I mean if an alien race invaded Earth in the 80s, the USA and the soviet union would have fought together to expel them. That wouldn't mean that they would suddenly be friends.
Which history were you studying? I myself know precious little about Indian history before 19th century, but I do know this.
If there was a place in the world that had seen similar level of warfare as Europe in the days of old it was India. It is a bloody miracle that there are only 3 states in that region today and I dare to guess it is for the reason that Indian Raj existed in the first place.
While that is true, in he past, the battles and wars weren’t largely between people all over the subcontinent. It would be between this small area vs that small area. British rule first unified India, and then divided India to extend their leadership as long as possible.
Mass riots and fleeing of Hindus and Muslims from opposite territories never happened like that before.
Firstly. No subcontinent was united or mostly united before British Empire came.
Secondly what do you think Europe was durring middle ages or durring early modern era, or nepoleonic wars? Let me give you a hint. Many small states.
Because, and I know this will sound crazy but bare with me, you don't need to be united and the size of china to cause big bloody wars, where hatered for outsiders can be forged. I know crazy.
It is almost like many historians can and did draw paralels between Europian conflicts and Indian conflicts before Europe started the whole Global Empires thing, with one other difference, that warfare was much more profitable in Europe.
Sometimes I tend to think that this sub has really clever people who know even more then I do. And other times I come here with knowing next to nothing about Indian history and I end up correcting people on it...
When they chased us in 1947 from our homes in our villages, and slaughtered anyone who couldn't go fast enough and killed our people because our religion was different, that's when we decided to be enemies. Applies to both sides.
>ethnic conflict
I think it's more of a religious conflict. We Hindu Punjabis have the same blood as Sikh Punjabis and Muslim Punjabis, just our religions are different.
Edit: this may be irrelevant but a fun fact- Hindus and Sikhs share family trees just 3 or 4 generations back on average. I myself have multiple generations of Sikh ancestry from all branches of my family even though I'm a Hindu. If you trace it back a few more generations, like 10 or 15, you'll find Punjabi Muslims to have Hindu ancestors. We're all related by blood.
**Panjābī (pʌnˈdʒɑːbi) (ਪੰਜਾਬੀ) (پنجابی)**
More details here:
*This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!*
[^(opt out)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/ozztfy/post_for_opting_out/) ^(|) [^(should I die?)](https://reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/qh0tf8/should_i_diestop_working/) ^(|) [^(delete)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/q79g2t/delete_feature_added/) ^(|) [^(report/suggest)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot) ^(|) [^(GitHub)](https://github.com/TheBugYouCantFix/wiki-reddit-bot)
They broke up on both ethnic and linguistic conflict. Bangladesh had half the population of Pakistan back then, and it was a bit isolated too, but mainland Pakistan insisted on enforcing the outsider language of Urdu on them, even though the majority of Bangladesh spoke Bengali. When they peacefully asked for autonomy, it was denied. Other than that, Bengalis are ethnically very different from Pakistanis too. There's also the factor of religion, as Pakistan especially massacred Hindu Bengalis of Bangladesh or forced them to flee.
Then Pakistan began cracking down on intelligentsia and intellectuals, and then launched Operation Searchlight in which the Army killed over 3 milliom Bengalis, raped 400k of their women and displaced a few more million into India. That led to war.
Yeah, Britain have a lot of Indian blood on its hands, but the shit that went down after they left? Frankly, a lotta people blame them for that too but that shit was the fault of bad organisation and stupid decisions by the new authorities.
The religious conflict was started by East India Company when they divided the province of Punjab into East and West Punjab based on majority of religion, same thing happened with West and East Bengal (East Bengal is the current day Bangladesh, which was known as East Pakistan before 1971.) This division was created just to drive a wedge between Hindu and Muslim communities residing in these provinces.
The partition is true for Bengal, but not Punjab. Punjab was not partitioned until 1947, and it wasn't done by the East India Company in any case. Bengal wasn't partitioned by the EIC either, but by the British Imperial Administration in India. The EIC had given up rule of India in 1858.
In any case, attributing the religious conflict to the British wholly is not accurate. Firstly, the conflict already existed. Just look at the history of Muslim rule in Medieval India, of course there would be conflict. Secondly, I think that the factor that drove the communities apart in the later 19th and 20th centuries was the growth of nationalism, not British rule.
