother opinion, because they can;t read western newspapers etc.

My take on this (purely my own opinion) is it seems to have set the tone for the whole area. To these guys, anyone who is not a strict Muslim is no better than the infidels in the west, so they consider Musharref no better than Bush, worse to some extent because he has "sold out". What on earth they think of Benazir Bhutto, a female moderate politician god knows, but I can't see her regaining power making the situation easier, although it will probably have to get worse before it gets better.

Please feel free to put me right where necessary.

donaghs

Depends how relevant you think the tribal areas like Warizistan are to the rest of Pakistan. They've always been a fairly wild area, and been left to its own devices. Even in the days of the British Empire.

I recall reading the British in the 1930s would occassionally use the RAF to bomb villages there if the locals had upset them too much.

Pakistans current malaise seems to be affecting the whole country.

InFront

India has a horribly unfair, often racist and bigoted social system with many problems of its own, I'm not sure what it's supposed to have gotten 'right'.

Pakistan is a country which began with impeccable, but arguably impossible, ideals.
It might be usefully compared to a fat person who pledges to run 10km before lunch, then is awoken to the magnitude of the task, and resigns himself to sitting down and eat ice-cream for the day out of grief. Pakistan has gotten ideologically "fat" and its causa essendi is a long forgotten memory.

It is a state with no direction, run largely by gangsters, serving a divided, often uneducated populace with no great unity, loyal to differing political objectives, some militantly so. Make that country an unwilling belligerent on the "War on Terror" and modern Pakistan is what you get.

donaghs

Do you mean India is racist, in the sense that one race are dominant, or that there is racial tension between various groups? By bigoted do you mean the legacy of the caste system?

Nehru did his best to prevent one race or religion being dominant in India. He was a firm believer in secularim and egalitarianism. He opposed the caste system and introduced affirmative action programs. I understand Hindu "nationalists" criticise his legacy for allegedly appeasing the Indian Muslim community.

Jinnah also started out with high ideals, but Pakistan was profoundly different in that it marked itself out as an Islamic state for the beginning. Jinnah apparently wasn't a particularly observant Muslim, but wanted to preserve the unique Islamic identity of the regions that made up Pakistan and Bangladesh. Conservative Hindus have been elected in India but the secular and egalitarian ethos has remained. Pakistan has drifted further towards theocracy.

"Right" is admittedly a broad and vague term. But India has free elections, has had a Muslim President and a Sikh Prime Minister. Pakistan has an ex-army general dictator, struggling to contain many problems, some of them worse than him.

donaghs

India's economy has also been growing a very fast pace in recent years since their government ditched their earlier socialist-inspired policies.

PDN

donaghs wrote: »

Would it be a good idea moving this to Politics? Theres lots of lively debate there on Musharraf, etc.

I starting to think the History forum is fairly moribund except for people who view the entire world through the prism of "Provos good" or "Provos bad". All the active threads have that feel to them.

There certainly do seem to be a few posters with chips on their shoulders when it comes to Irish history.

Have you read Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat? He strongly sees India's emergence from socialism as a real leap forward. Pakistan seems to be getting sucked into the economic black hole of the Middle East.

Snickers Man

PDN wrote:

There certainly do seem to be a few posters with chips on their shoulders when it comes to Irish history.

McArmalite

donaghs wrote: »

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.

"I think Jinnah was mostly right to split Pakistan from India. The sectarianism and tribalism would probably have erupted in violence eventually." - sorry my clever friend, but could you enlighten us on that ? ? ?

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 ?

Indeed, though anomosity between various groups had it's historical roots before the british annexed the country, much of the secterianism resulted from the british strategy to gain and hold control of the large territory of India by keeping its people divided along lines of religion, language, or caste, by the imposition of puppet princely ruled petty states throughout India ? So while Ghandi had united the people, the british, 'rabbit out of the hat style' introduced the whisky drinking Jinnah and his political Muslim organisation to try and destroy the unity, sadly succeding ?

ejmaztec

As a Sikh acquaintance of mine recently remarked, his ancestors had been fighting the Muslims for eight hundred years, so I don't think that you can pin all of this on the Brits. (couldn't find an emoticon for "yawn")

Gobán Saor

ejmaztec wrote: »

.....so I don't think that you can pin all of this on the Brits. (couldn't find an emoticon for "yawn")

Not all of it perhaps!

But it is a bit odd that so many of today's hot political troublespots went through the familiar cycle of British invasion, colonization, independence struggle, the use of "divide and conquer" tactics to undermine the independence struggle, civil war and ultimate partition. Ireland, India, Palestine, Iraq/Kuwait and Cyprus spring to mind. I'm sure others (Hello, McArm:)) could supply a longer list.

In fairness it wasn't just the British empire that followed a very deliberate strategy of divide and conquer. The French and other European colonial powers were also expert at it.

McArmalite

ejmaztec wrote: »

As a Sikh acquaintance of mine recently remarked, his ancestors had been fighting the Muslims for eight hundred years, so I don't think that you can pin all of this on the Brits. (couldn't find an emoticon for "yawn")

Can you not understand plane wording ?? I didn't " pin all of this on the Brits " .... " though animosity between various groups had it's historical roots before the british annexed the country,......" Sure there was historical ill feeling between the 2 groups ". I'm not going to try and simplify it any more, maybe someone who teaches in a Montessori school or something could simplify it for you to understand.

