PM Modi's government announces implementation of Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) [Post Updated #85]

[RexRex]

Why are indian muslims opposing it when it does not take away anything from them? If not jealousy, what is your new theory to explain this.

It is a pro-hindu law, the govt just added in a couple of other minority communities so as to make it seem like a law that isn't explicity favoring hindus. Because if it were explicity favoring hindus, Supreme Court would maybe strike it down and the whole bill would be in trouble. Who knows with this SC.

Why would indian muslims oppose it ? Not all of them obv. Maybe because they're being singled out as community in this 'refugee' law. India is a country for all religions.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I apologize for any confusion. There is something about you that I lose some of my aggro when responding to you. Planning a London/Paris trip in few months.

I wish I could say I would like to plan a trip to Dehli but it would be a lie. What would I see there that I couldn't see in any backwater in Pakistan?

 

[CricketCartoons]

It is a pro-hindu law, the govt just added in a couple of other minority communities so as to make it seem like a law that isn't explicity favoring hindus. Because if it were explicity favoring hindus, Supreme Court would maybe strike it down and the whole bill would be in trouble. Who knows with this SC.

Why would indian muslims oppose it ? Not all of them obv. Maybe because they're being singled out as community in this 'refugee' law. India is a country for all religions.

Hindus who are religious minorities. CAA is for them (if you want to ignore other religious minorities).

How are muslims being singled out? Indian muslims are not refugees, then how are they being denied anything?

Are you saying they are jealous that CAA does not apply to PK/BD muslims and Indian muslims have strong loyalty towards them?

 

[RexRex]

Hindus who are religious minorities. CAA is for them (if you want to ignore other religious minorities).

There are muslims who are persecuted by their own religion too, why haven't CAA included them ? At the end of the day, religious persecution is what matters.

Are you saying they are jealous that CAA does not apply to PK/BD muslims and Indian muslims have strong loyalty towards them?

Intersting. I suspect this is what you feel, because I certainly haven't said this.

 

[CricketCartoons]

There are muslims who are persecuted by their own religion too, why haven't CAA included them ? At the end of the day, religious persecution is what matters.




Intersting. I suspect this is what you feel, because I certainly haven't said this.

You mean Shias and ahmadis? How many shias and ahmadis from PK/BD are living in India claiming asylum?

You haven't said this, but you must have some explanation why indian muslims are bothered about including PK/BD muslims in CAA. What is your explanation?

 

[RexRex]

You haven't said this, but you must have some explanation why indian muslims are bothered about including PK/BD muslims in CAA. What is your explanation?

Indian muslims want to help persecuted muslims just like indian hindus want to help persecuted hindus.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Indian muslims want to help persecuted muslims just like indian hindus want to help persecuted hindus.

Indian muslims are opposing CAA because they want CAA to include Shias and Ahmadis (assuming they are persecuted, it is sectarian, not religious persecution)? Is this your assumption or you heard even one indian muslim say this?

What was the basis of partition? What was Nehru Liaquat pact for? You can read the original text of this pact, freely available.

 

[RexRex]

Is this your assumption or you heard even one indian muslim say this?

Yes, I have .. too many to count. Shias, Ahmadis and even some Sunnis who are fleeing weaponised blasphemy laws.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Yes, I have .. too many to count. Shias, Ahmadis and even some Sunnis who are fleeing weaponised blasphemy laws.

You have heard it from Indian muslims that they want to help PK/BD shias, ahmadis and even sunnis to get asylum in india?

 

[RexRex]

You have heard it from Indian muslims that they want to help PK/BD shias, ahmadis and even sunnis to get asylum in india?

Yes I have. Just as much as indian hindus do for their fellow co-religionists in PK/BD.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Yes I have. Just as much as indian hindus do for their fellow co-religionists in PK/BD.

Strange, because at Shaheen baagh I did not see even one placard asking for this. And I know shaheen bagh the most in Delhi.

So when they tell this to you in person, can you ask them what was the basis of partition and what was the Nehru Liaquat pact all about?

 

[CricketCartoons]

Yes I have. Just as much as indian hindus do for their fellow co-religionists in PK/BD.

Also ask them (those indian muslims you talk to), that are they willing to bring all laws on even keel? Or they want to keep the laws where they are at an advantage, and only protest against the laws where their co religionists from another countries are at a disadvantage?

But glad to know that your Indian muslims contacts think that Shias and ahmadis from PK/BD are safer in India, a bonafide islamophobic country, than being in bonafide Islamic nations.