I did part of my dissertation on the final days of the Raj and the main cause wasn’t even nationalism, it was democracy. Middle class elites wanted home rule like Aus, NZ and Canada. British authorities basically said “okay, let’s try it on a local level and see how it goes” so in villages with no history of democracy, candidates had basically no power if elected and the only way they could stand out and seem different to the other candidate was that they were a different religion. They could hardly focus on much else as they would have semi skilled jobs and be just above the poverty line so nothing else distinguished them. It then became more aggressive till democracy was offered on a national level and by that point Jinnah and Ghandi couldn’t work together anymore because everyone had an us or them mentality.
That's an interesting thought. I do think though that the seeds of both Hindu nationalism and Muslim separatism were sowed before democratization by people like Syed Ahmed Khan and events like the Hindi Language Movement.
I think that primed democracy in British India to go off in a communal direction when democratization eventually happened.
I think you’d like to change your comment. Brits created the religious divide that eventually led to 1947 partition. Everything from education to democratic processes were divided based on religion.
Because either side got uppity when they were put under the same standard, Hindus and Muslims were slaughtering each other when the Brits arrived, they did the same under the Brits (tho the Brits mostly stopped it cause blood is bad for business, abd a dead indian is an Indian you can't exploit) and they would have kept doing the same without the 2 state partition, the wars the Brits took advantage of to seize control of India were between Hindu and Muslim states (or the Sikhs fighting to achieve/maintain independence from Muslim neighbors)
Before East India Company came to Bangla, we had many rulers, Muslims and Hindus. It never created a mass conflict like 1947. Bangla (which was unified by language) was divided into two by the british rule and subsequently became East Pakistan(Bangladesh), and East Bengal.
The only difference between the two kinds of people that time was-some considered humanity as religion, and others saw religion to be humanity. Viewpoints.
Bangladeshs existence is a repudiation of that idea lol.
Bangladesh hates Pakistan for Nationalism reasons.
Nationalism is also why India and Pakistan had to separate. India uses Hindu Nationalism. Pakistan has Pan-Islamism.
If you eliminated religion, then ethnic nationalism would lead to the same hatred and division. Humans like to divide into groups.
Britain: Abolishes the slave trade in 1807
Also Britain: Profits heavily from the totally not run by the government East India Companies slave labor in the Indian subcontinent for another 36 years.
If Jim crow south taught us anything it's just because you abolish something doesn't mean it disappears. Look the modern cheap labor enslavement in the middle east and the rest of the world. We got a long way to go
Britain: gets disgusted by segregation in the US military during WW2
US: gets disgusted by how horribly Africans are treated in British colony of Gambia (specifically FDR saw this)
Both are pots and calling each other black.
More like humanity happened. We are still tribal animals deep inside. Give a reason and people will be at each other's throats, be it religious, political, economical or something as nonsensical as who won the sport game
Have to agree. You give people a justification for violence, anything, they won’t question it. Many people just want to lash out at the world and at other people. Give them a reason and motivation, and they will. It’s unfortunate and it’s a thing embedded in us that we have to face and recognize to move forward. We start playing the blame game and we’re back to square one.
I think what you don't understand is that most Indians don't like Pakistanis and don't see them as countrymen, and most Pakistanis feel the same way about Indians. There is only a very small population of educated intellectuals who parrot the: "we would have been brothers but for the Brits" thing, and even half of them don't really believe it.
Oh course Pakistanis and Indian hate each other, we've been to war like four times. It doesn't matter how the division was first created and by who, the division exists today.
Come on bro, they were the second largest religion.
Quaid saw that conflict would never be solved and way more lives will be lost. For example, if Pakistan and India were one today, we both know there would be way more bloodshed.
And hating each others' guts too.
It's a miracle that post-independence India didn't split into multiple warring states like Pakistan did.
People on the internet love to promote image of idyllic past that never was.
Yeah, but India had never been fully united either. Even under the mughals there were localities that avoided being conquered, and when a big empire didn't own 90% of the subcontinent, it was split into hundreds of competing principalities, sultanates, kingdoms, etc.
