Pro-Indian 'Pakistanis'

[Pakistanian]

You seem to know more about my links with Pakistan than I do, lol. I haven't been to Pakistan in 16 years, not even once. All my immediate family lives in US. I have very little if any ties left in Pakistan other than historical and nostalgic. Having said that, I still consider myself as a Pakistani minus the patriotic and jingoistic baggage that comes along with it according to people like you who feel a "Pakistani" need to carry in order to be called a "True Pakistani".

As for India, you can keep believing the propaganda fed to you by our military establishment and their allies. I choose to believe otherwise. As I stated in my earlier post, I am no fan of Modi but to say that most Indians feel nothing but hate towards Pakistan is a highly subjective statement. If you feel that makes me pro-Indian so be it. Feel free to keep believing that. Whatever rocks your boat!

Most Indians (not Indian-Americans) do view Pakistan negatively, it's not subjective.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...-india-see-pakistan-70-years-after-partition/

 

[saadibaba]

Most Indians (not Indian-Americans) do view Pakistan negatively, it's not subjective.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...-india-see-pakistan-70-years-after-partition/

Sad to hear that. I guess they (Indians) are also equally susceptible to propaganda by their govt. like us. Still, all is not lost in my opinion. Dialogue, discussion and peaceful negotiations is the only way forward. Both sides need to quit the jingoistic rhetoric and come to terms with the fact that the sooner they learn to live together, the better for both of them. We need to do our part at least, if India does not reciprocate, at least we tried.

 

[Braveheart]

CPT Rishwat
You say 'the love isn't reciprocated' from the Indian side, I state it is reciprocated, hence my post.

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

Nawaz Sharif lost a lot of credibility with the public when he made pro India statements attacking 'his' own nation..

"“Militant organisations are active. Call them non-state actors, should we allow them to cross the border and kill 150 people in Mumbai?"

This was basically a confirmation of Indian allegation who claim Pakistan has active groups who are ordered to attack India.

Others such as Najam Sethi have also made similar statements attacking Pakistan and praising India.

When I visit Pakistan I never meet such people who hold pro-India views but there seems to be some around esp on internet forums and social media.

I would like to know...

1. Is this a growing phenomenon?

2. Are some Pakistani's self hating and prefer to be part of India?

3. Are such people a threat to national security as they can be recruited?

4. Is this treason?

5. Are they just patriotic Pakistani's who believe they are only speaking the truth?

For me, I can never respect any Pakistani who is pro-Indian at the expense of being negative towards Pakistan.

4. Is this treason?

This is an extreme point of view. Moreover, in a democracy there should be room to criticize government and opposition is the key during whole process.

That said, Nawaz Sharif is a thief. He's robbed poor people of Pakistan for decades. He shouldn't hide within these honest people you are referring in your post.

 

[BlackShadow]

Most Indians (not Indian-Americans) do view Pakistan negatively, it's not subjective.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...-india-see-pakistan-70-years-after-partition/

Do you understand Hindi well? The only person I found speaking negative about Pakistan was a woman, rest sounded quite reasonable.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

So you are asking me to quit PakPassion since I don’t harbor the same patriotic beliefs as the majority of my fellow countrymen, lol. Tell me who here is more Modi like? A “pro-Indian” Pakistani like me or you.....

I worded it badly, of course I wouldn't want you to quit PakPassion, one of the joys of being a member here is interaction with unpatriotic Pakistanis, you are a fine poster and we would be poorer for your absence. Every nation needs it's disaffected members of society, even America has it's Michael Moores and Seth Rogens.

 

[kabbirann]

This thread is so like Bhakt v/s non-Bhakts on my side of the border

So much this.Certain Pakistani's and BJP bhakt's are like mirror images of each other.

 

[the Great Khan]

Can you expand on that statement, Mr. Jinnah was right.

I would like to but it would be impolite to do so and would not be appropriate on a public forum..lets just say the two communities are better off separate but at peace..

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I would like to but it would be impolite to do so and would not be appropriate on a public forum..lets just say the two communities are better off separate but at peace..

Do it in a polite way then. These are matters that have had great imact in the subcontinent, ducking uncomfortable questions is not doing any favours.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I would like to but it would be impolite to do so and would not be appropriate on a public forum..lets just say the two communities are better off separate but at peace..

Truth must always be spoken, no matter how harsh it is. I think it is do with indians always showing their true colors sooner or later, no matter how friendly you are with them.

 

[the Great Khan]

This nonsense is the greatest success of the British.

Yes you are actually spot on. If you read alot of the history of the time it becomes quite clear what the British were upto especially after the 1857 war.

'We', the Muslims, never reigned over the 'Hindus'. Identities were not binary, and religious identities are a fluid concept. A convert today has absolutely nothing to do with the actions of the past.

You can never ever compare historical periods without many caveats. Today is not yesterday. You are also spot on about the Muslim rule stuff. Now as a rule Muslims did rule parts of India for a very long time. There is no doubt. The law was compatible with the Shariah but there were some very how shall we say it, "ghulabi" rules in there too. Ultimately the Mughals were secular rulers who used the shariah as their system of law as had been done in their ancestral lands for generations. In those days the Mughal ruler dealt with the princely states and tribes of India as just that. As tribes. So the Rajputs (be they hindu or Muslim) allied aith the Mughal ruler while the Marathas also Hindus were against. The tribes of the border lands of the frontier like the afridis were anti Mughal but were Muslim and were fought by Hindus who were loyal to the Muslim ruler. Nothing was as simple as our hinduvta and Islamic extremist friends make out.

Another interesting aspect to consider is the war of 1857 itself. A revolt that was put down with the help of the Muslims of what is KP province today. If people here think Abbottabad is a Pakistani urdu word they need to pick up a book..


Secondly, the so called 'Muslim' rulers identified as Central Asian/Turkish/Mughal - not as Muslim. The same way in which British rule was not Christian rule. I don't see the Christians of Pakistan yearning for the return of the British, nor do I see them place any stake in the British Raj.

This is not entirely true. You see in those days being Muslim was a given thing for the rulers. It was a matter of fact and nothing out of the ordinary. Hence implementing the shariah was just what was done. Having a harem was normal. etc etc..Being a Muslim was no big deal. Unlike today where it is a big deal. Similarly being a Hindu who worshipped Ganesh was just a normal thing. It wasnt seen as an extraordinary thing. In todays Godless secular world, being even slightly religious is seen as extreme. In those days being religious was just normal life. Secularism was different in those days as was being Godly. Just different times that we cannot judge using todays standards.

It baffles me why some villager in Punjab would think that he was somehow part of a lost 'Muslim' empire, when in reality, he was just a poor serf tending the fields of his Zamindar masters...whatever their religion.