 

[rpant_gabba]

There are muslims who are persecuted by their own religion too, why haven't CAA included them ? At the end of the day, religious persecution is what matters.




Intersting. I suspect this is what you feel, because I certainly haven't said this.

Muslims of ok/bd have declared they can’t live with Hindus. So why would Hindu majority let them back in?

So there can another partition? Maybe that’s what u want

 

[rpant_gabba]

Also ask them (those indian muslims you talk to), that are they willing to bring all laws on even keel? Or they want to keep the laws where they are at an advantage, and only protest against the laws where their co religionists from another countries are at a disadvantage?

But glad to know that your Indian muslims contacts think that Shias and ahmadis from PK/BD are safer in India, a bonafide islamophobic country, than being in bonafide Islamic nations.

Good luck getting an response to that.

He will say don’t care what Islamic nations do, want India to be a certain way

Gandhi-nehru virus in full force

 

[Red-Indian]

I am not saying constitution is imperfect, all constitutions are. So don't try to dilute the problem by making it a generic one.

I am saying that the constitution discriminates against hindus, by denying them their rights. And instead of saying that the consitution discriminates AGAINST hindus, you either make a soft statement that "constitution is not perfect", or the more sly one "hindus are jealous".

At this point I'm not sure how to engage with you. I may be wrong but I think you've stated you don't mind the specific exceptions that Muslims are getting in the Indian constitution but mind the fact that they're getting exceptions at all. You've also stated that religious exceptions are very important to you but haven't specified which exceptions you as a Hindu want and which particular exceptions you want Muslims not to get.

I'm genuinely a bit confused what you're asking for and it feels like I'm talking in circles. Would you mind restating the terms of the discussion/debate? State your position clearly and the reasoning for it and I'll try to pick it up in the morning.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Good luck getting an response to that.

He will say don’t care what Islamic nations do, want India to be a certain way

Gandhi-nehru virus in full force

Ironic that they don't even agree with their ideological father Nehru, and are now promoting things Nehru was against. Nehru didn't like commies, he called them a confused lot, but today the commies have usurped him and have turned him into a commie. Nehru was against communal veto. Today's congress and commies support it. Nehru signed Nehru Liaquat pact,

 

[cricketjoshila]

Ah you're back. Happy to respond but first -

Please answer the original question that was put to you earlier by Rishwat which was - 'Can you explain how these laws are punishing the majority?

Read the laws. Don't expect to be spoonfed.

The problem with those not living in India is that they have no connection to the ground realities and yet they have opinion on everything.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Indian muslims want to help persecuted muslims just like indian hindus want to help persecuted hindus.

What persecuted Muslims? The Muslims in pak BD formed their own country in 1947 by separating from India. And it was a bloody partition. They have no place in India. Whatever is their problem they need to sort it out in their country.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Muslims of ok/bd have declared they can’t live with Hindus. So why would Hindu majority let them back in?

So there can another partition? Maybe that’s what u want

That's the game.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Indian muslims want to help persecuted muslims just like indian hindus want to help persecuted hindus.

So based on your assumption of what Indian muslims want, Pakistan/Bangladeshi muslims should be allowed to come to India via CAA?

 

[RexRex]

So based on your assumption of what Indian muslims want, Pakistan/Bangladeshi muslims should be allowed to come to India via CAA?

I don't think anybody from PK/BD should come be it Hindu, Muslim or Christian; India should mind its own business. It has plenty of domestic problems and 1.4 billion people to look after.

 

[RexRex]

Read the laws. Don't expect to be spoonfed.

Oh great, the same old boring and monotonous reply.

 

[RexRex]

Muslims of ok/bd have declared they can’t live with Hindus. So why would Hindu majority let them back in?

So there can another partition? Maybe that’s what u want

By that logic, Hindus in PK/BD decided to stay there as well in 1947. They shouldn't be allowed to come to India either.

 

[RexRex]

What persecuted Muslims? The Muslims in pak BD formed their own country in 1947 by separating from India. And it was a bloody partition. They have no place in India. Whatever is their problem they need to sort it out in their country.

Hindus in PK/BD decided to stay there as well in 1947. They shouldn't be allowed to come to India either.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Oh great, the same old boring and monotonous reply.

Most people have no idea why people not living in India and who aren't even Indian citizens have to poke their noses in our things.

Next time if you ask something and receive an answer try to look up what's being said.