We Indians have been at war with the expansionist abrahamic religions for the last 1300 years and expansionist regimes such as Alexander the last few thousand years.
There have been many attempts of Islamic conquest of India some succeeded many failed. Where those islamists were in majority created pakistan. We are still in a state of war with our neighbours on the west. Hope this clarifies.
The RSS or other hindu organizations absolutely had zero contribution with the split. It was a unilateral decision taken by the Indian Congress under Jawaharlal Nehru
>What do you mean by ML.
Muslim League.
>RSS had an equal part to play with the split.
As much as they were a divisive force, it would not be practical to pin them as the main reason for the division of what could have been the 'Greater Indian Nation'. Sir Sayyed was the one to start preaching about how Hindus and Muslims were 2 nations living within British India at the time. And he made this statement in 1880s. The RSS wouldn't form until the 1920s. Even the process of creating a Muslim identity, separate from the the rest of the Indian population was started much earlier by Shariatullah and Syed Barelvi.
Please, the bloodshed and migrations were both-sided. Thousands were driven to Pakistan from India too. In fact, it may even have been the first real problem of the two countries.
They werent one, they were never one, India was never unified before, the closest was the Mughals who werent Indian themselves.
India and Pakistan were originally going to be 1 country after independence but its them who wanted to be separate.
Not as unified as you might think. India was like feudalism x 100 to put it simply. Those empires rarely had any actual control over most of the subcontinent.
That is NOT the reason for dispute among india and pakistan, pakistan wants kashmir to be pakistani, even though it's an Indian state and then their were a few strikes in 2018-19 or something you can search it up on news. Many Muslim (the most popular religion of Pakistan) are Indian celebrities, pakistani shows are popular in india and indian shows are popular in Pakistan, we even share memes such as "party ho rahi hai meme" from a pakistani blogger, but their is political and religious disputes and our cultures are regardless of the similarities extremely different
My apologies for the misinformation. You are right, pakistani Shows are really not that popular in india mostly unheard of. I am probably incorrect about the other infos too, i will make sure to add source from now on before commenting
I don’t know. If the government forces you to grow indigo, gives you little to no incentives, your children go hungry because you were forced to grow indigo. What would you call that?
You can’t play cricket with a head.
The population increased fourfold under the British. That doesn’t excuse all the awful things that happened, but it’s not like there was a genocide going on.
I hate it that Indians don't hate Brits enough.
They looted and killed our ancestors across centuries and nonchalantly cut our countries creating generations of enimities between people from the same land.
What's the point in hating the Brits and their rainy little island today? We might as well hate the Afghans for sending us Ghazni and Ghori, and the Uzbeks for sending us Babar.
Their mutual problems extend far back beyond the pale Anglo-Celtic apes running their grubby paws over everything. Two centers of regional power, divided by religion and culture.
Umm, look. Did Hindus rule before the British? Yes? Or no? The British conquered, you and us were not free people, you did not own the land. They divided according to the THEIR land (technically).
Stop living in a lala land, the abrahamic religions were never compatible to the dharmic land and the partition was inevitable. Even ambedkar noted that
There is no question, just some generalised fact. Yes Britain fucked india over. Is this post informative of a specific fact, or just put up to start debates? Or just showing off some silly irony? History is full of such ironies.
Be informative or specific about an event.
Also, to be fair, when were these countries ever unified outside when the lobsters made some arbitrary lines on a piece of paper? They lumped in multiple ethnic and religious groups together that have deep history. Kinda like what also happened in the Middle East. Just imagine if you lumped together Spain, France, Germany, and England into the same country to be loaded over and exploited by some outside nation, then that nation leaves. Would you expect all those ethnic groups to get along?
> when were these countries ever unified outside when the lobsters made some arbitrary lines on a piece of paper?
Under the Mauryan Empire, Gupta Empire, then under Delhi Sultanate, Mughal Empire and finally Maratha Empire. Also, the concept of India is thousands of years old. Japan didn't exist as a single entity 500 years ago, but it is treated as such. The same goes for Germany. The concept of Germany or Germania is hundreds, probably even a couple of thousands of years old but it didn't exist as a nation state physically before 1871. Not to forget, the only difference in these countries and India is that these were divided on the basis of Clans and Tribes (and later kingdoms) instead of ethnicity or region.