True but I tell you what, poor villagers were more closely aware of their differences than you realise. One of the things the British did after the war of 1857 was destroy the Islamic avenues for education. My father tells me how their village was devoid of any Islamic cultural or religious leanings. It was cleanes by the British. The Hindus dominated that part of the area and he tells me how during Diwali and their festivals they would wash their gold and gamble. They only got a full time Imam in the 1980's. after nearly a hundred years.

Jinnah understood the ramifications of a majority Hindu dominated legislature and its effect on the Muslim nation. He knew what was coming. The 1939 elections just made it all the more real for him and everyone else. He realised that the majority didn't want to give any concessions or even entertain the notion of a federal state. Partition became inevitable.

regards

 

[the Great Khan]

Do it in a polite way then. These are matters that have had great imact in the subcontinent, ducking uncomfortable questions is not doing any favours.

Ok ill try to say this in a polite way. We are just different. Similar but different. there is an underlying uneasiness when it comes to the two communities. Ultimately we eat their god. Also there are socio economic issues that play a part in the Uk. Finally there is a strange lack of confidence within the opposing community that sometimes can manifest in strange ways. either overt nationalism/ extremism or downright prejudice.

I have found that Indians are racist against Pakistanis. But the weirdest thing is I find that more so in Indian Muslims than Indian Hindu's. With Hindus we know where we stand and can get along as long as certain red-lines are not crossed e.g. marriage. With indian Muslims its a whole another kettle of fish..I'll need a whole thread to articulate the issues I have had ..

Also things are changing fast now. I find that alot of Hindus are becoming very nationalistic with regards to India and generally very tory with regards to the UK political climate..

 

[TM Riddle]

[MENTION=253]the Great Khan[/MENTION] The religiosity of Medieval Muslim Monarchs has been greatly exaggerated by the historians (esp by the contemporary writers such as Barani, Siraj, Badayuni etc).
Whilst most of them did try to govern as per the rules of Sharia, they were also familiar with the ground realties i.e majority of their subjects were Hindus who could only be subdued so much. Besides there were warring tribes such as Rajputs etc to deal with as well who were always on alert to rebel.
Thus they adopted a middle approach, one which was outwardly Islamic but that gave enough space for others to exist. This began with the reign of Jalaluddin Khilji who recognized the importance of Hindus in the grander scheme of things and began recruiting them (thus reversing Balban's policy of racial exclusion). Alauddin continued it and afterwards Hindus became a common sight in the courts so much so that they formed the backbone of Mughal bureaucracy .
You are also wrong about Marathas being anti Mughal. During the last decade of Aurangzeb's reign, they had displaced Rajputs(who increasingly felt alienated with Alamgir because of his growing interference in their private matters such as Rathore wars of succession etc) as major stakeholders in the empire and formed the majority of Hindu Mansabdars.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Ok ill try to say this in a polite way. We are just different. Similar but different. there is an underlying uneasiness when it comes to the two communities. Ultimately we eat their god. Also there are socio economic issues that play a part in the Uk. Finally there is a strange lack of confidence within the opposing community that sometimes can manifest in strange ways. either overt nationalism/ extremism or downright prejudice.

I have found that Indians are racist against Pakistanis. But the weirdest thing is I find that more so in Indian Muslims than Indian Hindu's. With Hindus we know where we stand and can get along as long as certain red-lines are not crossed e.g. marriage. With indian Muslims its a whole another kettle of fish..I'll need a whole thread to articulate the issues I have had ..

Also things are changing fast now. I find that alot of Hindus are becoming very nationalistic with regards to India and generally very tory with regards to the UK political climate..

I think there are different criteria in the UK from the subcontinent. You say ultimately we eat their god, but if you are talking about the UK, it's hardly a big deal, Pakistanis don't eat beef here, it's the Anglo Saxons who have the tradition of roast beef every Sunday. The French even have the derisory term for Brits as le rosbif. How many Hindus do you think will raise that issue with the English? So it isn't an issue here, or in Pakistan, this is a major contention only in India itself.

As for Indian Muslims, I have to confess I have barely come across any in my lifetime which is a massive shame, I would love to have had long discussions into the night about our world views.

 

[enkidu_]

[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] Jalal's historiography on Mr. Jinnah has been moderated by more recent scholarship (Faisal Devji's take is interesting, even if not totally conclusive). The Pakistan Movement wasn't "Jinnah-centric", it was based on communal brand of politics which go back to the mid-19th century, even if for contingent reasons Mr. Jinnah came to embody such ideals : his own life, from a secular lawyer who was the poster-boy of "Hindu-Muslim unity" (as famous independence activist Saroji Naidu hailed him) as well as being the favorite of Pandit Tilak (the one who launched the swaraj or self-rule movement motto, popularized by Gandhi later on), to a cultural Muslim activist is in fact symptomatic of the larger Muslim intelligentsia (in a way, Mawdudi's biography isn't that far).

I already advised you to read Perry Anderson's "The Indian ideology" who shows how Hindu the so called secular leadership (esp. Gandhi) really was, Mr. Jinnah being a sort of reaction, and you didn't need to be Nostradamus to guess what would happen in a matter of decades, when the Hindu masses would be empowered and would ask for a more legitimate electoral representation (the likes of Nehru not being representative of anything but themselves).

You say that education and/or functional literacy would erase the Hindu-Muslim differences, while ignoring that it's exactly the rise of an urbane middle-class which is "educated" that creates "Hindu nationalists" and "Islamists", as these groups try to self-assess their identity with modern tropes but without being modernists.

Your idea of "United States of India" is a fantasy, like Victor Hugo used to talk of "les Etats-Unis d'Europe" : the same way Europe is not an ethnic whole but a set of nations with diverging interests and centrifugal visions, in the same way India (or Pakistan) is not an homogeneous nation in the 19th romantic European sense, but an "idea". If there was no Pakistan to "polarize" the issue, Sardar Patel wouldn't have convinced +500 princely states to join an Union, and many of the actual Indian states would have probably decided to become a nation, with at best only a loose federation but that wouldn't be "India" in the actual sense, then. The US is different because it was a wholly "virgin" experience, with something mystical (Gilbert Seldes has a good book, "The Stammering Century"), and peoples migrated there from the lower classes of Europe, and a century before the idea of "nation" - they could mold a national fabric of their own, first on WASP domination and later on on the "American dream". It's something more concrete than "Indian-ness", which is in other more honest words, "Hindu-ness".

[MENTION=27435]Zahid87[/MENTION] it's too easy to blame the British. Shivaji talked of "hindavi swarajya", meaning independence from foreign rule, that is, Islamic rule, way before any English - back then Hindus didn't care about the ethnicity of the ruler, and even in the modern Hindutvadi rhetoric, Bin Qasim, Mahmud of Ghazni or Babur are all the same, "Muslim conquerors", there are no anthropological subtleties thrown in there. The very first to put forward the idea of Pakistan was the independence leader (so, against the British) Lala Lajpat Rai (we're not talking of Savarkar, but someone somehow "consensual").