Have you read article 30?

 

[RexRex]

Strange, because at Shaheen baagh I did not see even one placard asking for this. And I know shaheen bagh the most in Delhi.

So when they tell this to you in person, can you ask them what was the basis of partition and what was the Nehru Liaquat pact all about?

Yes, one tiny rally in Shaheen Bagh represents the 200 millions muslims in India.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Hindus in PK/BD decided to stay there as well in 1947. They shouldn't be allowed to come to India either.

Were Hindus or any other community given any say in the creation of Pakistan?

No.

Overnight they became second class citizens.

Just like Pakistan was created for Muslims, all non Muslims have a place in India.

Btw the logic you just presented, does it apply to Muslims of India? Or is it only for non Muslims?

And since you don't read, CAA applies to all non Muslims. Not just Hindus.

 

[RexRex]

Were Hindus or any other community given any say in the creation of Pakistan?

No.

Overnight they became second class citizens.

Just like Pakistan was created for Muslims, all non Muslims have a place in India.

Btw the logic you just presented, does it apply to Muslims of India? Or is it only for non Muslims?

And since you don't read, CAA applies to all non Muslims. Not just Hindus.

It is not black and white as you present it. There were plenty of muslims in 1947 Pak region , the more liberal ones, who did not want Pakistan to be created and wanted a united India. Why should their descendants be made to suffer for what the pro-jinnah muslims decided ?

 

[cricketjoshila]

It is not black and white as you present it. There were plenty of muslims in 1947 Pak region , the more liberal ones, who did not want Pakistan to be created and wanted a united India. Why should their descendants be made to suffer for what the pro-jinnah muslims decided ?

87 per cent of Muslim majority seats in India were won by the Muslim league.

Where is this plenty pf liberals coming from?

The way Muslims rejected the Congress idea of united India was a slap on the face of Congress leaders.

Muslims from Pakistan and BD will never be allowed any fast track citizenship in India. Never. They will not change our demographics and get to try another partition.

 

[RexRex]

The way Muslims rejected the Congress idea of united India was a slap on the face of Congress leaders.

Majority of the muslims in Pak region voted for Muslim League. But many did not. What should be done about the the latter ? Can they be allowed to come to India now ?

 

[RexRex]

Muslims from Pakistan and BD will never be allowed any fast track citizenship in India. Never. They will not change our demographics and get to try another partition.

Are you saying there is something inherent in muslims that they aim for partition wherever they go ? Because that's a larger philosophical debate about Islam and democracy.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Are you saying there is something inherent in muslims that they aim for partition wherever they go ? Because that's a larger philosophical debate about Islam and democracy.

I don't care where they go or what they they do there, they aren't getting refugee status in India or any Fastrack citizenship.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Majority of the muslims in Pak region voted for Muslim League. But many did not. What should be done about the the latter ? Can they be allowed to come to India now ?

Who didn't we don't know. Neither it is our job to find out.

Muslims got a country on the back of a bloody partition and they aren't going get back to India.

 

[RexRex]

Who didn't we don't know. Neither it is our job to find out.

It is not India's job to help hindus in PK/BD either.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Read the laws. Don't expect to be spoonfed.

The problem with those not living in India is that they have no connection to the ground realities and yet they have opinion on everything.

This is not true., thats why you don't see much opinion or debate on Sri Lanka, Nepal, Thailand, Iran etc. To be honest, even China, Afghanistan and Bangladesh despite all the recent traumas don't really spark much interest.

Only India gets a lot of heated discussion, and I am sure you have your own theories why. My contention is it is because we have many Indian posters here of all persuasions. Some are friendly, some come for cricket talk, and a fair old chunk are hardcore hindutvas who are here to push state propaganda which often creates a backlash, hence the opinions you talk about.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

87 per cent of Muslim majority seats in India were won by the Muslim league.

Where is this plenty pf liberals coming from?

The way Muslims rejected the Congress idea of united India was a slap on the face of Congress leaders.

Muslims from Pakistan and BD will never be allowed any fast track citizenship in India. Never. They will not change our demographics and get to try another partition.

The demographics is the important part here. I don't know why you use partition as a negative given your views, as without it I don't think the BJP would ever get to power. If 400 million Muslims from BD and Pakistan were to be part of pre-partition India, I don't think they would be voting for Modi. You should give thanks to Jinnah for removing precisely the minority which changed the demography to your liking.