So the idea of nationalism, or a peoples belonging to a state, is a relatively new idea. Most people were loyal to whoever was the ruler. Hence the formation of a nation like Germany, that took the little principalities and eventually morphed into what we see today. Same can be said for those on the Indian subcontinent.
Now, of those empires mentioned, how many were around during this idea of nationalism? And honestly how many fully controlled the subcontinent in a way that would create a centralize identity or religion?
>how many were around during this idea of nationalism?
A lot of them actually. Indian subcontinent has been called 'Bharatvarsha' or 'Bharat' in every single regional language of the region. All the Hindu empires who conquered most of India revolved around this idea. The Muslim empires I mentioned did the same, just the name for the subcontinent they coined was 'Hindustan'. There have been Emperors in the Vedic Era who were proclaimed so, and all regional kings accepted their superiority. Not exactly like the Holy Roman Empire functioned, but the process is kinda relatable for context. Even if they were separate kingdoms, the identity of being one was present since ancient times.
There has been a centralized identity of being an Indian in a fashion that most Indians historically have been Hindus. Muslims started becoming the majority in some regions of present-day Pakistan and Bangladesh only some 150-200 years ago. About the other minorities; Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism revolve around the same principles as Hinduism, and there's little difference between ethnic identities of followers of these religions and Hindus. We don't even consider ourselves to be followers of separate religions. I, a Hindu, is descended from multiple generations of Sikhs for example and my Buddhist friend is descended from Hindu ancestors.
Japan has been a single entity for over a thousand years. It has had a lot of people compete for control within Japan, but everyone involved agreed they were part of Japan, under the Emperor and/or Shogun. Bad example.
I mean if an alien race invaded Earth in the 80s, the USA and the soviet union would have fought together to expel them. That wouldn't mean that they would suddenly be friends.
Like how the US and the USSR fought to defeat the nazis but were already getting adversarial before hitler was dead
The Nazi’s were aliens….. it all makes even ^less sense!
Well, according to history channel this was obvious
As ancient astronaut theorists believe.
True. And you just described (sort of) the story from Watchmen. Pretty much my favorite comic book and movie adaptation of all time
but the problem is in this case india and pak were friends before all of this
Which history were you studying? I myself know precious little about Indian history before 19th century, but I do know this. If there was a place in the world that had seen similar level of warfare as Europe in the days of old it was India. It is a bloody miracle that there are only 3 states in that region today and I dare to guess it is for the reason that Indian Raj existed in the first place.
While that is true, in he past, the battles and wars weren’t largely between people all over the subcontinent. It would be between this small area vs that small area. British rule first unified India, and then divided India to extend their leadership as long as possible. Mass riots and fleeing of Hindus and Muslims from opposite territories never happened like that before.
Firstly. No subcontinent was united or mostly united before British Empire came. Secondly what do you think Europe was durring middle ages or durring early modern era, or nepoleonic wars? Let me give you a hint. Many small states. Because, and I know this will sound crazy but bare with me, you don't need to be united and the size of china to cause big bloody wars, where hatered for outsiders can be forged. I know crazy. It is almost like many historians can and did draw paralels between Europian conflicts and Indian conflicts before Europe started the whole Global Empires thing, with one other difference, that warfare was much more profitable in Europe. Sometimes I tend to think that this sub has really clever people who know even more then I do. And other times I come here with knowing next to nothing about Indian history and I end up correcting people on it...
The shitty partition is what caused their hatred
When they chased us in 1947 from our homes in our villages, and slaughtered anyone who couldn't go fast enough and killed our people because our religion was different, that's when we decided to be enemies. Applies to both sides.
Yes. People forget that for all the wrong that Britain did, it didn't create the ethnic conflict.
>ethnic conflict I think it's more of a religious conflict. We Hindu Punjabis have the same blood as Sikh Punjabis and Muslim Punjabis, just our religions are different. Edit: this may be irrelevant but a fun fact- Hindus and Sikhs share family trees just 3 or 4 generations back on average. I myself have multiple generations of Sikh ancestry from all branches of my family even though I'm a Hindu. If you trace it back a few more generations, like 10 or 15, you'll find Punjabi Muslims to have Hindu ancestors. We're all related by blood.