The Two Nation Theory is somehow ingrained in both Islam and Hinduism and their concept of the "Other" as ritually and/or spiritually impure, unless Muslims can do without Qur'an and Hindus don't consider the Manu-smriti to be genuine.

[MENTION=253]the Great Khan[/MENTION] we might eat their god but even without that a Muslim with a minimum of iman knows that you can't make friends out of pagans & polytheists, and in fact Hindus themselves consider non Hindus to be mlecchas or "impure" (they can't even touch Dalits).

It's not even a question India/Pakistan but Hinduism/Islam at the end of the day.

 

[Napa]

Most Indians (not Indian-Americans) do view Pakistan negatively, it's not subjective.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...-india-see-pakistan-70-years-after-partition/

"Viewing negatively" is different from hate.

I believe the Pakistani army sends terrorists across the border to wage a futile war in pursuit of its self interest and to the detriment of Pakistani civilians and India. This leads me to have a negative view of Pakistan.

However I wish the Pakistani citizens well and do not hate Pakistan.

 

[Napa]

We are literally running military courts in Pakistan to execute our own citizens, no matter how bad they are. I don’t know about our ppl but the process is flawed and a serious violation of human rights. But I’m not comparing it with the Indian atrocities in Kashmir which is a next level shitshousry in my opinion. I acknowledge the fact that the Kashmiris want to live in their own homeland but we have to realise that we may never be able to fulfill all of their wishes. We can offer the Indian occupied Kashmiris our part of Kashmir but that is all we can do. There will come a time when we will have to make our foreign policy more realistic, a policy that is tethered to ground realities. We can’t afford this animosity with India forever, whereas they can. If 70 years of the bloody cycle can’t teach us that, I don’t know what will.

I agree with most of what you say, except the part about the Indian Army's behavior.

As for the Kashmir conflict, you ask what will "teach us that"? Follow the money. Who in Pakistan is benefiting from this conflict? Once you have the answer, you will know why this conflict continues.

 

[Angrez Pakistani]

I agree with most of what you say, except the part about the Indian Army's behavior.

As for the Kashmir conflict, you ask what will "teach us that"? Follow the money. Who in Pakistan is benefiting from this conflict? Once you have the answer, you will know why this conflict continues.

Ignorance is bliss.

 

[TM Riddle]

[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] Jalal's historiography on Mr. Jinnah has been moderated by more recent scholarship (Faisal Devji's take is interesting, even if not totally conclusive). The Pakistan Movement wasn't "Jinnah-centric", it was based on communal brand of politics which go back to the mid-19th century, even if for contingent reasons Mr. Jinnah came to embody such ideals : his own life, from a secular lawyer who was the poster-boy of "Hindu-Muslim unity" (as famous independence activist Saroji Naidu hailed him) as well as being the favorite of Pandit Tilak (the one who launched the swaraj or self-rule movement motto, popularized by Gandhi later on), to a cultural Muslim activist is in fact symptomatic of the larger Muslim intelligentsia (in a way, Mawdudi's biography isn't that far).

I already advised you to read Perry Anderson's "The Indian ideology" who shows how Hindu the so called secular leadership (esp. Gandhi) really was,Mr. Jinnah being a sort of reaction, and you didn't need to be Nostradamus to guess what would happen in a matter of decades, when the Hindu masses would be empowered and would ask for a more legitimate electoral representation (the likes of Nehru not being representative of anything but themselves).

You say that education and/or functional literacy would erase the Hindu-Muslim differences, while ignoring that it's exactly the rise of an urbane middle-class which is "educated" that creates "Hindu nationalists" and "Islamists", as these groups try to self-assess their identity with modern tropes but without being modernists.

Your idea of "United States of India" is a fantasy, like Victor Hugo used to talk of "les Etats-Unis d'Europe" : the same way Europe is not an ethnic whole but a set of nations with diverging interests and centrifugal visions, in the same way India (or Pakistan) is not an homogeneous nation in the 19th romantic European sense, but an "idea". If there was no Pakistan to "polarize" the issue, Sardar Patel wouldn't have convinced +500 princely states to join an Union, and many of the actual Indian states would have probably decided to become a nation, with at best only a loose federation but that wouldn't be "India" in the actual sense, then. The US is different because it was a wholly "virgin" experience, with something mystical (Gilbert Seldes has a good book, "The Stammering Century"), and peoples migrated there from the lower classes of Europe, and a century before the idea of "nation" - they could mold a national fabric of their own, first on WASP domination and later on on the "American dream". It's something more concrete than "Indian-ness", which is in other more honest words, "Hindu-ness".

[MENTION=27435]Zahid87[/MENTION] it's too easy to blame the British. Shivaji talked of "hindavi swarajya", meaning independence from foreign rule, that is, Islamic rule, way before any English - back then Hindus didn't care about the ethnicity of the ruler, and even in the modern Hindutvadi rhetoric, Bin Qasim, Mahmud of Ghazni or Babur are all the same, "Muslim conquerors", there are no anthropological subtleties thrown in there. The very first to put forward the idea of Pakistan was the independence leader (so, against the British) Lala Lajpat Rai (we're not talking of Savarkar, but someone somehow "consensual").

The Two Nation Theory is somehow ingrained in both Islam and Hinduism and their concept of the "Other" as ritually and/or spiritually impure, unless Muslims can do without Qur'an and Hindus don't consider the Manu-smriti to be genuine.

[MENTION=253]the Great Khan[/MENTION] we might eat their god but even without that a Muslim with a minimum of iman knows that you can't make friends out of pagans & polytheists, and in fact Hindus themselves consider non Hindus to be mlecchas or "impure" (they can't even touch Dalits).

It's not even a question India/Pakistan but Hinduism/Islam at the end of the day.

I agree with most of your post except the bit at the end. Hinduism isn't a rigid faith with fixed tenets and ideologies.
It's a fluidic concept that changes with every couple of centuries give or take a few. While what you said about Mlechhas could have been correct in the middle ages (if you asked a Brahman), it no longer remains a case.

Now I know you would copy paste some obscure quotes from Hindutva propagandists advocating this prejudice but the point here is that such views no longer remains mainstream and are only harboured by a few fanatics.

I do agree that Hinduism and Islam are two polar opposite concepts and it's hard to find a common ground but we did manage to coexist together when were ruled by a autocracy thus you would find that there were very very few communal riots when Mughals were ruling.
You gave the example of Shivaji trying to paint him as a predecessor of Savarkar and yet conveniently chose to ignore the amount of Muslims he employed in his army and court. His admiral was a Muslim and similarly lot many Muslims served him against Mughals.

