Why is there a difference in perception between Pakistan & India in the world?

[cricketjoshila]

What I find hilarious is though when People like KKWC claim about Hindus being ruled by Muslims for a thousand years. I have repeatedly asked him about when was this exact time when Muslims ruled India for a millenium and he seems to ignore it everytime. I mean sure if you count Punjab and Ganga Yamuna doab as India then I agree with you.

Not one of those rulers belonged to present day Pakistan. Trying to take credit of people other nations in the name of being muslim. The Afghans even objected to Pakistanis naming their missiles on Afghan rulers.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Israel, India, and Pakistan have NOT signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Homework. Homework. Homework.

 

[ManFan]

Except for Pakistan and Pakistanis, no other nation associates nukes with a religion or ideology. There are no Hindu nukes or Buddhist nukes or Christian nukes. There are American, British, Indian, Russian, etc. nukes
But I suppose for a nation founded on religion, its a bit hard to progress to true nationalism and not religious brotherhood.

It speaks to Pakistan being an irresponsible nuclear power that it is the only nuclear power that has made the noise of sharing nukes.
Yet another reason why Pakistan is seen lower than India - its an irresponsible nuclear power.

It has made less attacks than the U.S. They are used for defense bhai, not to spread Islam.

 

[ManFan]

Arrey Bhai, whats left to scam from India ? Its not a manufacturing giant to sell cheap trinkets like China.
Or a resource exporter like Australia/Africa or Congo.

And if the west was really interested in entering 'India's good books', the west would take pro-India and anti-China stance when those two are at odds. We all know that India is sensitive towards China, not Pakistan- it considers Pakistan a minor irritant, not an existential threat. China, is the latter group for Indians.

I did not mean scamming India, lol.

 

[TM Riddle]

Not one of those rulers belonged to present day Pakistan. Trying to take credit of people other nations in the name of being muslim. The Afghans even objected to Pakistanis naming their missiles on Afghan rulers.

You are right. Only Muslims to rule almost entire subcontinent were The Mughals starting from Akbar and with Aurangzeb's death the empire disintegrated into various small principalities. That's only about 150 years of Islamic rule over India.
And the Mughals had their capital at Agra (at first) and Delhi. They were as Indian as a Pashtun from modern day Rohilkhand is.

 

[Traveller55]

Not one of those rulers belonged to present day Pakistan. Trying to take credit of people other nations in the name of being muslim. The Afghans even objected to Pakistanis naming their missiles on Afghan rulers.

Actually forget being foreign rulers. All those 'Islamic invaders' that KKWC are so proud of, genocided the crap out of Pakistan far more than India.

Mehmoud of Ghazni's own official court scholar wrote how he genocided the heck out of Khyber region and what used to be the Malakand division. It was due to this that the demographics of the region changed circa 980s AD from predominantly Hindkowan to Pashtun.

Timur ? Sure, he genocided Delhi. But before Delhi, he turned Lahore, Multan and Sialkot into a heap of skulls piled high.

Mohammed Bin Qasim ? Turned everything between Sukkur in Sindh to Lahore in Multan into a pile of dead bodies.

In my country too, we have such deference towards genociders like Bhaktiyar Khilji, just because he was the first muslim to conquer Bengal.

Its a testament to the cognitive dissonance of many muslim people, that they so gleefully celebrate the ones who genocided and raped the heck out of their own direct ancestors, all because the rapists and genociders were muslim.

This is something you don't see in Christendom- Europeans don't give a crap if you brought Christianity to their lands or not, if the bearers of Christianity raped and genocided their direct ancestors, they always retain a certain amount of hatred for them. Always have.

This is because Europe and Europeans have a far more robust sense of nation and nationalism than most of the Islamic world does.

 

[R3verse Swing]

People who claim there is nothing left in India do not understand economics.

The money in India is largely due to foreign investments, and foreign companies are using and abusing the Indian demographic by funneling out the riches back to the foreign said foreign country.

This is why the rich remain rich, and the poor get poorer in India. Foreign companies invest, lock, and load profits.

The Indian government twigged this which is why companies like Vodafone were landed with a Hugh retrospective Tax bill - to ring-fence profits from foreign companies.

The world is not about minerals or metals anymore, it's about the Benjamins.

Such is the perception of India.

 

[Traveller55]

You are right. Only Muslims to rule almost entire subcontinent were The Mughals starting from Akbar and with Aurangzeb's death the empire disintegrated into various small principalities. That's only about 150 years of Islamic rule over India.
And the Mughals had their capital at Agra (at first) and Delhi. They were as Indian as a Pashtun from modern day Rohilkhand is.

Actually not Akbar but Jehangir.
When Akbar died, Mughal Empire looked a lot like Harsha's empire - terminus point near Vindhya range-Chattisgarh and Bengal-Orissa border. ( ofcourse, Akbar's empire was bigger due to it including Kabul-Qandahar whereas Harsha's empire never crossed the Indus).

 

[ManFan]

Actually forget being foreign rulers. All those 'Islamic invaders' that KKWC are so proud of, genocided the crap out of Pakistan far more than India.

Mehmoud of Ghazni's own official court scholar wrote how he genocided the heck out of Khyber region and what used to be the Malakand division. It was due to this that the demographics of the region changed circa 980s AD from predominantly Hindkowan to Pashtun.

Timur ? Sure, he genocided Delhi. But before Delhi, he turned Lahore, Multan and Sialkot into a heap of skulls piled high.

Mohammed Bin Qasim ? Turned everything between Sukkur in Sindh to Lahore in Multan into a pile of dead bodies.

In my country too, we have such deference towards genociders like Bhaktiyar Khilji, just because he was the first muslim to conquer Bengal.

Its a testament to the cognitive dissonance of many muslim people, that they so gleefully celebrate the ones who genocided and raped the heck out of their own direct ancestors, all because the rapists and genociders were muslim.