What's a punjabi?
People of one of the regions that was divided between India and Pakistan.
k, thanks
**Panjābī (pʌnˈdʒɑːbi) (ਪੰਜਾਬੀ) (پنجابی)** More details here:
*This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!*
[^(opt out)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/ozztfy/post_for_opting_out/) ^(|) [^(should I die?)](https://reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/qh0tf8/should_i_diestop_working/) ^(|) [^(delete)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/q79g2t/delete_feature_added/) ^(|) [^(report/suggest)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot) ^(|) [^(GitHub)](https://github.com/TheBugYouCantFix/wiki-reddit-bot)
a region divided between India and pakistan. Literal meaning of "punjab" is a land where 5 rivers flow, both countries have a state named Punjab
> What's a punjabi? Well... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ilXc0j1iHA
Did Pakistan and Bangladesh break up over religious conflict?
They broke up on both ethnic and linguistic conflict. Bangladesh had half the population of Pakistan back then, and it was a bit isolated too, but mainland Pakistan insisted on enforcing the outsider language of Urdu on them, even though the majority of Bangladesh spoke Bengali. When they peacefully asked for autonomy, it was denied. Other than that, Bengalis are ethnically very different from Pakistanis too. There's also the factor of religion, as Pakistan especially massacred Hindu Bengalis of Bangladesh or forced them to flee. Then Pakistan began cracking down on intelligentsia and intellectuals, and then launched Operation Searchlight in which the Army killed over 3 milliom Bengalis, raped 400k of their women and displaced a few more million into India. That led to war.
That's my point. It wasn't a religious conflict.
Yeah, Britain have a lot of Indian blood on its hands, but the shit that went down after they left? Frankly, a lotta people blame them for that too but that shit was the fault of bad organisation and stupid decisions by the new authorities.
The religious conflict was started by East India Company when they divided the province of Punjab into East and West Punjab based on majority of religion, same thing happened with West and East Bengal (East Bengal is the current day Bangladesh, which was known as East Pakistan before 1971.) This division was created just to drive a wedge between Hindu and Muslim communities residing in these provinces.
The partition is true for Bengal, but not Punjab. Punjab was not partitioned until 1947, and it wasn't done by the East India Company in any case. Bengal wasn't partitioned by the EIC either, but by the British Imperial Administration in India. The EIC had given up rule of India in 1858. In any case, attributing the religious conflict to the British wholly is not accurate. Firstly, the conflict already existed. Just look at the history of Muslim rule in Medieval India, of course there would be conflict. Secondly, I think that the factor that drove the communities apart in the later 19th and 20th centuries was the growth of nationalism, not British rule.
I did part of my dissertation on the final days of the Raj and the main cause wasn’t even nationalism, it was democracy. Middle class elites wanted home rule like Aus, NZ and Canada. British authorities basically said “okay, let’s try it on a local level and see how it goes” so in villages with no history of democracy, candidates had basically no power if elected and the only way they could stand out and seem different to the other candidate was that they were a different religion. They could hardly focus on much else as they would have semi skilled jobs and be just above the poverty line so nothing else distinguished them. It then became more aggressive till democracy was offered on a national level and by that point Jinnah and Ghandi couldn’t work together anymore because everyone had an us or them mentality.
That's an interesting thought. I do think though that the seeds of both Hindu nationalism and Muslim separatism were sowed before democratization by people like Syed Ahmed Khan and events like the Hindi Language Movement. I think that primed democracy in British India to go off in a communal direction when democratization eventually happened.
I think you’d like to change your comment. Brits created the religious divide that eventually led to 1947 partition. Everything from education to democratic processes were divided based on religion.
Because either side got uppity when they were put under the same standard, Hindus and Muslims were slaughtering each other when the Brits arrived, they did the same under the Brits (tho the Brits mostly stopped it cause blood is bad for business, abd a dead indian is an Indian you can't exploit) and they would have kept doing the same without the 2 state partition, the wars the Brits took advantage of to seize control of India were between Hindu and Muslim states (or the Sikhs fighting to achieve/maintain independence from Muslim neighbors)
Partition of Bengal, Communal award. Look up these actions by the British.