I'm saddened by the deep hatred you nurse against us despite the fact that your forefathers followed the same Gods (or shall I say Goddess considering your background) as the rest of us.
Hindus and Muslims have coexisted together for centuries when communalism as a concept didn't even exist. In my village we have lived together since God knows how many centuries and there hasn't been a single incident of violence between the communities.
We are humans at the end of the day Bhai. Let go of this loathing. It serves no purpose other than deepening resentment and making one blind in bitterness .

 

[MenInG]

One word of advice.

Its Mr. Jinnah or Quaid-e-Azam.

I have edited a few posts but I will expect all to adhere to that respect for the father of our nation.

 

[slipcatch]

Sad to hear that. I guess they (Indians) are also equally susceptible to propaganda by their govt. like us. Still, all is not lost in my opinion. Dialogue, discussion and peaceful negotiations is the only way forward. Both sides need to quit the jingoistic rhetoric and come to terms with the fact that the sooner they learn to live together, the better for both of them. We need to do our part at least, if India does not reciprocate, at least we tried.

Fully agree. Only way forward.

 

[slipcatch]

I agree with most of what you say, except the part about the Indian Army's behavior.

As for the Kashmir conflict, you ask what will "teach us that"? Follow the money. Who in Pakistan is benefiting from this conflict? Once you have the answer, you will know why this conflict continues.

Provide the trail.

 

[saadibaba]

I worded it badly, of course I wouldn't want you to quit PakPassion, one of the joys of being a member here is interaction with unpatriotic Pakistanis, you are a fine poster and we would be poorer for your absence. Every nation needs it's disaffected members of society, even America has it's Michael Moores and Seth Rogens.

Well said Cpt. Sahib, well said.

 

[the Great Khan]

"Viewing negatively" is different from hate.

I believe the Pakistani army sends terrorists across the border to wage a futile war in pursuit of its self interest and to the detriment of Pakistani civilians and India. This leads me to have a negative view of Pakistan.

However I wish the Pakistani citizens well and do not hate Pakistan.

and we believe your misguided and fooled by your media and politicians. Pakistan supports the kashmir liberation struggle in the valley which has a UN resolution behind it and is a legitimate movement. However we do not support "terrorism" in India and the statistics prove it.

 

[the Great Khan]

[MENTION=253]the Great Khan[/MENTION] The religiosity of Medieval Muslim Monarchs has been greatly exaggerated by the historians (esp by the contemporary writers such as Barani, Siraj, Badayuni etc).
Whilst most of them did try to govern as per the rules of Sharia, they were also familiar with the ground realties i.e majority of their subjects were Hindus who could only be subdued so much. Besides there were warring tribes such as Rajputs etc to deal with as well who were always on alert to rebel.
Thus they adopted a middle approach, one which was outwardly Islamic but that gave enough space for others to exist. This began with the reign of Jalaluddin Khilji who recognized the importance of Hindus in the grander scheme of things and began recruiting them (thus reversing Balban's policy of racial exclusion). Alauddin continued it and afterwards Hindus became a common sight in the courts so much so that they formed the backbone of Mughal bureaucracy .
You are also wrong about Marathas being anti Mughal. During the last decade of Aurangzeb's reign, they had displaced Rajputs(who increasingly felt alienated with Alamgir because of his growing interference in their private matters such as Rathore wars of succession etc) as major stakeholders in the empire and formed the majority of Hindu Mansabdars.

Actually i agree with your post and you articulated my point better. The maratha one was just an example where you had different groups in confrontation not because they were Hindu or Muslim but because they had political ambitions. Shivaji is a prime example. He fought against Jai singh (I think Im right here? correct me if Im wrong..) who was the Hindu general sent by the emperor. It was a complex political environment which we cannot measure with todays very monolithic communal standards..

I actually think we have regressed rather than progressed in some ways..

 

[enkidu_]

I agree with most of your post except the bit at the end. Hinduism isn't a rigid faith with fixed tenets and ideologies.
It's a fluidic concept that changes with every couple of centuries give or take a few. While what you said about Mlechhas could have been correct in the middle ages (if you asked a Brahman), it no longer remains a case.

Hindus and Hinduism (or Vedism) are two different things, if Hindus don't respect their religious imperatives it's up to them, but Hinduism does have a notion of ritual purity/impurity and social segregation based on that (varna system).

Judaism too, and when Jesus used to even touch a non-Jewish person (like Samaritans), all were shocked. Till today Jews talk of goyiim. In Islam too you have the idea of "najis", which is taken more seriously by the Shi'as, who say that this impurity is physical and not only spiritual (a non Muslim is as impure as urine or dog).

It was not bashing Hinduism, it's pretty universal.

I do agree that Hinduism and Islam are two polar opposite concepts and it's hard to find a common ground but we did manage to coexist together when were ruled by a autocracy thus you would find that there were very very few communal riots when Mughals were ruling.
You gave the example of Shivaji trying to paint him as a predecessor of Savarkar and yet conveniently chose to ignore the amount of Muslims he employed in his army and court. His admiral was a Muslim and similarly lot many Muslims served him against Mughals.

Aurangzeb had many Hindus in his administration, and Hitler had +200 000 individuals of Jewish ancestry serving in different fields (mainly the army), incl. field marshal Erhard Milch or his personal chauffeur for some time, Emil Maurice.

That doesn't mean that Mughals were nice to Hindus or that the Nazi's were particularly fond of the Jewish race.

The Hindus and Muslims cohabited only because of enforced Islamic rule.

I'm saddened by the deep hatred you nurse against us despite the fact that your forefathers followed the same Gods (or shall I say Goddess considering your background) as the rest of us.
Hindus and Muslims have coexisted together for centuries when communalism as a concept didn't even exist. In my village we have lived together since God knows how many centuries and there hasn't been a single incident of violence between the communities.

Don't care for what my Rajput ancestors did, they are paying their due now, but interestingly there are a dozen of verses in the Qur'an which bash this "our ancestors/forefathers did it, we're just following them" in order to justify their spiritual pollution, returning the logic against them, in the sense that all religions believe in a sort of Golden Age (Adam/Eve in Eden, Hesiod's "Work an Days", Satya-Yuga, etc), and that if you really want to follow your "ancestors", you basically want to follow the mistakes of the very first of your "ancestors" as well - in the following verses (7:26-28), you can see how spiritual degradation is linked with physical one - "nakedness" - and how deviant paths, whether polytheism like Hinduism or the recent postmodernist revolt, is less strict about decent clothing than monotheism, pure (Islam) or even impure (Christianity) :

O Children of Adam! We have indeed sent down upon you raiment to cover your nakedness, and rich adornment. But the raiment of reverence, that is better. This is among the signs of God, that haply they may remember. ‘ O Children of Adam! Let not Satan tempt you, as he caused your parents to go forth from the Garden, stripping them of their raiment to show them their nakedness. Surely he sees you—he and his tribe—whence you see them not. We have indeed made the satans the friends of those who do not believe. When they commit an indecency, they say, “We found our fathers practicing it, and God has commanded us thus.” Say, “Truly God commands not indecency. Do you say of God that which you know not ?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Fascinating posts from enkidu_ and TM Riddle, all the more so since you can detect that their observations are only mildly biased and both at least attempt to remain objective.