 

[Hitman]

The demographics is the important part here. I don't know why you use partition as a negative given your views, as without it I don't think the BJP would ever get to power. If 400 million Muslims from BD and Pakistan were to be part of pre-partition India, I don't think they would be voting for Modi. You should give thanks to Jinnah for removing precisely the minority which changed the demography to your liking.

We thank the great man every single day.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Yes, one tiny rally in Shaheen Bagh represents the 200 millions muslims in India.

But the muslims you talked to represent the 200 million.

 

[CricketCartoons]

It is not India's job to help hindus in PK/BD either.

CAA is already in effect despite your opinions.

 

[cricketjoshila]

It is not India's job to help hindus in PK/BD either.

I am minding my own business because India is my country of citizenship and residence.

 

[Hitman]

I don't care about the religion of my countrymen. They belong to me, and I belong to them.

 

[Stewie]

We thank the great man every single day.

I dont mean to sound facetious but the extremely butt hurt sentiment about the partition from Hindu posters here speaks otherwise.

 

[Stewie]

Culturally/socially, Muslims in India and Muslims in Pakistan have forked off considerably. Hindus dont grab that concept.

 

[Hitman]

He knows clear and well what I was talking about.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Culturally/socially, Muslims in India and Muslims in Pakistan have forked off considerably. Hindus dont grab that concept.

Neither do christians it seems.

 

[Hitman]

I dont mean to sound facetious but the extremely butt hurt sentiment about the partition from Hindu posters here speaks otherwise.

I can't speak for every Indian. I can merely speak about myself. I thank the great man every single day.

 

[Stewie]

I can't speak for every Indian. I can merely speak about myself. I thank the great man every single day.

I am sure it is not due to some genuine sincere emotion and out of respect for the majority wishes of a group of people.

If I were to guess, I would say it is more out of a sense of relief that in a United India today, Muslims would have been in majority and your goose would have been cooked. lol

 

[Hitman]

I am sure it is not due to some genuine sincere emotion and out of respect for the majority wishes of a group of people.

If I were to guess, I would say it is more out of a sense of relief that in a United India today, Muslims would have been in majority and your goose would have been cooked. lol

Not really! If not for him, we too would have had to approach the IMF a record 23 times till date. But most of all, we would have to share borders with Afghanstan.

 

[Stewie]

Not really! If not for him, we too would have had to approach the IMF a record 23 times till date. But most of all, we would have to share borders with Afghanstan.

Refreshing to see Indians are at least admitting the challenges of sharing a border with Afghanistan.

 

[Hitman]

Refreshing to see Indians are at least admitting the challenges of sharing a border with Afghanistan.

Nothing but the truth! Pakistan's biggest curse since it's inception is that it shares a border with that country.

 

[Stewie]

Not really! If not for him, we too would have had to approach the IMF a record 23 times till date. But most of all, we would have to share borders with Afghanstan.

A United India under a majorithy Muslim government does not necessarily mean it would have faced the same challenged as Pakistan. Not at all.

In fact, I believe for a while the trajectory of the two countries was identical after partition. The leadership on both sides was elitist, post colonial but heavily influenced by colonial style leadership. Pakistan was small enough for them to control through the military. India on the other hand was too big, diverse with a number of differing thoughts and views to be able to united under one method of control as in the case of Pakistan. I would say with so many ethnicities, religions, languages, most of you guys never agreed on one thing and neither did your military or elitist leadership.
That is where the paths diverged, which is a good thing for India and bad for Pakistan. So, I would say, NO, a united India would not be going to the IMF with a begging bowl. The only reason Pakistan has to because the elitist establishment has stolen everything we had and did not put in any development plans.
It is a double edged sword though. We do not know if Muslims would have been in majority in India after 75 years of independence. It is very well possible that a majority Hindu India would have gone the route of MODIism in 1965 rather than after 2010 which would have possibly resulted in a genocide or at least conditions that would not have allowed Muslims to multiply so much as they have in Pakisan and Bangladesh. I guess we would never know.

 

[rpant_gabba]

By that logic, Hindus in PK/BD decided to stay there as well in 1947. They shouldn't be allowed to come to India either.

Not logical at all. you are equating the mayhem caused by the Jinnah ad his muslim cohorts to get what they want to people being stuck with a choice they didn't make. Nauseating, disgusting position to take but not surpising from a pseudosecular.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Are you saying there is something inherent in muslims that they aim for partition wherever they go ? Because that's a larger philosophical debate about Islam and democracy.

is it not? look at the number of isis recruits moving from EU and US to establish caliphate.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Refreshing to see Indians are at least admitting the challenges of sharing a border with Afghanistan.