Getting back to the OP, "I think Jinnah was mostly right to split Pakistan from India. The sectarianism and tribalism would probably have erupted in violence eventually." Firstly Jinnah didn't have the power to partition India. Although he 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. Mountbatten kept the boundary lines of India and Pakistan under lock and key until the pageantry, splendor and photo opportunities of Indpendence day and the British would not be be blamed for the violence which would erupt. His reasoning: "the earlier it was published, the more the British would have to bear the responsibility for the disturbances which would undoubtedly result". And to think the IRA blew up such a lovely man.

The story of the British Empire's ' great success ' was it's ability of nurturing local hatreds and instigating violence to serve it's inhuman and selfish ends. Approxiately one million people died in the resultant conflict and 14.5 million people became refugees. It's no wonder that it has been said about the british ruling class - " the cancer of humanity ".

Instead of the secular political state the Indian Congress wished to create, the whiskey drinking Jinnah and the british authorities created the secterian entity of Pakistan. It should also be noted that Jinnah was quite happy to leave 25-30 million Muslims who stayed behind in India, just like our unionist friends did for their fellow unionists and Ulstermen in the 'south'. I would have thought that the papallels with Ireland couldn't be more obvious.

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 .

ejmaztec

I don’t read your posts McArmalite. I only read your “interesting” facts above when I spotted “Montessori”. I feel sorry for the unfortunate individuals whose education didn’t get that far. Fortunately, my history lessons didn’t end at that stage of my education.

The reason for my not reading your posts is due to their inaccuracy and my low boredom threshold where waffle is concerned.. You quote your subject matter as Gospel, but it’s quite a bit removed from that. You don’t quote sources to prove anything that you say. For example, when you say that “It's no wonder that it has been said about the British ruling class - " the cancer of humanity".

Who actually said this? As far as I can see, it’s been said about the white race, the Jews, the USA, The West – but never about the British ruling classes.

I’m interested in History, but not in making it up as I go along.

Gobán Saor

Gobán Saor wrote: »

In fairness it wasn't just the British empire that followed a very deliberate strategy of divide and conquer. The French and other European colonial powers were also expert at it.

It mainly comes down to colonial powers creating countries that suit their administrative ideal, without having any regard for the indigenous population.
The map of Africa would have been very different if the tribal boundaries had been considered when the colonial power left.
I'm not saying that all would have been peace & harmony, but some of the worst civil wars would have been averted.

Capt'n Midnight

Pakistan has been spending a very large % of GNP on weapons in a mini arms race with India that alone has to have an effect on development.

Actually a better country to compare Pakistan with would be Bangladesh, which only gained it's independence in '71and has gone though similar military coups and a similar history.

McArmalite

ejmaztec wrote: »

I don’t read your posts McArmalite. I only read your “interesting” facts above when I spotted “Montessori”. I feel sorry for the unfortunate individuals whose education didn’t get that far. Fortunately, my history lessons didn’t end at that stage of my education.

The reason for my not reading your posts is due to their inaccuracy and my low boredom threshold where waffle is concerned.. You quote your subject matter as Gospel, but it’s quite a bit removed from that. You don’t quote sources to prove anything that you say. For example, when you say that “It's no wonder that it has been said about the British ruling class - " the cancer of humanity".

Who actually said this? As far as I can see, it’s been said about the white race, the Jews, the USA, The West – but never about the British ruling classes.

I’m interested in History, but not in making it up as I go along.

" I only read your “interesting” facts above when I spotted “Montessori”. " Liar, liar your pants are on fire, etc, etc

" The reason for my not reading your posts is due to their inaccuracy " How do you know their inaccurate if you don't read the posts in the first place And anyway, it's a basic rule of arguing/discussing a subject, that you listen to or read ALL the opposition's statement before making a reply, otherwise you are not fully informed of the other person's position and cannot make a proper judgment of their opinion.

" You don’t quote sources to prove anything that you say. For example, when you say that “It's no wonder that it has been said about the British ruling class - " the cancer of humanity". " Correct, neither does anyone else ( and possibly yourself, though I haven't read much of your posts yet, only the 1 or 2 attempting to be 'funny'). But I may add a link where the information appears on the web, but I'm not going to start writing, X said " ABC " in such and such a book, page 137 or Susan McKay, Irish Times 24/12/2007 page 31. ( The quote regarding the British ruling class and cancer of humanity is something I read from A Noam Chomsky discussion. If I remember correctly he was quoting a Scandinavian newspaper that was so shocked at the behavior of britain in India th the time. If I ever come across the web page I'll send the pm to you )

Having said all of that, McArm is just human and can make mistakes. Indeed I'd be the first to say that some of my postings are written in a say, less than PC style when it comes to british Imperialist thuggery. I make no apologies for that.

McArmalite

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Pakistan has been spending a very large % of GNP on weapons in a mini arms race with India that alone has to have an effect on development.