This is something you don't see in Christendom- Europeans don't give a crap if you brought Christianity to their lands or not, if the bearers of Christianity raped and genocided their direct ancestors, they always retain a certain amount of hatred for them. Always have.

This is because Europe and Europeans have a far more robust sense of nation and nationalism than most of the Islamic world does.

Nationalism is a farce. I'm sure you are smart enough to see the problems with it on a global level.

 

[cricketjoshila]

There you go. I knew you'd Google.

So easy.

Gandhi is Indias hero. And Obama is recent, infact when Obama was Time person of the year various people said that Obamas followed his heroes like Martin luther and Gandhi in this respect. So indeed it was easy. If only you would read.

 

[ManFan]

I would suggest "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins.

 

[ManFan]

Gandhi is Indias hero. And Obama is recent, infact when Obama was Time person of the year various people said that Obamas followed his heroes like Martin luther and Gandhi in this respect. So indeed it was easy. If only you would read.

By prolonging the War on Terror and bombing several Middle Eastern countries that left them and their people in shatters? Not to mention responsible for the migrant crisis that all of Europe cries about.

 

[Traveller55]

People who claim there is nothing left in India do not understand economics.

The money in India is largely due to foreign investments, and foreign companies are using and abusing the Indian demographic by funneling out the riches back to the foreign said foreign country.

This is why the rich remain rich, and the poor get poorer in India. Foreign companies invest, lock, and load profits.

The Indian government twigged this which is why companies like Vodafone were landed with a Hugh retrospective Tax bill - to ring-fence profits from foreign companies.

The world is not about minerals or metals anymore, it's about the Benjamins.

Nonsensical post.
There is no riches to be funneled back from an economy that is dominated by the service sector. India for most of its independent history has a bigger import bill than export bill. Ie, there is nothing for the foreigners to scam.

And you ran away from the simple truth that your nonsensical theory (westerners want money so they potray India in good light) falls apart when seen in the Arab world- west is actually robbing the heartland of Islam (via oil) and still has very negative image of them.
So if the 'white man' is okay with looting Arabia while calling them 'terrorists and despots', it makes no sense that they'd suddenly change its tune when it comes to India.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Gandhi is Indias hero. And Obama is recent, infact when Obama was Time person of the year various people said that Obamas followed his heroes like Martin luther and Gandhi in this respect. So indeed it was easy. If only you would read.

I read the list long before you. I'm just glad you followed my lead.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Nationalism is a farce. I'm sure you are smart enough to see the problems with it on a global level.

Nation states are the basis of todays world.

 

[Traveller55]

Nationalism is a farce. I'm sure you are smart enough to see the problems with it on a global level.

Everything, taken to an extreme, is a farce.

I think nationalism is a lot stronger and practical of a notion than religious brotherhood.
Simply because people of a given nation, ie region,have converging interests. People of a given religion do not.
For eg, the interests of Lebanon and Israel are far more convergent geo-politically than Lebanon and Pakistan.

This is the main reason why 'nation' is the most powerful political unit in the world and not 'religious brotherhood'.

 

[R3verse Swing]

As for Gandhi being india's hero, may I remind readers that RSS (right wing Hindu nationalists) were responsible for his assassination. RSS, the foundation of BJP.

A Modi apologist claiming Gandhi was a hero is like Hitler apologists claiming Moses was a legend.

 

[ManFan]

Everything, taken to an extreme, is a farce.

I think nationalism is a lot stronger and practical of a notion than religious brotherhood.
Simply because people of a given nation, ie region,have converging interests. People of a given religion do not.
For eg, the interests of Lebanon and Israel are far more convergent geo-politically than Lebanon and Pakistan.

This is the main reason why 'nation' is the most powerful political unit in the world and not 'religious brotherhood'.

Religious brotherhood I would argue means ridding of the very things that cause nations of similar backgrounds to go to war. Ex: Iran and Saudi Arabia(that bogus name).

 

[R3verse Swing]

3 words can best describe what goes through the mind of Western leaders when it comes to India's economy - Rinse and Repeat.

 

[Traveller55]

Religious brotherhood I would argue means ridding of the very things that cause nations of similar backgrounds to go to war. Ex: Iran and Saudi Arabia(that bogus name).

Background doesn't matter.
Interests matter.

Saudi Arabia and Iran are at odds, because of diverging geo-political interests. That they are both Muslims, is largely irrelevant, because people care more about money and power than camaraderie with similar ideological people.

Religion is neither powerful enough, nor lucrative enough to replace geo-political interests.

 

[TM Riddle]

Actually not Akbar but Jehangir.
When Akbar died, Mughal Empire looked a lot like Harsha's empire - terminus point near Vindhya range-Chattisgarh and Bengal-Orissa border. ( ofcourse, Akbar's empire was bigger due to it including Kabul-Qandahar whereas Harsha's empire never crossed the Indus).

Akbar was able to subjugate the Deccan rulers forcing them to pay tribute to him so we can effectively consider those as part of his kingdom. Only Tamilnadu , Kerala and parts of NE remained outside his fold. But even then calling it an Islamic empire would be foolishness since Hindus swarmed his court in countless numbers and one of the two highest officers of his darbar with a zat rank of 7000 was Man Singh Kachhwaha , a Hindu.
In Aurangzeb's time though , the nature of empire started to change and although the Hindus still formed bulk of his army , his religious intolerance policies changed the nature and character of the empire and the installation of Jaziya was a final mail in the coffin. Interfering in internal matters of Rajputs (Jodhpur succession war) didnt yield the desired results as he had hoped and made the Rathores and Sisodiyas angry which proved to be huge burden on the royal treasury and the rising Maratha power under Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj did the rest and broke the back of the great empire.