 

[TM Riddle]

Hindus and Hinduism (or Vedism) are two different things, if Hindus don't respect their religious imperatives it's up to them, but Hinduism does have a notion of ritual purity/impurity and social segregation based on that (varna system).

Judaism too, and when Jesus used to even touch a non-Jewish person (like Samaritans), all were shocked. Till today Jews talk of goyiim. In Islam too you have the idea of "najis", which is taken more seriously by the Shi'as, who say that this impurity is physical and not only spiritual (a non Muslim is as impure as urine or dog).

It was not bashing Hinduism, it's pretty universal.



Aurangzeb had many Hindus in his administration, and Hitler had +200 000 individuals of Jewish ancestry serving in different fields (mainly the army), incl. field marshal Erhard Milch or his personal chauffeur for some time, Emil Maurice.

That doesn't mean that Mughals were nice to Hindus or that the Nazi's were particularly fond of the Jewish race.

The Hindus and Muslims cohabited only because of enforced Islamic rule.



Don't care for what my Rajput ancestors did, they are paying their due now, but interestingly there are a dozen of verses in the Qur'an which bash this "our ancestors/forefathers did it, we're just following them" in order to justify their spiritual pollution, returning the logic against them, in the sense that all religions believe in a sort of Golden Age (Adam/Eve in Eden, Hesiod's "Work an Days", Satya-Yuga, etc), and that if you really want to follow your "ancestors", you basically want to follow the mistakes of the very first of your "ancestors" as well - in the following verses (7:26-28), you can see how spiritual degradation is linked with physical one - "nakedness" - and how deviant paths, whether polytheism like Hinduism or the recent postmodernist revolt, is less strict about decent clothing than monotheism, pure (Islam) or even impure (Christianity) :

1.You keep missing the point. Hindus did have a concept of religious purity but due to it's fluidic nature it's adherents were never obliged to follow it( case in point Anuloma and Pratiloma marriages). You have to understand that there is no final authority in this religion and therefore no concept of apostasy. Hence even at it's peak, Vedic religion had people who didn't follow the varnashram system as rigidly as Brahmans and yet remained inside it's influence.

2. Wrong analogy again. Hitler ordered genocide of Jews and absolutely despised them. Shivaji otoh had no such hatred. Even the much reviled Aurangzeb didn't detest Hindus as much as it's made out to be.
Vijaynagar empire whose struggle against Bahamanids is sometimes projected as tussle between Hindu and Muslim empires is a propaganda as well.
Thousands of Muslims lived peacefully in Vijaynagar and the Monarchs employed a special battalion of Muslim archers to gain an advantage against their arch enemies Bahamanids (who ironically took the support of Gajhapatis of Odhisa and Reddis of Telangana against Vijaynagar, so much for Hindu Muslim animosity lol).
Rashtrakutas Kings gave early Muslims from Arabia place to stay and do business and even constructed mosques for them as well. Clearly trade>>religious differences.

3) That's extremely sad to hear. Anyway to each his own.

 

[TM Riddle]

Actually i agree with your post and you articulated my point better. The maratha one was just an example where you had different groups in confrontation not because they were Hindu or Muslim but because they had political ambitions. Shivaji is a prime example. He fought against Jai singh (I think Im right here? correct me if Im wrong..) who was the Hindu general sent by the emperor. It was a complex political environment which we cannot measure with todays very monolithic communal standards..

I actually think we have regressed rather than progressed in some ways..

Exactly. Case in point Rajputs who even though staunch Hindus were equal partners in Mughal kingdom. Similarly Mughal bureaucracy had Brahmans and Kayashthas in majority.
Even in the Deccan Sultanates, Brahmans used to play role of kingmakers and supported greatly by the Ahmadnagar, Bijapur and Golconda Muslim Monarchs.

Yes It was Mirza Raja Jaisingh, the ruler of Amber(present day Jaipur) and Governor of Deccan who was sent to quell Shivaji.

 

[enkidu_]

1.You keep missing the point. Hindus did have a concept of religious purity but due to it's fluidic nature it's adherents were never obliged to follow it( case in point Anuloma and Pratiloma marriages). You have to understand that there is no final authority in this religion and therefore no concept of apostasy. Hence even at it's peak, Vedic religion had people who didn't follow the varnashram system as rigidly as Brahmans and yet remained inside it's influence.

Again that's not of my concern, the varna system is a reality, the plight of Dalits is a reality, etc, etc both Hinduism and Islam (among others) are religions which push towards social segregation based on objective realities (caste or religion), which means they're unable to live together in a democratic set-up, that is, a political system where the majority dictates its rules ; they can live "together" only when in certain circumstances which makes the other subdued, through the dhimmi status or cosmetic secularism threatening the personal law of Shari'a.

Hinduism and Islam are not only divergent but opposite systems of life and you can only blend them together superficially and artificially.

2. Wrong analogy again. Hitler ordered genocide of Jews and absolutely despised them. Shivaji otoh had no such hatred. Even the much reviled Aurangzeb didn't detest Hindus as much as it's made out to be.
Vijaynagar empire whose struggle against Bahamanids is sometimes projected as tussle between Hindu and Muslim empires is a propaganda as well.
Thousands of Muslims lived peacefully in Vijaynagar and the Monarchs employed a special battalion of Muslim archers to gain an advantage against their arch enemies Bahamanids (who ironically took the support of Gajhapatis of Odhisa and Reddis of Telangana against Vijaynagar, so much for Hindu Muslim animosity lol).
Rashtrakutas Kings gave early Muslims from Arabia place to stay and do business and even constructed mosques for them as well. Clearly trade>>religious differences.

I'm just saying that Shivaji having Muslim administrators doesn't change the fact that he was aiming to remove Islamic supremacy on Hindus, like Aurangzeb "the Hindu genocider" had Hindus as well and Hitler "the Jews genocider" had part ethnic Jews as well.

Ian Almond has written a whole book on how Christians and Muslims collaborated in a dozen of occasions during war against their own coreligionists, for instance the much-symbolic aborted Ottoman conquest of Vienna in 1683, when Tatar Muslims (Tatar cavalry is legendary in Eastern/Baltic Europe) were fighting under the Christian Poles while Hungarian Protestants were helping the Muslim Turks, he thinks that it shows how flawed the "clash of civilization" paradigm is, so I'm sure you'll find this in Mughal dominated India, but that doesn't mean it was permitted from an Islamic pov to fight along non-Muslims, let alone against those who wanted to uphold Islamic supremacy on the land.