Actually a better country to compare Pakistan with would be Bangladesh, which only gained it's independence in '71and has gone though similar military coups and a similar history.

Getting back on subject, didn't know Bangladesh had similar problems. Compare that with India which could well be said to be emerging as a new superpower while it's old colonial misruler, britian, is now a second rate power in Europe and a third rate power in the world.

purple'n'gold

McArmalite wrote: »

Getting back on subject, didn't know Bangladesh had similar problems. Compare that with India which could well be said to be emerging as a new superpower while it's old colonial misruler, britian, is now a second rate power in Europe and a third rate power in the world.

The UK's Royal Navy operates around 50 nuclear-armed Trident II D-5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles and four Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines from Clyde Naval Base on Scotland's west coast.
Dosn’t sound like a third rate world power to me.

ejmaztec

McArmalite wrote: »

Getting back on subject, didn't know Bangladesh had similar problems. Compare that with India which could well be said to be emerging as a new superpower while it's old colonial misruler, britian, is now a second rate power in Europe and a third rate power in the world.

I'm sorry that you don't appreciate a good sense of humour, McArmalite (if that is in fact your real name;)), but I was forced, much against my better judgement, to read some of your posts.

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.

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.:D

Capt'n Midnight

purplengold wrote: »

The UK's Royal Navy operates around 50 nuclear-armed Trident II D-5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles and four Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines from Clyde Naval Base on Scotland's west coast.
Dosn’t sound like a third rate world power to me.

at one point in the maintanence cycle they only have one on patrol with the others back at base. So they'd be one trawler net away from having no retaliation capability.

still they spend more on "defense" than anyone except the US, and between them they spend more than everyone else put together

McArmalite

ejmaztec wrote: »

I'm sorry that you don't appreciate a good sense of humour, McArmalite (if that is in fact your real name;)), but I was forced, much against my better judgement, to read some of your posts.

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.

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.:D

First, this thing is this is getting dragged out, so hopefully this will have to be the last post 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.

" 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. " My reply was to explain the historical background of the creation of the Pakistan state in reply to donaghs " I think Jinnah was mostly right to split Pakistan from India. The sectarianism and tribalism would probably have erupted in violence eventually. " My basic view is that the Indian Congress and Ghandi had united all sects to proceed to peacefully create an independent India, but the britiish and their puppet Jinnah had raised ancient animosity's to partition the country.

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 ? :rolleyes: If anyone is ranting here it's you pal.

" 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.:D " :rolleyes::rolleyes: That must surely rate as the most ridiculous comment ever made on this board. 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, 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 ? :rolleyes:

" 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

Hopefully this answers all your comments Einstein.

* (if there is any other countries correct me if I am wrong anyone, I'd be interested to know )

McArmalite

McArmalite wrote: »

First, this thing is this is getting dragged out, so hopefully this will have to be the last post 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.

" 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. " My reply was to explain the historical background of the creation of the Pakistan state in reply to donaghs " I think Jinnah was mostly right to split Pakistan from India. The sectarianism and tribalism would probably have erupted in violence eventually. " My basic view is that the Indian Congress and Ghandi had united all sects to proceed to peacefully create an independent India, but the britiish and their puppet Jinnah had raised ancient animosity's to partition the country.

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 ? :rolleyes: If anyone is ranting here it's you pal.

" 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.:D " :rolleyes::rolleyes: That must surely rate as the most ridiculous comment ever made on this board. 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, 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 ? :rolleyes:

" 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

Hopefully this answers all your comments Einstein.

* (if there is any other countries correct me if I am wrong anyone, I'd be interested to know )

Says the man who has the anglophobic blinkers welded to his head (the sig advertises this fact).

As it was in the US war of independance most of the colonalists were British in the first place!

The empire was largely lost due to the fact Britain as nearly bankrupted by the Great war & WWII along with some "lend/lease" with the US that had strings attached, one of these relating to dismanteling the empire.

McArmalite

Deleted User wrote: »

Says the man who has the anglophobic blinkers welded to his head (the sig advertises this fact).

As it was in the US war of independance most of the colonalists were British in the first place!

The empire was largely lost due to the fact Britain as nearly bankrupted by the Great war & WWII along with some "lend/lease" with the US that had strings attached, one of these relating to dismanteling the empire.

" anglophobic " - ME Really, do many others think so ? Well, Fred Fratton can take credit for my appearent anglophobia on this forum, though he has toned it down this last few months and not hi jacking and wrecking any discussion which is in any way mildly critical of britian. However I stand over my view that britian engineered the secterian strife in India to partition the country.

Capt'n Midnight

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_federations_by_military_expenditures


World Total 1,200,000,000,000
NATO Total 849,875,309,000
United States 623,000,000,000
United Kingdom 70,000,000,000
Japan 49,100,000,000
China 45,000,000,000
South Korea 26,050,000,000
Russia 32,400,000,000
India 21,330,000,000
Pakistan 4,800,000,000
Ireland 1,300,000,000
Bangladesh 836,900,000

McArmalite

McArmalite wrote: »

However I stand over my view that Britian engineered the secterian strife in India to partition the country.

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.