 

[Traveller55]

3 words can best describe what goes through the mind of Western leaders when it comes to India's economy - Rinse and Repeat.

Ok. Atleast India has something to rinse and repeat. Pakistan ? LOL. 'there be terrorists' is the western perception of it. Which is again why westerners think better of India than Pakistan.

 

[Traveller55]

Akbar was able to subjugate the Deccan rulers forcing them to pay tribute to him so we can effectively consider those as part of his kingdom. Only Tamilnadu , Kerala and parts of NE remained outside his fold. But even then calling it an Islamic empire would be foolishness since Hindus swarmed his court in countless numbers and one of the two highest officers of his darbar with a zat rank of 7000 was Man Singh Kachhwaha , a Hindu.
In Aurangzeb's time though , the nature of empire started to change and although the Hindus still formed bulk of his army , his religious intolerance policies changed the nature and character of the empire and the installation of Jaziya was a final mail in the coffin. Interfering in internal matters of Rajputs (Jodhpur succession war) didnt yield the desired results as he had hoped and made the Rathores and Sisodiyas angry which proved to be huge burden on the royal treasury and the rising Maratha power under Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj did the rest and broke the back of the great empire.

Well said.
Akbar was smart enough to realize that the only way Islamic empire would last in India is by diluting Islam enough to create stability and peace for the Hindus. Hence Din-I-llahi.
Aurangzeb was a smart battlefield commander, but pretty much an egg-head when it came to grand strategy.
Hence the empire fragmented within his own reign.

 

[ManFan]

Because Indians are generally considered timid while Pakistani's are more intelligent, considered so much bigger / attractive and charismatic; they get all the women and live a life Indians could only dream off or see in the movies while they clock in and clock out of the customer service support centre at the local telecom

Oh My God. That gave me a good chuckle.

 

[ManFan]

Background doesn't matter.
Interests matter.

Saudi Arabia and Iran are at odds, because of diverging geo-political interests. That they are both Muslims, is largely irrelevant, because people care more about money and power than camaraderie with similar ideological people.

Religion is neither powerful enough, nor lucrative enough to replace geo-political interests.

Maybe it can't prevent interests but nullify them to the point where not as many people have to die.

 

[TM Riddle]

Well said.
Akbar was smart enough to realize that the only way Islamic empire would last in India is by diluting Islam enough to create stability and peace for the Hindus. Hence Din-I-llahi.
Aurangzeb was a smart battlefield commander, but pretty much an egg-head when it came to grand strategy.
Hence the empire fragmented within his own reign.

Actually I find Aurangzeb a bit of a peculiar person. On one hand he ordered to break down several Hindu temples (chief of them being in Vrindavan) , otoh he Issued a farman for renovation of a temple in Benaras.
Unlike his predecessors , Aurangzeb did not like ostentation and his personal life was marked by simplicity. He had a reputation of being an orthodox , God fearing Muslim and in course of time was began to be regarded as Zinda Pir.
Also He appointed officials known as Muhtasibs who were tasked to see that people live their life in accordance with Sharia (who does that , lol ) .
He banned singing from his court but the musical instruments were allowed. In fact the guy himself was an accomplished Veena player. Also it is of interesting to note that largest no of Persian works on classical Indian music were written during his reign.
Quite an interesting fella. Though a bigot no doubt about that.

 

[cricketjoshila]

As for Gandhi being india's hero, may I remind readers that RSS (right wing Hindu nationalists) were responsible for his assassination. RSS, the foundation of BJP.

A Modi apologist claiming Gandhi was a hero is like Hitler apologists claiming Moses was a legend.

RSS didnot assassinate Gandhi and that is a proven fact.

Indians dont need your permission to consider Gandhi their hero. Its funny a brit pakistani is trying to lecture a indian about Gandhi.lol

 

[R3verse Swing]

RSS didnot assassinate Gandhi and that is a proven fact.

Indians dont need your permission to consider Gandhi their hero. Its funny a brit pakistani is trying to lecture a indian about Gandhi.lol

Sure, whatever you say.

Back to being defensive again I see.

I just wonder whether Godse is revered as much as Modi.

Hmmm.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Readers should note. When Pakistan and India gained independence, Jinnah died peacefully while Gandhi was assassinated. This sums up the difference in perception.

If Indians did not respect the person that freed them of British shackles by assassinating Gandhi, then Indians are in no position to command respect. I suppose this is why applause go a long way.

Perception is reality.

 

[TM Riddle]

*cough* Liaqat Ali Khan *cough*

 

[Traveller55]

Readers should note. When Pakistan and India gained independence, Jinnah died peacefully while Gandhi was assassinated. This sums up the difference in perception.

If Indians did not respect the person that freed them of British shackles by assassinating Gandhi, then Indians are in no position to command respect. I suppose this is why applause go a long way.

Perception is reality.

LOL.
This is just about the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

Because a great man got assassinated, the culture is going to be looked down upon ?!

Just about the most awe-inspiring and well respected culture there ever was, was the Romans. Every westerner is in love with the Romans practically (except the religious nutters who are angry at them putting so many Christians to death). And Roman empire was just about the most assassination-heavy empire there ever was.

So yet again, that piece of illogical association, is laid to rest.

The westerners look down upon India because Gandhi got assassinated there. But the culture most irreverent towards its great men and assassination central, is the most well loved culture in the western world.
Makes no sense, sorry.

 

[Traveller55]

Actually I find Aurangzeb a bit of a peculiar person. On one hand he ordered to break down several Hindu temples (chief of them being in Vrindavan) , otoh he Issued a farman for renovation of a temple in Benaras.
Unlike his predecessors , Aurangzeb did not like ostentation and his personal life was marked by simplicity. He had a reputation of being an orthodox , God fearing Muslim and in course of time was began to be regarded as Zinda Pir.
Also He appointed officials known as Muhtasibs who were tasked to see that people live their life in accordance with Sharia (who does that , lol ) .
He banned singing from his court but the musical instruments were allowed. In fact the guy himself was an accomplished Veena player. Also it is of interesting to note that largest no of Persian works on classical Indian music were written during his reign.
Quite an interesting fella. Though a bigot no doubt about that.