This is something I have been commenting on for some time here. Good to see that it has impacted the hindutvas substantially. Pakistan provides a buffer nation for Bharat, this is something they should be eternally grateful for given the historic enmity that nation had for hindustan.

 

[rpant_gabba]

I can't speak for every Indian. I can merely speak about myself. I thank the great man every single day.

Add me to that list.

I am sure it is not due to some genuine sincere emotion and out of respect for the majority wishes of a group of people.

If I were to guess, I would say it is more out of a sense of relief that in a United India today, Muslims would have been in majority and your goose would have been cooked. lol

He did a great service for the Hindus by taking the ones he took with him to pakistan.

Imaging the whole subcontinent being in the mess that Pakistan is now?

 

[Stewie]

is it not? look at the number of isis recruits moving from EU and US to establish caliphate.

Conjecture and evidence less propaganda.

There are around 2 billion Muslims in the world and they all wanted a caliphate established, it would have been done a long time ago. Muslims in western countries are thriving and dont fdeel the need for caliphate established. It is only in countries where their rights are being violated you might see them acting out and fighting back against the government for their own rights. I would like to see any stats that reflect a majority of Muslims from EU and US actually joined ISIS. I dont think there are any numbers out there documented, personally. I dont know much about the UK, but in the US there is negligible sympathy for ISIS.

 

[Stewie]

Add me to that list.

He did a great service for the Hindus by taking the ones he took with him to pakistan.

Imaging the whole subcontinent being in the mess that Pakistan is now?

Perhaps you should read my posts on the subject. Thanks.

 

[Red-Indian]

A United India under a majorithy Muslim government does not necessarily mean it would have faced the same challenged as Pakistan. Not at all.

In fact, I believe for a while the trajectory of the two countries was identical after partition. The leadership on both sides was elitist, post colonial but heavily influenced by colonial style leadership. Pakistan was small enough for them to control through the military. India on the other hand was too big, diverse with a number of differing thoughts and views to be able to united under one method of control as in the case of Pakistan. I would say with so many ethnicities, religions, languages, most of you guys never agreed on one thing and neither did your military or elitist leadership.
That is where the paths diverged, which is a good thing for India and bad for Pakistan. So, I would say, NO, a united India would not be going to the IMF with a begging bowl. The only reason Pakistan has to because the elitist establishment has stolen everything we had and did not put in any development plans.
It is a double edged sword though. We do not know if Muslims would have been in majority in India after 75 years of independence. It is very well possible that a majority Hindu India would have gone the route of MODIism in 1965 rather than after 2010 which would have possibly resulted in a genocide or at least conditions that would not have allowed Muslims to multiply so much as they have in Pakisan and Bangladesh. I guess we would never know.

I'd love to debate this properly without the weirdos from both sides jumping in. You know who I mean...the muslims were destined to fail group and the first build toilets for your beggars group.

Post World War 2 was a unique experiment for humanity in that a whole bunch of countries were starting up around each other in terms of living conditions, per capita income, industrial capacity etc. Even countries like Japan which had been bombed into oblivion were not far off from ex-colonies on those metrices. Is it possible to identify patterns and narratives or is it just that each country is unique and why say Nigeria has failed so miserably despite having natural resources. I built a chart below with a few chosen countries that have diverged hugely and are still diverging.


I have a few theories myself but if someone can recommend a good book with a working theory on this, I'd be interested.

 

[Stewie]

I'd love to debate this properly without the weirdos from both sides jumping in. You know who I mean...the muslims were destined to fail group and the first build toilets for your beggars group.

Post World War 2 was a unique experiment for humanity in that a whole bunch of countries were starting up around each other in terms of living conditions, per capita income, industrial capacity etc. Even countries like Japan which had been bombed into oblivion were not far off from ex-colonies on those metrices. Is it possible to identify patterns and narratives or is it just that each country is unique and why say Nigeria has failed so miserably despite having natural resources. I built a chart below with a few chosen countries that have diverged hugely and are still diverging.
View attachment 142817

I have a few theories myself but if someone can recommend a good book with a working theory on this, I'd be interested.