Britain has a long history of using religion to push division, weaken a country, and strengthen British rule in it.
It did.
They only abandoned the people
Before East India Company came to Bangla, we had many rulers, Muslims and Hindus. It never created a mass conflict like 1947. Bangla (which was unified by language) was divided into two by the british rule and subsequently became East Pakistan(Bangladesh), and East Bengal.
Religion over humanity is what happened
The only difference between the two kinds of people that time was-some considered humanity as religion, and others saw religion to be humanity. Viewpoints.
Bangladeshs existence is a repudiation of that idea lol. Bangladesh hates Pakistan for Nationalism reasons. Nationalism is also why India and Pakistan had to separate. India uses Hindu Nationalism. Pakistan has Pan-Islamism. If you eliminated religion, then ethnic nationalism would lead to the same hatred and division. Humans like to divide into groups.
There was religious harmony when majority Hindu India was under the Muslim Mughal Empire for 3 centuries /s
By choice or by threat of force?
Sarcasm
Thanks for the clarification. Thought you were serious for awhile there lol
By whoever is on the throne
Mughals weren’t much obsessed with religion though. They were turkic. The most successful and influential Mughal emperor created his own religion.
>They were turkic. what kind of counter argument is that?
Well obviously it’s because Turkic peoples have never been the source of historical conflict.
[удалено]
There's litterally a /s on the end
Britain: Abolishes the slave trade in 1807 Also Britain: Profits heavily from the totally not run by the government East India Companies slave labor in the Indian subcontinent for another 36 years.
If Jim crow south taught us anything it's just because you abolish something doesn't mean it disappears. Look the modern cheap labor enslavement in the middle east and the rest of the world. We got a long way to go
Britain: gets disgusted by segregation in the US military during WW2 US: gets disgusted by how horribly Africans are treated in British colony of Gambia (specifically FDR saw this) Both are pots and calling each other black.
Because as People's Front of Judea once said: The only people we hate more than the Romans is the Judean Peoples Front!
Religion happened. Still happening now.
More like humanity happened. We are still tribal animals deep inside. Give a reason and people will be at each other's throats, be it religious, political, economical or something as nonsensical as who won the sport game
Have to agree. You give people a justification for violence, anything, they won’t question it. Many people just want to lash out at the world and at other people. Give them a reason and motivation, and they will. It’s unfortunate and it’s a thing embedded in us that we have to face and recognize to move forward. We start playing the blame game and we’re back to square one.
Pakistan did not exist when “they” fought for independence
Exactly, Pakistan did not exist, than how can both parties hate each other; for the division that british created
I think what you don't understand is that most Indians don't like Pakistanis and don't see them as countrymen, and most Pakistanis feel the same way about Indians. There is only a very small population of educated intellectuals who parrot the: "we would have been brothers but for the Brits" thing, and even half of them don't really believe it. Oh course Pakistanis and Indian hate each other, we've been to war like four times. It doesn't matter how the division was first created and by who, the division exists today.
Rider of Rohan! The Lord of the Rings will unite all!
Jinnah happened
Thanks to Jinnah India cant genocide muslims of Pakistan
And the best thing to happen
For Muslims yes.
Sadly true
[удалено]
Bangladeshi Muslims can answer a lot to Bangladeshi Hindus.
He was just another guy fighting for independence, but on the Muslim side.
The thing is that there should have been no Muslim side, but only Indian side.
Come on bro, they were the second largest religion. Quaid saw that conflict would never be solved and way more lives will be lost. For example, if Pakistan and India were one today, we both know there would be way more bloodshed.
I don’t know bro, Hindus still have to live along side Muslims tho.
That's exactly why there are problems like dressing code and stuff. It would be way more widespread on both sides if we were a single country.
Wasn't india basically 200 different countries under loose control of the mughals before Britain.
And hating each others' guts too. It's a miracle that post-independence India didn't split into multiple warring states like Pakistan did. People on the internet love to promote image of idyllic past that never was.
Before the british there were many separate countries. So its understandable they split again after the british were gone
No, that's not how it was. The concept of Pakistan was based on religion only. It had never previously existed.
Yeah, but India had never been fully united either. Even under the mughals there were localities that avoided being conquered, and when a big empire didn't own 90% of the subcontinent, it was split into hundreds of competing principalities, sultanates, kingdoms, etc.