I find his treatment of Dara Sikhoh pretty appalling and so my perception of him, is a bit of Caligula-esque psychopath. Atleast in Caligula's defence, he had good childhood trauma to turn out as a psychopath.

 

[Traveller55]

Maybe it can't prevent interests but nullify them to the point where not as many people have to die.

Nullify ? How do you nullinfy the simple fact that if it comes to $$ and expansion of interests, Iran and Saudi will have to compete against one another and there can only be one overlord in the mid-East that can also be a true global player ??

These are determined by geo-politics. Not by what sky-God one chooses to believe in. Sooner or later, everyone figures out that its better to work with people who benefit you, for your own benefit, than people who have no common material interests, but pray to the same Sky-God.

The fundamental competition of humanity, is wealth. That is the irrevocable truth of human behavior and that is something religion has tried 'desperately' to rule over and failed. Species Homo Sapiens loves material comforts and sensual pleasure ( I use the word in its widest form- as in pleasure via its senses).
That is a simple fact. That is what has kept the world progressing and feeding almost all our technological advancements.

The competition of wealth, on a regional scale, is dependent on trade nodes, geography and such like, as well as the competition of the wares. Germany and Japan are natural competitors in high end industrial goods. Similarly, Iran and Saudi are natural competitors to its oil wealth and regional security.

These simple realities are stuff relgion has failed to overcome. Only military power (in some cases religious based such as Islam and in some case, Imperial based, like Sassanids) has been able to override geopolitics in West Asia. Not religion itself.

 

[TM Riddle]

I find his treatment of Dara Sikhoh pretty appalling and so my perception of him, is a bit of Caligula-esque psychopath. Atleast in Caligula's defence, he had good childhood trauma to turn out as a psychopath.

I think that has more to do with Mughal policy of Coparcenary inheritance than anything else tbf. The precedent of a son rebelling against his father lead to bitter consequences for the Mughal dynasty. Jahangir did it and so did Shah Jahan. In fact Shah Jahan proved to be bap of Alamgir in every sense of the way. After winning the war of succession and crowning himself in Agra , he ordered execution of his imprisoned brother Khusrau as well as other cousins etc.
Khoon me tha ye sab toh. Shah Jahan himself was to reap the bitter seeds he had sown

 

[JaDed]

Readers should note. When Pakistan and India gained independence, Jinnah died peacefully while Gandhi was assassinated. This sums up the difference in perception.

If Indians did not respect the person that freed them of British shackles by assassinating Gandhi, then Indians are in no position to command respect. I suppose this is why applause go a long way.

Perception is reality.

The misconception is Gandhi freed India. Also let me remind you Liaqat Ali Khan was assassinated and Nehru wasn't sums up how democracy works on both sides.

 

[JaDed]

So many know it all posters nowadays,people should at least accept their bias.

 

[Traveller55]

Israel, India, and Pakistan have NOT signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Homework. Homework. Homework.

Yet, two of the non-signatories have acted as responsible nuclear powers, Pakistan has not.

So much for 'homework'.

Nobody likes the idea of nukes for hire/nukes for every nation.

India and Israel are not saying their nukes are for rent or having links with embargoed regimes like N.Korea for military development.
The west has done a study on how 'secure' Pakistani nukes are from terrorists. This can be easily cited (the dreded word for RS). They have not, for Isreal or India.

So the basic perception is, both India and Israel are responsible nuclear powers, Pakistan is not- especially when Pakistani people are saying ' we didn't sign NPT to we are not obligated to keep nukes a secret'.

In the post 9-11 world, this is a major reason why Pakistan < India in western consciousness.

 

[Traveller55]

The misconception is Gandhi freed India. Also let me remind you Liaqat Ali Khan was assassinated and Nehru wasn't sums up how democracy works on both sides.

Its no misconception.
Gandhi is a major reason why India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are free of the British. He isn't the ONLY reason but unless you straight up fight a massive war campaign for independence and win it, you cannot be the ONLY reason for freedom, either. Even in those cases, as G.Washington's case for eg (who satisfies all these criterias that Gandhi does not), they are hardly ever the 'only reason'.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Liaqat Ali Khan was not assassinated, even if you grant the feeble evidence, it was not Pakistanis.

Gandhi was hated in India, assassinated by his own brethren, so much so Indra Gandhi, who had no relation to Gandhi himself, was assassinated. Ragiv Gandhi also assassinated.

The name Gandhi it seems is toxic in the so called stable democracy of India, but the false perception out of India would like the world to believe Hindu nationalists respected him, and Modi the flag bearer is propelling his message.

You see folks, India don't look up to Pakistan because it is an Islamic state, they hate Gandhi, and anyone associated with the name, because at the time India felt it was free, it was divided, and right-wing Hindu nationalists blamed Gandhi for breaking up India.

When right-wing Hindu nationalists assassinate any political leader with the name Gandhi, you know where the problem lies.

 

[TM Riddle]

The misconception is Gandhi freed India. Also let me remind you Liaqat Ali Khan was assassinated and Nehru wasn't sums up how democracy works on both sides.

When asked what hindus and sikhs do in the face of violence that engulfed Punjab before partition, Gandhiji prepared both the communities for the anticipated massacres of their kind in the upcoming state of Pakistan with these words: "I would tell the Hindus to face death cheerfully if Muslims are out there to kill them. I would be a real sinner if after being stabbed I wished in my last moment that my son should seek revenge. I must die without rancour.You may turn around and ask whether all Hindus and Sikhs should die . Yes I would say. Such martyrdom will not be in vein.