It’s a fascinating topic, one that demands its own thread. For the sake of not derailing this discussion, I’ll keep it simple. I cannot speak for others but in Pakistan’s case, it was a combination of a number of geopolitical external and domestic factors that started the downward slide. We are doing fine till the 80s, even after losing East Pakistan. The Soviet Afghan war is directly and indirectly responsible for most of it. Of course, I dont have to say anything about our establishment and the corrupt leaders they gave rise to.

 

[Stewie]

Japan and South Korea are very homgenous nations and dont have to deal much with the internal dynamics of various ethnicities, religions, languages, etc that say Pakistan and India have to deal with. My guess is that uniting factor could be a reason in their progress. They are also not too focused on establishing multiple identities for their nations. Pakistanis still struggle with it because they put their faith above all, and like to drag religion into everything and that is to the detriment of a strong national identity.

 

[Red-Indian]

It’s a fascinating topic, one that demands its own thread. For the sake of not derailing this discussion, I’ll keep it simple. I cannot speak for others but in Pakistan’s case, it was a combination of a number of geopolitical external and domestic factors that started the downward slide. We are doing fine till the 80s, even after losing East Pakistan. The Soviet Afghan war is directly and indirectly responsible for most of it. Of course, I dont have to say anything about our establishment and the corrupt leaders they gave rise to.

You're right that it probably demands a thread of it's own. I'm too new to but maybe someone starts one. In any case, I think it would be difficult to have a debate without the trolls jumping in.

If we stick to the sub-group of Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and maybe Sri Lanka - essentially 1/4th, I think there's been a fair bit of analysis already and quite a bit of literature on the economic reasons for divergence. There's not a lot any of us here can add.

I was more interested in cultural patterns and broader narratives in the development stories but it's a tough subject to parse and inbuilt biases and perceptions can easily lead you down blind alleys.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Japan and South Korea are very homgenous nations and dont have to deal much with the internal dynamics of various ethnicities, religions, languages, etc that say Pakistan and India have to deal with. My guess is that uniting factor could be a reason in their progress. They are also not too focused on establishing multiple identities for their nations. Pakistanis still struggle with it because they put their faith above all, and like to drag religion into everything and that is to the detriment of a strong national identity.

Faith could also be a unifying identity if Pakistan lived according to the basic tenants, but Pakistan more reflects the tumultuous culture of the subcontinent which is one of unruly mess, poor hygiene and mob violence. Most people would say Malaysians seem to display more faith individually, yet their country is light years ahead. I don't know what sort of faith they practise but they seem more at peace with it, and as far as I know there is quite a multicultural aspect with a lot of different faiths on view there.

 

[Stewie]

Faith could also be a unifying identity if Pakistan lived according to the basic tenants, but Pakistan more reflects the tumultuous culture of the subcontinent which is one of unruly mess, poor hygiene and mob violence. Most people would say Malaysians seem to display more faith individually, yet their country is light years ahead. I don't know what sort of faith they practise but they seem more at peace with it, and as far as I know there is quite a multicultural aspect with a lot of different faiths on view there.

I would say they dont let the faith define their national identity. That is the key.

 

[rpant_gabba]

I'd love to debate this properly without the weirdos from both sides jumping in. You know who I mean...the muslims were destined to fail group and the first build toilets for your beggars group.

Post World War 2 was a unique experiment for humanity in that a whole bunch of countries were starting up around each other in terms of living conditions, per capita income, industrial capacity etc. Even countries like Japan which had been bombed into oblivion were not far off from ex-colonies on those metrices. Is it possible to identify patterns and narratives or is it just that each country is unique and why say Nigeria has failed so miserably despite having natural resources. I built a chart below with a few chosen countries that have diverged hugely and are still diverging.
View attachment 142817

I have a few theories myself but if someone can recommend a good book with a working theory on this, I'd be interested.

Misleading graphic. Japan was a industrialized nation which was a world power.

They were also protected by US and not much to worry about territorial security

Same goes for South Korea

Both had US as a major economic benefactor

India on the other hand was bled dry, barely could feed itself. Throw in the idiocy of mohandas and his starvation tantrums combined with ideological lunacy of Nehru, it’s a bit of miracle India survived at all

 

[rpant_gabba]

It’s a fascinating topic, one that demands its own thread. For the sake of not derailing this discussion, I’ll keep it simple. I cannot speak for others but in Pakistan’s case, it was a combination of a number of geopolitical external and domestic factors that started the downward slide. We are doing fine till the 80s, even after losing East Pakistan. The Soviet Afghan war is directly and indirectly responsible for most of it. Of course, I dont have to say anything about our establishment and the corrupt leaders they gave rise to.