 

[TM Riddle]

Again that's not of my concern, the varna system is a reality, the plight of Dalits is a reality, etc, etc both Hinduism and Islam (among others) are religions which push towards social segregation based on objective realities (caste or religion), which means they're unable to live together in a democratic set-up, that is, a political system where the majority dictates its rules ; they can live "together" only when in certain circumstances which makes the other subdued, through the dhimmi status or cosmetic secularism threatening the personal law of Shari'a.

Hinduism and Islam are not only divergent but opposite systems of life and you can only blend them together superficially and artificially.



I'm just saying that Shivaji having Muslim administrators doesn't change the fact that he was aiming to remove Islamic supremacy on Hindus, like Aurangzeb "the Hindu genocider" had Hindus as well and Hitler "the Jews genocider" had part ethnic Jews as well.

Ian Almond has written a whole book on how Christians and Muslims collaborated in a dozen of occasions during war against their own coreligionists, for instance the much-symbolic aborted Ottoman conquest of Vienna in 1683, when Tatar Muslims (Tatar cavalry is legendary in Eastern/Baltic Europe) were fighting under the Christian Poles while Hungarian Protestants were helping the Muslim Turks, he thinks that it shows how flawed the "clash of civilization" paradigm is, so I'm sure you'll find this in Mughal dominated India, but that doesn't mean it was permitted from an Islamic pov to fight along non-Muslims, let alone against those who wanted to uphold Islamic supremacy on the land.

1. Err yes I have already admitted that varnashram was a reality but nowhere it's written that a Hindu had to follow it to remain in the Vedic fold. And even if it was written in scriptures it could have been easily bypassed because of the reasons I already mentioned. You are looking at this whole thing through Abrahamic lens where words written in scriptures are unalterable, unchanging and fixed. The same isn't the case with Dharmic religions. Look I am not trying to show some kind of superiority complex with regards to Hinduism here , I'm just telling things as they are. So yes I accept that both these religions are polar opposites but at the same time I'm also willing to entertain the idea that they can coexist together as the histories tell us.
BTW I can use your logic and claim that Muslims owing to rampant secterianism can't live with each other either. The bloody trail of conflict between Shias and Sunnis is splattered across the pages of Islamic History. Infact since last century the issue has only worsened, how do you reconcile with that?

2) Again False. Shivaji was an astute politician and thus used the Hindutva propaganda quite well but even then his ambitions were centred only around Deccan and Malwa region at best. He had no personal animosity with Muslims and was only concerned with spreading his influence in the region. He had no problems serving Mughals and that he did too against Bijapur under Jai Singh as per the terms of treaty of Purandar.
Marathas never wanted to overthrow Mughals as could be seen in 18th century when at the height of their power they never withdrew their support completely from the empire and kept on paying the nominal allegiance to the Mughal emperors. Heck a time came when Mughal emperors became their virtual protectorates. Thus your argument has no leg to stand on.

And Aurangzeb was no Hindu genocider. Thats an utter false propaganda. Sure he ordered breaking of Temples but genocide is a quite strong word. He was a Puritan but not as vile as people would like to make him look like. Guy was a proficient Veena player FGS!

 

[enkidu_]

@TM Riddle : So Dalits are persecuted for which reason(s) ? Because they don't pay the jizya, perhaps ? Why is it so hard for you to accept Hinduism as it is instead of showing a toned down hippie version ? You sound like the Arya Samaj who reconfigured their whole faith based on British criticisms. You're telling me that Islam/Hinduism can co-exist when one religion is literally about breaking the idols, eating the cow, etc all things sacred to the other ?

Also I don't care about Shivaji, and yes Aurangzeb was more moderate than what he was supposed to be (Audrey Truschke), but that doesn't change the fact that Islam and Hinduism can only cohabit when pressurized by external political authorities. That's why Quaid-e-Azam turned to the TNT, because as a "secular" middle-class individual he foresaw all the developments the Hindu middle-class (even if outwardly "secular") would bring, because when the Hindu masses themselves will be empowered through upward social mobility/economy, when they'll become "urbane middle classes", they'll assert their religious identity which, as he said, was the exact opposite of the Islamic identity, in terms of history, symbols and project :

It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, litterateurs. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspect on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state.

also

We maintain and hold that Muslims and Hindus are two major nations by any definition or test of a nation. We are a nation of hundred million and what is more, we are a nation with our own distinctive culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of values and proportions, legal laws and moral codes, customs and calendar, history and tradition, and aptitude and ambitions. In short, we have our own outlook on life and of life.

 

[TM Riddle]

[MENTION=137893]enkidu_[/MENTION] Is it though? Is Islam all about breaking idols, chilling and BBQing beef? [MENTION=133135]kaayal[/MENTION] How do you guys manage to coexist with Hindus in Kerala? Have they pressurized you into giving up of your favorite sport of breaking Shiva idols on weekends?

 

[TM Riddle]

@TM Riddle : So Dalits are persecuted for which reason(s) ? Because they don't pay the jizya, perhaps ? Why is it so hard for you to accept Hinduism as it is instead of showing a toned down hippie version ? You sound like the Arya Samaj who reconfigured their whole faith based on British criticisms. You're telling me that Islam/Hinduism can co-exist when one religion is literally about breaking the idols, eating the cow, etc all things sacred to the other ?

Also I don't care about Shivaji, and yes Aurangzeb was more moderate than what he was supposed to be (Audrey Truschke), but that doesn't change the fact that Islam and Hinduism can only cohabit when pressurized by external political authorities. That's why Quaid-e-Azam turned to the TNT, because as a "secular" middle-class individual he foresaw all the developments the Hindu middle-class (even if outwardly "secular") would bring, because when the Hindu masses themselves will be empowered through upward social mobility/economy, when they'll become "urbane middle classes", they'll assert their religious identity which, as he said, was the exact opposite of the Islamic identity, in terms of history, symbols and project :



also

1) Dalits are persecuted because of cultural reasons which stem from the legacy of earlier Hinduism.
Well if Hindus and Muslims can't exist then Shias and Sunnis can't either. Simple as that.
2) Dude you have been on rampage in this thread citing Shivaji in every other post of yours and now you don't care?
I can give examples of other Muslim Monarchs and their friendly relations with their Hindu subjects if you wish.

 

[enkidu_]

1) Dalits are persecuted because of cultural reasons which stem from the legacy of earlier Hinduism.
Well if Hindus and Muslims can't exist then Shias and Sunnis can't either. Simple as that.

Yeah I guess it's very "cultural" to talk of Purusha, etc to justify the caste/varna system, nothing religious at all.