This is from collected works of Mahatma Gandhi Vol. LXXXVII p 395-5 .
It is left unexplained what purpose would be surved by this senseless and avoidable surrender to murder.
Great man Gandhiji was!

 

[R3verse Swing]

The misconception is Gandhi freed India. Also let me remind you Liaqat Ali Khan was assassinated and Nehru wasn't sums up how democracy works on both sides.

Jinnah/Gandhi are accredited for Pakistan/India. Stay in scope.

Hindu nationalists assassinated Gandhi, even if you disagree, it was an Indian who assassinated Gandhi.

 

[TM Riddle]

Its no misconception.
Gandhi is a major reason why India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are free of the British. He isn't the ONLY reason but unless you straight up fight a massive war campaign for independence and win it, you cannot be the ONLY reason for freedom, either. Even in those cases, as G.Washington's case for eg (who satisfies all these criterias that Gandhi does not), they are hardly ever the 'only reason'.

Disagree with you there. His policy of Struggle-Truce-Struggle was fair to say an ineffective one and didn't really do much to the British apart from causing a few minor annoyances. India would have eventually gotten out of shackles of the Raj , it was inevitable.

 

[JaDed]

Liaqat Ali Khan was not assassinated, even if you grant the feeble evidence, it was not Pakistanis.

Gandhi was hated in India, assassinated by his own brethren, so much so Indra Gandhi, who had no relation to Gandhi himself, was assassinated. Ragiv Gandhi also assassinated.

The name Gandhi it seems is toxic in the so called stable democracy of India, but the false perception out of India would like the world to believe Hindu nationalists respected him, and Modi the flag bearer is propelling his message.

You see folks, India don't look up to Pakistan because it is an Islamic state, they hate Gandhi, and anyone associated with the name, because at the time India felt it was free, it was divided, and right-wing Hindu nationalists blamed Gandhi for breaking up India.

When right-wing Hindu nationalists assassinate any political leader with the name Gandhi, you know where the problem lies.

You need to visit India ,there are 1.3 billion people and most of the south indians admire Gandhi ,he is disliked in Punjab for obvious reasons.

Also only Gandhi was assassinated by Right Wing no one else by right wing,and please tell us how Liaqat Ali Khan died, enlightened us googlers.

 

[JaDed]

Jinnah/Gandhi are accredited for Pakistan/India. Stay in scope.

Hindu nationalists assassinated Gandhi, even if you disagree, it was an Indian who assassinated Gandhi.

Erm yeah he was assassinated what's your point here you are trying to make?
Gandhi cannot alone be credited for India's independence , of course Brits say that and we don't care.

 

[dhonixi]

Perception of India is positive because of economy and perception of Pakistan is negative to appease India. That's next level logic, what you smoking bro. So Obl, Mulla masud, Laskar, Jud, Masood Ajhar have no role in anything. Childish
Care to explain why Pakistani passport has very less value in world, Must be to appease India.

 

[Traveller55]

Disagree with you there. His policy of Struggle-Truce-Struggle was fair to say an ineffective one and didn't really do much to the British apart from causing a few minor annoyances. India would have eventually gotten out of shackles of the Raj , it was inevitable.

Again, this is a common misconception borne out of not actually knowing the inner workings of the BEIC & BR.
If you ever get a chance, read their own records-keeping and circulars.

They cared so much about Gandhi because it was hurting them where it mattered the most: pocketbook.
The entire reason why Independence of India was even a topic of conversation in the British Parliament, is predominantly due to Gandhi.

 

[JaDed]

When asked what hindus and sikhs do in the face of violence that engulfed Punjab before partition, Gandhiji prepared both the communities for the anticipated massacres of their kind in the upcoming state of Pakistan with these words: "I would tell the Hindus to face death cheerfully if Muslims are out there to kill them. I would be a real sinner if after being stabbed I wished in my last moment that my son should seek revenge. I must die without rancour.You may turn around and ask whether all Hindus and Sikhs should die . Yes I would say. Such martyrdom will not be in vein.

This is from collected works of Mahatma Gandhi Vol. LXXXVII p 395-5 .
It is left unexplained what purpose would be surved by this senseless and avoidable surrender to murder.
Great man Gandhiji was!

Yes , expecting everyone to sacrifice in the name of non violence, absolute tool.

 

[R3verse Swing]

You need to visit India ,there are 1.3 billion people and most of the south indians admire Gandhi ,he is disliked in Punjab for obvious reasons.

Also only Gandhi was assassinated by Right Wing no one else by right wing,and please tell us how Liaqat Ali Khan died, enlightened us googlers.

So you agree Gandhi was assassinated by right-wing Hindu nationalists.

Liaqaut Alia khan's assassination remains a mystery. The point is however there is no conclusive evidence linking the assassination to a Pakistani, unlike Gandhi who was assassinated by right-wing Hindus in India. Crucial difference.

Feel free to Google and post to the correct contrary.

 

[jusarrived]

People who claim there is nothing left in India do not understand economics.

The money in India is largely due to foreign investments, and foreign companies are using and abusing the Indian demographic by funneling out the riches back to the foreign said foreign country.

This is why the rich remain rich, and the poor get poorer in India. Foreign companies invest, lock, and load profits.

The Indian government twigged this which is why companies like Vodafone were landed with a Hugh retrospective Tax bill - to ring-fence profits from foreign companies.

The world is not about minerals or metals anymore, it's about the Benjamins.

Such is the perception of India.

Stop talking from your backside . I dont even know where to start .
India is not a FDI driven economy , every sector is dominated by Indian companies and even in areas we did not have the tech our govt ensured there was JV with Indian companies even way back in the 80s when we could have easily been pushed around to open our markets . Even for every global giant like Uber and Amazon have a Flipkart and Ola . As corrupt as our leaders are they are not stupid like your lot .