Thanks to American patronage.

Nixon era was highly beneficial to Pakistan and so was late Carter and Reagan era.

If Pakistan had focused on development and not started the ‘65 war, India would have continued to be confused basket case.

I’d say India is where it is becos of Jinnah and Ayub

Thanks to Jinnah, governance was simplified

Thanks to Ayub, India increased it military strength

 

[rpant_gabba]

A United India under a majorithy Muslim government does not necessarily mean it would have faced the same challenged as Pakistan. Not at all.

In fact, I believe for a while the trajectory of the two countries was identical after partition. The leadership on both sides was elitist, post colonial but heavily influenced by colonial style leadership. Pakistan was small enough for them to control through the military. India on the other hand was too big, diverse with a number of differing thoughts and views to be able to united under one method of control as in the case of Pakistan. I would say with so many ethnicities, religions, languages, most of you guys never agreed on one thing and neither did your military or elitist leadership.
That is where the paths diverged, which is a good thing for India and bad for Pakistan. So, I would say, NO, a united India would not be going to the IMF with a begging bowl. The only reason Pakistan has to because the elitist establishment has stolen everything we had and did not put in any development plans.
It is a double edged sword though. We do not know if Muslims would have been in majority in India after 75 years of independence. It is very well possible that a majority Hindu India would have gone the route of MODIism in 1965 rather than after 2010 which would have possibly resulted in a genocide or at least conditions that would not have allowed Muslims to multiply so much as they have in Pakisan and Bangladesh. I guess we would never know.

I’d say it would have been worse. Jinnah wanted Hindus as hostages in the Muslim majority areas if you believe Ayesha Jalal and that is the only way partition could have avoided. It would have impossible to govern if those demands in cabinet mission plan had been granted

Read Ayesha Jalal and ishtiaq Ahmed. Contrasting views on Jinnah’s intentions but all point to the same problems with governance given the demands that had to be met to avoid partition

 

[Energy]

Danish Kaneria must be licking his lips here. Does PCB injustice count as one of the categories?

The world's largest democracy has passed a law that specifically and categorically singles out a religion-based cohort, in the name of protecting against persecution. Thereby implying the lives of other religions is not important and they are free to die elsewhere. It's a cute rhetorical definition of citizenship.

 

[rpant_gabba]

You couldn’t figure out why economy was “better” under the dictators for Pakistan. Hint: they sold out Pakistan’s future.

Regarding Jinnah, read Ayesha Jalal, a professor from Pakistan “thriving” at Tufts

 

[Stewie]

You couldn’t figure out why economy was “better” under the dictators for Pakistan. Hint: they sold out Pakistan’s future.

Regarding Jinnah, read Ayesha Jalal, a professor from Pakistan “thriving” at Tufts

I know very well the damage the dictators of Pakistan have caused the country. I am educated enough to see through the mist created by the propaganda, which is something I wish our some of our neighbors to the east had the capability of doing.

India is a nation that is now enjoying the fruits of the labor of the governments of previous eras, yet somehow are putting a an uneducated divisive hindu nationalist on the pedestal and giving him all the credit for the current prosperity.

Perhaps take a deeper look at yourself, inspite of the better conditions in India, and try to see how religious dogma and divisiveness can be detrimental to a nation, lest you go down this path and find yourself in a similar state a few decades later.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Danish Kaneria must be licking his lips here. Does PCB injustice count as one of the categories?

The world's largest democracy has passed a law that specifically and categorically singles out a religion-based cohort, in the name of protecting against persecution. Thereby implying the lives of other religions is not important and they are free to die elsewhere. It's a cute rhetorical definition of citizenship.

The CAA allows every religious minority from Pakistan and BD to come to India as refugees and get citizenship.

The only religion that's excluded is Muslims because these nations are Islamic countries and because Muslims of these nations chose to separate and build another nation. They have no way back into India.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Thanks to American patronage.

Nixon era was highly beneficial to Pakistan and so was late Carter and Reagan era.

If Pakistan had focused on development and not started the ‘65 war, India would have continued to be confused basket case.

I’d say India is where it is becos of Jinnah and Ayub

Thanks to Jinnah, governance was simplified

Thanks to Ayub, India increased it military strength

You forgot Zia ul haq, he Islamized Pakistan which sealed the country's fate.