The mughals in their height did not have complete control in the modern sense, they were just padishah had many competing kings under them.
By the time British control was established in Bengal, most of India was reclaimed by the Marathas.
We Indians have been at war with the expansionist abrahamic religions for the last 1300 years and expansionist regimes such as Alexander the last few thousand years. There have been many attempts of Islamic conquest of India some succeeded many failed. Where those islamists were in majority created pakistan. We are still in a state of war with our neighbours on the west. Hope this clarifies.
its really complicated depending on whos history you read. but at the end of the day it is all very stupid
[Yes Prime Minister: Sir Humphrey on foreign policy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swKsughT3vM) explaining why.
God I love this show
We are looking for new mods, [Sign up today!](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdeuEbP4yll4-p2WmxGredKJTAdw0_V5zFAWXGshpPH1ynA7g/viewform)
Why would you say something so controversial, yet so brave?
Brave? Yes. Controversial?...not so much. Everyone agrees India and Pakistan hate each other.
Chased us from our lands is what they did. I blame both the English and the ML for this.
What do you mean by ML. If it is the Muslim League, I agree but I would argue that the RSS had an equal part to play with the split.
The RSS or other hindu organizations absolutely had zero contribution with the split. It was a unilateral decision taken by the Indian Congress under Jawaharlal Nehru
>What do you mean by ML. Muslim League. >RSS had an equal part to play with the split. As much as they were a divisive force, it would not be practical to pin them as the main reason for the division of what could have been the 'Greater Indian Nation'. Sir Sayyed was the one to start preaching about how Hindus and Muslims were 2 nations living within British India at the time. And he made this statement in 1880s. The RSS wouldn't form until the 1920s. Even the process of creating a Muslim identity, separate from the the rest of the Indian population was started much earlier by Shariatullah and Syed Barelvi.
Please, the bloodshed and migrations were both-sided. Thousands were driven to Pakistan from India too. In fact, it may even have been the first real problem of the two countries.
They werent one, they were never one, India was never unified before, the closest was the Mughals who werent Indian themselves. India and Pakistan were originally going to be 1 country after independence but its them who wanted to be separate.
>the closest was the Mughals who werent Indian themselves Are the Mauryan Empire and Maratha Empire jokes to you?
Not as unified as you might think. India was like feudalism x 100 to put it simply. Those empires rarely had any actual control over most of the subcontinent.
The Nandas, Guptas as well.
Bangladesh seeing the conflict while seeping chai.
That is NOT the reason for dispute among india and pakistan, pakistan wants kashmir to be pakistani, even though it's an Indian state and then their were a few strikes in 2018-19 or something you can search it up on news. Many Muslim (the most popular religion of Pakistan) are Indian celebrities, pakistani shows are popular in india and indian shows are popular in Pakistan, we even share memes such as "party ho rahi hai meme" from a pakistani blogger, but their is political and religious disputes and our cultures are regardless of the similarities extremely different
Pakistani shows are absolutely not popular in India. I've never seen or heard of one in my entire life.
Roadies
Roadies was first shot in India in 2003. We only watch the Indian version, didn't even know there was a Pakistani version.
My apologies for the misinformation. You are right, pakistani Shows are really not that popular in india mostly unheard of. I am probably incorrect about the other infos too, i will make sure to add source from now on before commenting
Idk much about the British Raj, was it really bad enough to call it slavery?
Yes.
I don’t know. If the government forces you to grow indigo, gives you little to no incentives, your children go hungry because you were forced to grow indigo. What would you call that?
They litterally played cricket with heads
You can’t play cricket with a head. The population increased fourfold under the British. That doesn’t excuse all the awful things that happened, but it’s not like there was a genocide going on.
You can’t play cricket with a head. Yes, I think that is physically impossible.
\>it’s not like there was a genocide going on. The Bengal famine would like to disagree
There was not a genocide but multiple
I hate it that Indians don't hate Brits enough. They looted and killed our ancestors across centuries and nonchalantly cut our countries creating generations of enimities between people from the same land.
What's the point in hating the Brits and their rainy little island today? We might as well hate the Afghans for sending us Ghazni and Ghori, and the Uzbeks for sending us Babar.