 

[Traveller55]

When asked what hindus and sikhs do in the face of violence that engulfed Punjab before partition, Gandhiji prepared both the communities for the anticipated massacres of their kind in the upcoming state of Pakistan with these words: "I would tell the Hindus to face death cheerfully if Muslims are out there to kill them. I would be a real sinner if after being stabbed I wished in my last moment that my son should seek revenge. I must die without rancour.You may turn around and ask whether all Hindus and Sikhs should die . Yes I would say. Such martyrdom will not be in vein.

This is from collected works of Mahatma Gandhi Vol. LXXXVII p 395-5 .
It is left unexplained what purpose would be surved by this senseless and avoidable surrender to murder.
Great man Gandhiji was!

Gandhi is pretty easily explained actually. he went from being a 'keeping to himself' type ambitious young man, to the main brain behind the independence movement, to a cult guru in the latter days.

Looking at Gandhi's last few years is as limiting as seeing the last few years of Van Gough. By then, he was a cult guru more interested in his cult guru-dom than independence. But that doesn't negate his overwhelmingly large contribution towards the independence of the subcontinent.

 

[Traveller55]

In a way, its kind of crazy to think, but Gandhi is more relevant to Pakistan & Bangladesh's independence than Jinnah or LA Khan. Make no mistake- without Jinnah/LAK, there would be no Pakistan and no Bangladesh. But without Gandhi, there wouldn't have been freedom for India, Pakistan or Bangladesh- atleast not for a lot longer- either.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Erm yeah he was assassinated what's your point here you are trying to make?
Gandhi cannot alone be credited for India's independence , of course Brits say that and we don't care.

The point is simple. Apologists of Hindu right-wing Hindutva, Modi, have no right to revere Gandhi since it was a right-wing nationalist than assassinated him.

Then again, guilt is a funny thing. Better late than never.

 

[Traveller55]

So you agree Gandhi was assassinated by right-wing Hindu nationalists.

Liaqaut Alia khan's assassination remains a mystery. The point is however there is no conclusive evidence linking the assassination to a Pakistani, unlike Gandhi who was assassinated by right-wing Hindus in India. Crucial difference.

Feel free to Google and post to the correct contrary.

Right. A Pakistani gets murdered in Pakistan, Pakistan sucks at solving the case (unlike India in the instance of Gandhi), so the murderer's nationality is a 'mistery'.

Sorry but no. Probability dictates that LAK's murderer is most probably Pakistani. That's the same probability for 99.99999% people murdered.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Stop talking from your backside . I dont even know where to start .
India is not a FDI driven economy , every sector is dominated by Indian companies and even in areas we did not have the tech our govt ensured there was JV with Indian companies even way back in the 80s when we could have easily been pushed around to open our markets . Even for every global giant like Uber and Amazon have a Flipkart and Ola . As corrupt as our leaders are they are not stupid like your lot .

Indian companies? You mean like Western companies that have outsourced to india? I hear Reliance Communication is almost bankrupt, or is teetering bankruptcy. What up? Lack of foreign investment?

How may redundancies in the telecom sector in India please?

 

[Traveller55]

The point is simple. Apologists of Hindu right-wing Hindutva, Modi, have no right to revere Gandhi since it was a right-wing nationalist than assassinated him.

Then again, guilt is a funny thing. Better late than never.

Except one man's hero is not another man's hero necessarily. There are plenty of muslims who got killed by muslims and are both hated and loved by the various muslim communities.

 

[TM Riddle]

Again, this is a common misconception borne out of not actually knowing the inner workings of the BEIC & BR.
If you ever get a chance, read their own records-keeping and circulars.

They cared so much about Gandhi because it was hurting them where it mattered the most: pocketbook.
The entire reason why Independence of India was even a topic of conversation in the British Parliament, is predominantly due to Gandhi.

I have read sufficient amount of historical texts (and most of that too from JNUite historians , the perennial chamchas of Gandhi Nehru family) to arrive at the conclusion.
Sure Gandhi was a trouble maker for the British and disrupted the functioning of the Raj at every chance he got but even then he was nothing but an irritating fly to them. How much British cared about Congress and him could be judged from the cold attitude they shown to INC in 1939 when war broke out in Europe and the August offer by Linlithgow next year. British would have eventually left and India would have gotten independent. Gandhi's presence was merely occasioned by it and did not cause it.

 

[TM Riddle]

Gandhi is pretty easily explained actually. he went from being a 'keeping to himself' type ambitious young man, to the main brain behind the independence movement, to a cult guru in the latter days.

Looking at Gandhi's last few years is as limiting as seeing the last few years of Van Gough. By then, he was a cult guru more interested in his cult guru-dom than independence. But that doesn't negate his overwhelmingly large contribution towards the independence of the subcontinent.

Oh I do appreciate his contribution to the freedom struggle. For all his faults , the men did commit his whole life working towards expelling British from India.
It's just his larger than life persona and Bhagwanish image created after independence which I have problems with.

 

[R3verse Swing]

I love how a self proclaimed scientist clings to assumptions and not evidence.

 

[Traveller55]

I have read sufficient amount of historical texts (and most of that too from JNUite historians , the perennial chamchas of Gandhi Nehru family) to arrive at the conclusion.

I have no idea who these folks are. The stuff I've read about BEIC and BR are mostly from the universities in US-Canada. And its pretty clear that the activities of Gandhi was having an immense financial cost to the empire.

Sure Gandhi was a trouble maker for the British and disrupted the functioning of the Raj at every chance he got but even then he was nothing but an irritating fly to them.

And that's where you are wrong. The entire reason they didn't kill off this 'minor irritant', like they did with so many others in the past, is because :
a) he wasn't a minor irritant but a major one
b) killing him would commit the Indian nationalist movement to the 'Fabian strategy'- in which, the British would lose.
These conclusions are actually from British military experts of the time- part of the reason why they didn't just cook up an excuse to execute him. Gandhi was too popular and the disruptions in the aftermath of his death would be a fatal blow the empire's existence.