 

[Stewie]

You forgot Zia ul haq, he Islamized Pakistan which sealed the country's fate.

Using religious extremism to counter the Soviets was a ploy of the CIA. Zia was a tool for them and he used their strategies to his benefit in fighting off any opposition to his rule in Pakistan by portraying himself as a protector of the religion. But giving him the sole credit for this evil is perhaps wrong. I think the blame is shared. The americans did not want to fight the Soviets themselves and weaponized religion to tap into a supply of free labor that will help them keep the Soviete influence at bay in the region. They are asm uhc to blame for extremism as the mulla. THere is no difference. Both use the name of religion to achieve their goals.

 

[Vikram1989]

. The Soviet Afghan war is directly and indirectly responsible for most of it.

I will say pak is the profiter from the outcome perspective. They got aid (ehich is not possible now),latest ammo and good will among the us,only super power power for next 2.5 decades .I will say issue is not utilising the profit for further growth.

 

[Stewie]

I will say pak is the profiter from the outcome perspective. They got aid (ehich is not possible now),latest ammo and good will among the us,only super power power for next 2.5 decades .I will say issue is not utilising the profit for further growth.

What about the extremism, drugs and guns that were imported from Afghanistan as a result?

 

[Vikram1989]

What about the extremism, drugs and guns that were imported from Afghanistan as a result?

Problem is pak have done the most difficult job excellently and faltered at easier stage.Extremism was redirected ,instead of letting it go.Gun's were atleast restricted to border areas .

 

[Stewie]

Problem is pak have done the most difficult job excellently and faltered at easier stage.Extremism was redirected ,instead of letting it go.Gun's were atleast restricted to border areas .

Says who? The fallout was the worst. Maybe I am older than most here. I grew up in the 80s and experienced the whole thing first hand. Once the guns, drugs, paajeros come in, the whole country is fair game, Karachi in particular faced the brunt of it.

I honestly don’t think the Indian posters have any clue about the whole situation. The Afghans with the assistance of CIA funded their war through poppy and heroin. It got supplied world wide. Pakistan was drowning in drugs and still is. Post Afghan war the war lords set their sights on areas of Pakistan close to the border to make it their territory. Then the taliban stepped in and took over. As long as we didn’t bother them, they would not bother us which is why we made peace with them and the whole world blames us for it.


Same thing happened with the Arab spring in the Middle East, where CIA funded the push for democracy but didn’t see it through and in the end we got ISIS.

The west fuels wars for their benefit in these regions and the people here have to face the brunt of it. Be thankful you are geographically protected from it all.

 

[Vikram1989]

Says who? The fallout was the worst. Maybe I am older than most here. I grew up in the 80s and experienced the whole thing first hand. Once the guns, drugs, paajeros come in, the whole country is fair game, Karachi in particular faced the brunt of it.

One query though.Why Karachi bore the brunt? I see it is far away from afg.is mafia already established there ?.I remember an Indian reporter praising Karachi telephone exchange modern standards during the 87 wc.

 

[Stewie]

One query though.Why Karachi bore the brunt? I see it is far away from afg.is mafia already established there ?.I remember an Indian reporter praising Karachi telephone exchange modern standards during the 87 wc.

Karachi is the economic hub of the country and all the afghan immigrants moved there and stirred all sorts of problems. Karachi because of its standing in the country became the hot bed of all sorts of problems in the 80s and 90s thanks to the fallout. Like I keep emphasizing “the proximity to the border had no bearings on the drugs, and guns aspect of it”.

 

[big_gamer007]

That does not mean anything. It is really bad for the optics. India, much like pakistani, is a duality.

India doe a better job hiding its flaws. It is a prospering economic nations and such public moves will severly hamper its progress.
Similarly, Pakistan is in a virtual martial law but publicly they dont admit it, because its bad for hte optics. By most standards, India, under MODI, is Bharat, a hindu state. People here have admitted to it and defend it. There are only a few who still want it to be secular and the forum posters here are a good repsresentation of today's indian people and the direction they want the country to go to.

What are the standards which make India a Hindu state?
Can you name those standards?

One you would probably say is Beef is banned in most states, other than that?

 

[Stewie]

What are the standards which make India a Hindu state?
Can you name those standards?

One you would probably say is Beef is banned in most states, other than that?

You really have to ask? Look around. There are separate threads on this topic. The same media you point us to when you want to talk about Pakistan’s issues, I’ll point you to as well. It is talking about India turning into a Hindu nationalist state.