Sunni-Shi'a is an INTERNAL strife like Catholics-Protestants, etc while Islam and Hinduism are not only DIFFERENT RELIGIONS but TOTALLY OPPOSED spiritual systems, one based on pure idol-breaking monotheism the other on idol-worship, etc you REALLY can't measure the difference ?

2) Dude you have been on rampage in this thread citing Shivaji in every other post of yours and now you don't care?
I can give examples of other Muslim Monarchs and their friendly relations with their Hindu subjects if you wish.

If you look into the context the only reason I quoted Shivaji was to say it's not the British who brought the "Hindu Muslim divide", as if Hindus were lively happily under the Muslim overlords and everyone was doing an interfaith bhangra before the perenially pesky English. He wanted to get rid of the Islamic rule. Every Hindu nationalist till today considers the Mughals as much as foreign invaders as the British. The TNT was favored by the likes of Ambedkar and Savarkar for a reason, and till today you have Hindu nationalists thanking Quaid-e-Azam (Girilal Jain : "Muhammad Ali Jinnah was the greatest benefactor of Hindus in modern times, if he was not a Hindu in disguise".) And why shouldn't they ? THEY know what Hinduism and Islam stand for, they're just being pious and rational.

 

[TM Riddle]

Yeah I guess it's very "cultural" to talk of Purusha, etc to justify the caste/varna system, nothing religious at all.

Sunni-Shi'a is an INTERNAL strife like Catholics-Protestants, etc while Islam and Hinduism are not only DIFFERENT RELIGIONS but TOTALLY OPPOSED spiritual systems, one based on pure idol-breaking monotheism the other on idol-worship, etc you REALLY can't measure the difference ?



If you look into the context the only reason I quoted Shivaji was to say it's not the British who brought the "Hindu Muslim divide", as if Hindus were lively happily under the Muslim overlords and everyone was doing an interfaith bhangra before the perenially pesky English. He wanted to get rid of the Islamic rule. Every Hindu nationalist till today considers the Mughals as much as foreign invaders as the British. The TNT was favored by the likes of Ambedkar and Savarkar for a reason, and till today you have Hindu nationalists thanking Quaid-e-Azam (Girilal Jain : "Muhammad Ali Jinnah was the greatest benefactor of Hindus in modern times, if he was not a Hindu in disguise".) And why shouldn't they ? THEY know what Hinduism and Islam stand for, they're just being pious and rational.

1. You give way too much credit to modern Hinduism. Gone are the days of achieving Purusharth and Karma by diligently following varnashram system.
Ever since Adi Shankaracharya came onto scene it was found to be no longer MUST to follow Brahmanas(the Vedic texts and not the people) to achieve salvation.
Internal strife or not , the point remains that Shias and Sunnis can't coexist peacefully with each other if we use your logic. Do you want me to post the stats of how many Sunnis Safavids used to kill back when their rivalry with Ottomans was at peak?
I bet no Hindu Muslim rivalry came closer to that.

 

[TM Riddle]

Yeah I guess it's very "cultural" to talk of Purusha, etc to justify the caste/varna system, nothing religious at all.

Sunni-Shi'a is an INTERNAL strife like Catholics-Protestants, etc while Islam and Hinduism are not only DIFFERENT RELIGIONS but TOTALLY OPPOSED spiritual systems, one based on pure idol-breaking monotheism the other on idol-worship, etc you REALLY can't measure the difference ?



If you look into the context the only reason I quoted Shivaji was to say it's not the British who brought the "Hindu Muslim divide", as if Hindus were lively happily under the Muslim overlords and everyone was doing an interfaith bhangra before the perenially pesky English. He wanted to get rid of the Islamic rule. Every Hindu nationalist till today considers the Mughals as much as foreign invaders as the British. The TNT was favored by the likes of Ambedkar and Savarkar for a reason, and till today you have Hindu nationalists thanking Quaid-e-Azam (Girilal Jain : "Muhammad Ali Jinnah was the greatest benefactor of Hindus in modern times, if he was not a Hindu in disguise".) And why shouldn't they ? THEY know what Hinduism and Islam stand for, they're just being pious and rational.

2. BRITISH are the chief reason
why communalism as an ideology grew and thrived in India. Before that an average lower class Muslim and Hindu were more or less in same condition. An average peasant be it Hindu or Muslim was treated absolute shyte and was only left with so much as to sustain his livelihood. Hindu Bohras, Multanis and Jains thrived and Prospered under Delhi Sultanate and Mughals thanks to remarkable trade progress made in that period.
I couldn't care less about what an average Hindu Nationalist thinks. I am only providing you a historical context here disapproving a false claim made by Jihadists and Hindutvas that Hindus and Muslims were completely antagonists of each other. That's utterly wrong.

 

[TM Riddle]

My last post in the thread.

Sometimes, Communalism is seen as something that has survived from the past, as something that the medieval period has bequeathed to the present. But while Communalism uses and is based on many elements of ancient and medieval ideologies, basically it's modern technology and Political trends that expresses the social urges and serves the political needs of modern social groups and classes. It's social roots as well as it's objectives lies very much in the modern period of Indian History. It was brought into existence and sustained by contemporary socio economic structure.

Communalism as also other modern views such as nationalism and socialism, could emerge as politics and ideology only after politics based on people , politics of popular participation and mobilisation, politics based on creation and mobilisation of public opinion came into existence. In pre modern politics, people were either ignored in upper class based politics or were compelled to rebel outside the political system and in case of success their leaders Incorporated into the old ruling classes(case in point Jats of Bharatpur, Marathas etc) .
This was recognized by many perceptive Indians. Nehru for example noted in 1936 "One must never forget that communalism in India is a latter day phenomenon which has grown up before our eyes". Nor was there anything unique about Communalism in Indian context. It wasn't an inevitable or inherent product of India's peculiar Historical and social development . It was the result of conditions which have in other societies produced similar phenomena and ideologies such as Fascism, anti semitism, Catholic Protestant conflict in Northern Ireland etc.

Above all, Communalism was one of the byproducts of the colonial character of Indian economy, of colonial underdevelopment, of the colonial incapacity to develop the Indian economy. The resulting economic stagnation and it's impact on the lives of Indian people esp the middle classes produced conditions which were conducive to division and antagonism within Indian society as also to it's radical transformation.

 

[InziRules]

[MENTION=130700]TM Riddle[/MENTION]

If today, you saw an uncle committing the murder of 70 people, would you report it to the police or would you say he's family and you don't go against ancestors?

If you would report it, you'd do the right thing. If you protect him, you'd do the wrong thing. I have no need to respect my ancestors if they were wrong. You need to have enough confidence in yourself to be a good person without having to think about your ancestors

 

[TM Riddle]

[MENTION=130700]TM Riddle[/MENTION]

If today, you saw an uncle committing the murder of 70 people, would you report it to the police or would you say he's family and you don't go against ancestors?