The British Empire was a trade based empire, first and foremost.

How much British cared about Congress and him could be judged from the cold attitude they shown to INC in 1939 when war broke out in Europe and the August offer by Linlithgow next year. British would have eventually left and India would have gotten independent. Gandhi's presence was merely occasioned by it and did not cause it.

The reason ' British would've eventually left' not just India but Pakistan & Bangladesh too, is because Gandhi laid down the template on how to make the subcontinent a black hole of money for the British Empire, instead of the source or riches its traditionally been.

That is where Gandhi is critical to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh's independence, along with Sri Lanka.

 

[Traveller55]

I love how a self proclaimed scientist clings to assumptions and not evidence.

There are no evidences in the field of geo-politics and rationale behind opinions.

A scientist knows what fields are data-driven and what are not.

Why westerners like India more, is a matter of opinion, not data.

 

[Snak3eye5]

Which part of West only cares about money and not India did you not understand? What part of perception of India in the West is bolstered by the media because of greed, did you not understand?

In other words India is not special by any stretch of the imagination, as Indians would like to believe. Ergo the perception of Pakistan vs India is all down to greed of western governments. Get it?

Dude What Greed ? You make it sound like India is sitting on deep reserves of Diamonds and black gold that Us and Uk is after. Uk/Us / Canada etc etc does not need India for money. But you can make an arguement that these countries can work with India because they know India is not going to stab and double cross them in the back as opposed to a country that hides terrorists, goes through military coups every decade and therefore cannot be trusted because of all this chaos. The majority of Pakistanis acknowledges that Indians come across as meek and subservient. So who would you trust with a job or with trade relations ? The Pakistan government has failed its people and hence the negative perception. Again incase I am misunderstood, I’m stating the Pakistani government. I’m not saying that that every single person in Pakistan is bad. Because no such utopia exists anywhere. Everyone here is talking about the Pakistani government that cannot be trusted and lord knows who is really running the country on a given day whether military, corrupt leaders , fanatics etc etc. Hence the perception. It’s easier to work with a country you can trust. Hence the perception. Not sure me or anyone else can make this anymore clearer. There’s no greed in play here or you’re just unable to handle the truth.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Martin Luther King was assassinated.

JFK was assassinated.

Abraham Lincoln was assassinated.

Liaqat Ali Khan and Benazir Bhutto were assassinated.

Atleast 4 US Presidents were assassinated.

What has this got to do with anything?

The salt guy seems to be trying his usual diversionary tactics.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Not one of those rulers belonged to present day Pakistan. Trying to take credit of people other nations in the name of being muslim. The Afghans even objected to Pakistanis naming their missiles on Afghan rulers.

Afghans rightly don't recognise Pakistan, and their attacks on the country are in their eyes no more than a continuation of their centuries old jihad on India itself. Ask your Sikh brothers about this history if you don't take my word for it.

 

[TM Riddle]

Afghans rightly don't recognise Pakistan, and their attacks on the country are in their eyes no more than a continuation of their centuries old jihad on India itself. Ask your Sikh brothers about this history if you don't take my word for it.

Oh on the contrary , I would suggest you to ask your Afghan brothers about the Carnage Khalsa forces under General Hari Singh Nalwa brought upon the mighty Pashtuns of Khyber pass and the surrounding regions

 

[R3verse Swing]

Dude What Greed ? You make it sound like India is sitting on deep reserves of Diamonds and black gold that Us and Uk is after. Uk/Us / Canada etc etc does not need India for money. But you can make an arguement that these countries can work with India because they know India is not going to stab and double cross them in the back as opposed to a country that hides terrorists, goes through military coups every decade and therefore cannot be trusted because of all this chaos. The majority of Pakistanis acknowledges that Indians come across as meek and subservient. So who would you trust with a job or with trade relations ? The Pakistan government has failed its people and hence the negative perception. Again incase I am misunderstood, I’m stating the Pakistani government. I’m not saying that that every single person in Pakistan is bad. Because no such utopia exists anywhere. Everyone here is talking about the Pakistani government that cannot be trusted and lord knows who is really running the country on a given day whether military, corrupt leaders , fanatics etc etc. Hence the perception. It’s easier to work with a country you can trust. Hence the perception. Not sure me or anyone else can make this anymore clearer. There’s no greed in play here or you’re just unable to handle the truth.

Do you not understand? It's not that India has Diamonds or Gold, you wish, Gold smuggling is on the rise in India, it's that Indian's population is prime for extortion. When you have 1.3 Billion people in a country, you have an economic market. [China is an example].

This is the reason why the West is investing money in India, because of the size of the market, not because of quality, not because the West loves/respects India. Get over it.

Indians by and large are not rich. Apple tried to sell its phones, flopped in India, because Indians do not have the money. Whereas outsourcing can be successful in India because of CHEAP labour.

There are 10000 Indians lined up for every job, this is why they get fired at whim and replaced. Insecure workers who will work at all odds, even on Saturdays and Sundays, to protect their low paying jobs, all at low cost. Quantity does not equate to quality.

So you can say Pakistan hides Terrorists, (though you need to provide evidence), but India is exposing itself for abuse because of the sheer number of people who live in India who are craving for a pat on the back and appraisal.

The greed I refer to is the same greed that drove the East Indian Company to being the ONLY trading company in the word to have an army. In other words, the West sees India as another opportunity to rake in the Benjamins at the expense of Indian lives. Sound familiar to the British rule doesn’t it? No wait. . . Rinse and repeat.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I don't value your opinion in this thread. By your own thinking and logic, you are in no position to pass comment on Pakistan/Indian perception being a Bangladeshi.