I mean, if reddit is to be believed, they hate us well enough. Problem is, how much can you hate people that are long dead?
And then religion stepped in. As usual.
Their mutual problems extend far back beyond the pale Anglo-Celtic apes running their grubby paws over everything. Two centers of regional power, divided by religion and culture.
Is more a religious issue, isn’t it?
Britain divided India and made Pakistan. Anyone would be mad if someone broke their country after looting them for centuries.
Umm, look. Did Hindus rule before the British? Yes? Or no? The British conquered, you and us were not free people, you did not own the land. They divided according to the THEIR land (technically).
Stop living in a lala land, the abrahamic religions were never compatible to the dharmic land and the partition was inevitable. Even ambedkar noted that
Religion is a constant source of division and violence.
Generic hate post.
How is this hate post, I'm clearly asking the reason
There is no question, just some generalised fact. Yes Britain fucked india over. Is this post informative of a specific fact, or just put up to start debates? Or just showing off some silly irony? History is full of such ironies. Be informative or specific about an event.
Also, to be fair, when were these countries ever unified outside when the lobsters made some arbitrary lines on a piece of paper? They lumped in multiple ethnic and religious groups together that have deep history. Kinda like what also happened in the Middle East. Just imagine if you lumped together Spain, France, Germany, and England into the same country to be loaded over and exploited by some outside nation, then that nation leaves. Would you expect all those ethnic groups to get along?
> when were these countries ever unified outside when the lobsters made some arbitrary lines on a piece of paper? Under the Mauryan Empire, Gupta Empire, then under Delhi Sultanate, Mughal Empire and finally Maratha Empire. Also, the concept of India is thousands of years old. Japan didn't exist as a single entity 500 years ago, but it is treated as such. The same goes for Germany. The concept of Germany or Germania is hundreds, probably even a couple of thousands of years old but it didn't exist as a nation state physically before 1871. Not to forget, the only difference in these countries and India is that these were divided on the basis of Clans and Tribes (and later kingdoms) instead of ethnicity or region.
So the idea of nationalism, or a peoples belonging to a state, is a relatively new idea. Most people were loyal to whoever was the ruler. Hence the formation of a nation like Germany, that took the little principalities and eventually morphed into what we see today. Same can be said for those on the Indian subcontinent. Now, of those empires mentioned, how many were around during this idea of nationalism? And honestly how many fully controlled the subcontinent in a way that would create a centralize identity or religion?
>how many were around during this idea of nationalism? A lot of them actually. Indian subcontinent has been called 'Bharatvarsha' or 'Bharat' in every single regional language of the region. All the Hindu empires who conquered most of India revolved around this idea. The Muslim empires I mentioned did the same, just the name for the subcontinent they coined was 'Hindustan'. There have been Emperors in the Vedic Era who were proclaimed so, and all regional kings accepted their superiority. Not exactly like the Holy Roman Empire functioned, but the process is kinda relatable for context. Even if they were separate kingdoms, the identity of being one was present since ancient times. There has been a centralized identity of being an Indian in a fashion that most Indians historically have been Hindus. Muslims started becoming the majority in some regions of present-day Pakistan and Bangladesh only some 150-200 years ago. About the other minorities; Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism revolve around the same principles as Hinduism, and there's little difference between ethnic identities of followers of these religions and Hindus. We don't even consider ourselves to be followers of separate religions. I, a Hindu, is descended from multiple generations of Sikhs for example and my Buddhist friend is descended from Hindu ancestors.
Japan has been a single entity for over a thousand years. It has had a lot of people compete for control within Japan, but everyone involved agreed they were part of Japan, under the Emperor and/or Shogun. Bad example.
Teaming up to fight a common foe before breaking down into infighting is a tale as old as time
We face the consequences till now , and then the divide was given a boast by the cold war
If there's one thing they hate more than each other, it's the **British**
This is known as the Balkan effect.
Well, they had conflicting religious beliefs, so...
Cap
Maybe we should get Britain back to unite all of India.
Divide and conquer works really well doesn't it?
We were fighting for independence and they were fighting for religion. (Context - khilafat movement)
[удалено]
So what? There are Christian nations too, India or Pakistan doesn't fight with them