If you would report it, you'd do the right thing. If you protect him, you'd do the wrong thing. I have no need to respect my ancestors if they were wrong. You need to have enough confidence in yourself to be a good person without having to think about your ancestors

Fair enough. I disagree with you on that but respect your opinion. See in my culture/religion ancestors are held in high regard via rituals like Sraddha etc therefore it's natural for me to put them on highest pedestal. I am proud to be born in the same Kula(clan) as some of the greatest warriors this planet has seen and therefore it's natural for me to feel that way.
Let's agree to disagree and end this debate here.

 

[InziRules]

Fair enough. I disagree with you on that but respect your opinion. See in my culture/religion ancestors are held in high regard via rituals like Sraddha etc therefore it's natural for me to put them on highest pedestal. I am proud to be born in the same Kula(clan) as some of the greatest warriors this planet has seen and therefore it's natural for me to feel that way.
Let's agree to disagree and end this debate here.

I agree. No point in arguing this, because I've met many Syeds with the same opinion as well. For me, you make your own path in the world, for them, their ancestors were great and deserve respect. I agree with that sentiment, while I may not agree with over-glorifying them and making it out as if they made no mistakes. For me, that is only limited to God and his Messengers.

 

[enkidu_]

1. You give way too much credit to modern Hinduism. Gone are the days of achieving Purusharth and Karma by diligently following varnashram system.
Ever since Adi Shankaracharya came onto scene it was found to be no longer MUST to follow Brahmanas(the Vedic texts and not the people) to achieve salvation.
Internal strife or not , the point remains that Shias and Sunnis can't coexist peacefully with each other if we use your logic. Do you want me to post the stats of how many Sunnis Safavids used to kill back when their rivalry with Ottomans was at peak?
I bet no Hindu Muslim rivalry came closer to that.

Christians killed each others in the 5th century because they debated on the nature of Jesus, not even God, as per Philip Jenkins' in his "Jesus' Wars" it was way way worse than both the crusades and the inquisition in terms of bloodshed (don't know if you've watched the movie "Agora", but think of this on an infinitely larger scale). the thirty years' war (1618-1648) began as Catholic vs Protestant conflict and it had such a traumatic effect (many regions of Germany lost half of their total population, and Germany itself remained secondary in Euro geopolitics for nearly 200 years) that the modern idea of the State was born out of the Westphalian peace treaty. I won't tell you how "intra European" warfare costed in the last century.

Every spiritual system always fight its "internal enemies" first. For all the talks about "sanatana dharma", I won't tell you how much Hindus and Buddhists fight each other, and how in fact Buddhist texts ascribe to Ashoka himself the death of 10 000s of Jains.

It's the same in Shi'a/Sunni, but these are INTERNAL differences.

On the other hand, Islam and Hinduism are (again) DIFFERENT and OPPOSED spiritual systems.

In fact, don't Hindu nationalists say that Muslims killed off 80 millions Hindus ? So that was the prince of Islamic rule over Hindus.

2. BRITISH are the chief reason
why communalism as an ideology grew and thrived in India. Before that an average lower class Muslim and Hindu were more or less in same condition. An average peasant be it Hindu or Muslim was treated absolute shyte and was only left with so much as to sustain his livelihood. Hindu Bohras, Multanis and Jains thrived and Prospered under Delhi Sultanate and Mughals thanks to remarkable trade progress made in that period.
I couldn't care less about what an average Hindu Nationalist thinks. I am only providing you a historical context here disapproving a false claim made by Jihadists and Hindutvas that Hindus and Muslims were completely antagonists of each other. That's utterly wrong.

I've already explained why I think it's wrong, and that every religion is by default "communalist", but let's admit you're right, if the British indeed "imported" communalism, they were closed to the Islamic spirit than the "Muslims" who fight Muslims under Hindu orders.

 

[Angrez Pakistani]

To anyone who had doubts against Indian atrocities in Kashmir.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="fa" dir="rtl">کشمیر71 برس بعد<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Kashmir?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Kashmir</a><a href="https://twitter.com/Dawn_News?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Dawn_News</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/Xadeejournalist?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Xadeejournalist</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/ZarrarKhuhro?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ZarrarKhuhro</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/WusatUllahKhan?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@WusatUllahKhan</a> <a href="https://t.co/Ao7BZd5mEP">pic.twitter.com/Ao7BZd5mEP</a></p>— ZaraHatKay (@ZaraHatKay_Dawn) <a href="https://twitter.com/ZaraHatKay_Dawn/status/1045400610030391296?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 27, 2018</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[zeusathon]

Nawaz Sharif lost a lot of credibility with the public when he made pro India statements attacking 'his' own nation..

"“Militant organisations are active. Call them non-state actors, should we allow them to cross the border and kill 150 people in Mumbai?"

This was basically a confirmation of Indian allegation who claim Pakistan has active groups who are ordered to attack India.

Others such as Najam Sethi have also made similar statements attacking Pakistan and praising India.

When I visit Pakistan I never meet such people who hold pro-India views but there seems to be some around esp on internet forums and social media.

I would like to know...

1. Is this a growing phenomenon?

2. Are some Pakistani's self hating and prefer to be part of India?

3. Are such people a threat to national security as they can be recruited?

4. Is this treason?

5. Are they just patriotic Pakistani's who believe they are only speaking the truth?

For me, I can never respect any Pakistani who is pro-Indian at the expense of being negative towards Pakistan.

1. Not growing but yes small numbers are there (including myself).

2. Yes, I regret my ancestors decision and see very little good in division.

3. I dont know about others but I know the difference between regretting a mistake and going against my own people to create more divides very clearly.

4. Ideologically? Yes. Practically? No.

5. Patriotic? Yes I was but with time realized the madness of taking sides. Killing a muslim on the order side of border while considering yourself a saint would only keep us deluded and would only help those who played games to divide us.

 

[Last Monetarist]

I don't know what a 'Pro-Indian Pakistani' signifies, I guess that makes me Pro-Indian.

It's rubbish constructs such as this that need to be eradicated between the two countries.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I don't know what a 'Pro-Indian Pakistani' signifies, I guess that makes me Pro-Indian.

It's rubbish constructs such as this that need to be eradicated between the two countries.

A pro-Indian Pakistani is one who thinks that partition is something that happened only because Muslims wanted partition and it never occurs to them that no matter how much they may yearn for reunification, The majority of Indians themselves don't want it.

 

[Last Monetarist]

A pro-Indian Pakistani is one who thinks that partition is something that happened only because Muslims wanted partition and it never occurs to them that no matter how much they may yearn for reunification, The majority of Indians themselves don't want it.

Merci.

I know a few people who think that partition was wholly the fault of the muslims, but I've yet to come across someone who seriously yearns for reunification. I guess it takes all sorts.