If you are least bothered with my opinion then why are you gagging for debate/responding to my posts?

I am least bothered to ask you to count my opinion. I do care for your opinion. You may be a khandhar now, but you used to be a buland imarat.

I haven't been passing comment on pakistani or indian perception. All the talk I had was to know your opinion, and have been pleased that my opinion matches yours.

Sad that you don't want to engage with me when I have been so sweet with you.

 

[R3verse Swing]

I am least bothered to ask you to count my opinion. I do care for your opinion. You may be a khandhar now, but you used to be a buland imarat.

I haven't been passing comment on pakistani or indian perception. All the talk I had was to know your opinion, and have been pleased that my opinion matches yours.

Sad that you don't want to engage with me when I have been so sweet with you.

You cannot blame me. You have a Bangladesh flag in your profile, yet you defend India.

I even repeatably asked you where your loyalty lies, India or Bangladesh, but you have yet to provide an answer. Though you did state single citizenship is more superior.

I got all the time in the world for someone who is upfront and not afraid of their identity, regardless of their views, but you just don't have the sand to be truthful of who you are, and what you represent.

 

[CricketCartoons]

You cannot blame me. You have a Bangladesh flag in your profile, yet you defend India.

I even repeatably asked you where your loyalty lies, India or Bangladesh, but you have yet to provide an answer. Though you did state single citizenship is more superior.

I got all the time in the world for someone who is upfront and not afraid of their identity, regardless of their views, but you just don't have the sand to be truthful of who you are, and what you represent.

You ask tough questions about my identity. I will refer you to the famous poem by Bulleh Shah.

I don't like answering personal questions about myself. Anyway, it is not relevant to the discussion.

Tell me in which aspects have I defended India?

 

[Third_Umpire]

8 pages and going strong Some posters have an indomitable appetite for internet flaming wars, it seems

 

[R3verse Swing]

You ask tough questions about my identity. I will refer you to the famous poem by Bulleh Shah.

I don't like answering personal questions about myself. Anyway, it is not relevant to the discussion.

Tell me in which aspects have I defended India?

Tough questions? My questions aren't tough if you speak the truth, because if anything, the truth is the easier thing to remember.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Tough questions? My questions aren't tough if you speak the truth, because if anything, the truth is the easier thing to remember.

For the sake of Krishna, why don't you answer. Which aspects of India did I defend in this thread?

 

[R3verse Swing]

For the sake of Krishna, why don't you answer. Which aspects of India did I defend in this thread?

No. I have answered enough of your questions.

Man up, tell me who you represent, India or Bangladesh, or perhaps both?

Though the fact you state I ask tough questions about your identity gives me a good idea.

 

[CricketCartoons]

No. I have answered enough of your questions.

Man up, tell me who you represent, India or Bangladesh, or perhaps both?

Though the fact you state I ask tough questions about your identity gives me a good idea.

My family won't let me represent them if asked, how can I represent countries?

You are again running away after making a statement you can't back up. Where did I defend India?

 

[R3verse Swing]

My family won't let me represent them if asked, how can I represent countries?

You are again running away after making a statement you can't back up. Where did I defend India?

You cannot represent yourself?

You ain’t so tough now are ya? All that bravado on being soft on me, yet my one simple question is tough for you to answer, enough to flummox your position.

You are a grade A troll, or should I say bully. Your cryptic responses exposed for what they really are, a front.

 

[JaDed]

The point is simple. Apologists of Hindu right-wing Hindutva, Modi, have no right to revere Gandhi since it was a right-wing nationalist than assassinated him.

Then again, guilt is a funny thing. Better late than never.

Ok and? I don't support Modi and I don't Revere Gandhi one bit,so?

 

[R3verse Swing]

Ok and? I don't support Modi and I don't Revere Gandhi one bit,so?

That's ok then because I was referring to Modi apologists who revere Gandhi.

 

[CricketCartoons]

You cannot represent yourself?

You ain’t so tough now are ya? All that bravado on being soft on me, yet my one simple question is tough for you to answer, enough to flummox your position.

You are a grade A troll, or should I say bully. Your cryptic responses exposed for what they really are, a front.

The only one who is a bully is you. You are asking the questions knowing very well I am not comfortable with it. That is a classic bully who targets people's weak spots. Sorry to say, but you need to act your age.

Tell me where did I defend India? How many times will I ask before you answer?

 

[R3verse Swing]

The only one who is a bully is you. You are asking the questions knowing very well I am not comfortable with it. That is a classic bully who targets people's weak spots.

I am the bully? Says the guy who said he was just being soft on me. Now it makes sense. I was right all along, your views on dual nationality are a reflection of your personal struggles.

What happened with your bravado? Speak up.

I have no idea of your background or your issues, but if you have issues with a simple question, then stop playing big boy games and stay on the side lines waiting for high fives.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I am the bully? Says the guy who said he was just being soft on me. Now it makes sense. I was right all along, your views on dual nationality are a reflection of your personal struggles.

What happened with your bravado? Speak up.

I have no idea of your background or your issues, but if you have issues with a simple question, then stop playing big boy games and stay on the side lines waiting for high fives.

yes, you are bullying me while I was always decent with you. Is that your idea of fun? Suits only school kids..not someone of your age. Request you not to get personal and keep the discussion on topic.

Now tell me when did i defend india? I called it a third world country in a few posts. Is that how one defends? I get it..just like your idea of defending UK is calling it promiscuous.

 

[R3verse Swing]

yes, you are bullying me while I was always decent with you. Is that your idea of fun? Suits only school kids..not someone of your age. Request you not to get personal and keep the discussion on topic.

Now tell me when did i defend india? I called it a third world country in a few posts. Is that how one defends? I get it..just like your idea of defending UK is calling it promiscuous.

Pay heed to the advice you gave to your brethern, do not waste your time.

Good night.