Kabir:I will remind you of the Sachar Committee Report which stated that the condition of Indian Muslims was worse than that of Dalits. This was a report commissioned by the Congress government not by Pakistanis. India has never had a Muslim Prime Minister. I would be willing to bet that this is not going to happen in my lifetime. The Muslim League succeeded in getting the Muslim majority provinces a country of our own. This is a huge achievement.
Partition was sold as deliverance. In hindsight, it may have been the most sophisticated act of self-disinheritance in modern Muslim history. A century ago, Muslims on the subcontinent were a political force — deeply embedded, numerically significant, and intellectually diverse. Today, they are divided, disenfranchised, and disoriented. Three nations. No unity. No power. No clear path forward. Let’s take stock:
1. Divided into Three
Pakistan. Bangladesh. India. Three fractured expressions of one civilizational legacy — none of which fully represents or protects the totality of South Asia’s Muslims.
2. No Electorate Leverage
In India, Muslims lost their negotiating bloc overnight. From being a decisive vote in undivided India, they became a permanent minority — politically cautious, rhetorically silenced, and often viewed with suspicion. In Pakistan, Muslim identity became so hegemonic it erased internal plurality. In Bangladesh, it became suspect altogether.
3. Psychological Cleft
Two-thirds of Muslims had to unlearn India. Partition forced them to disown their history. The other third had to choose between being Muslim or becoming more Indian. This psychic wound — of being here, but not quite belonging — has never healed.
4. Urdu: From Bridge to Burden
Urdu, once the cultural glue of the Muslim elite, is now:
- Enforced in Pakistan (to the resentment of Sindhis, Baloch, and Pashtuns)
- Marginalized in India
- Extinct in Bangladesh
A shared language was replaced by suspicion and statecraft.
5. Islam as a Spent Force
Partition Islam was meant to be political. It became performative. There is no robust Muslim political expression in the subcontinent today — only tokenism, sectarianism, or silence. It resembles post-revolution Iran: Islam was not discredited by the West, but by what its stewards did in its name. Partition didn’t solve the “Muslim Question.” It just made it unspeakable — in three different politicised idioms.
That report was from 20 years ago, when India Pakistan and Bangladesh were in the same economic bracket. It is quite a tell when someone dusts off a desiccated old cherry to make a point.
I’d be happy to see an updated report. My point is only that it’s not a Pakistani report. It was commissioned by Manmohan Singh ji’s government.
Sry, you’ve ignored every statistic or detailed analysis I have posted before.
I don’t see how there could be a Pakistani report on Indian muslims that anyone could take seriously, why is it a point that it is Indian? Your points are truly surprising.
So that you cannot dismiss it as carrying Pakistani bias?
But don’t worry someone surely (not necessarily you) will come and dismiss it because it was commissioned by the “anti-national” Congress.
I dismissed the report as outdated.
That is both true and indisputable so you make the point about the origins of the report which are not in dispute.
I ask why and you promptly prop up the straw man.
Always disingenuous and insincere point scoring.
I’ve been around on BP for a long time. Trust me people have come and called the Congress “anti-national”.
The human mind has an amazing capacity to find arguments to discredit things that don’t fit their worldview.
That’s fine but we are a new iteration of BP?
Don’t worry. Someone will come along at some point and call Congress “anti national”. I guarantee it.
We’ve already repeatedly (in this iteration) had people call “The Wire” and “Scroll.in” “leftist propaganda”. It’s not very far from calling their journalists “anti national”.
Never underestimate the right wing mind.
It looks like the wheat fields of the Indus provide an endless supply of straw men to fiercely bayonet all day.
Also you’re so insistent on labels. For yourself & others and instantly take offence when you are labelled back in terms that do not suit your self image.
No one likes to be labelled or boxed into a category. I suggest you stop with this ad hominem approach and engage with the actual gist of any argument.
If I remember correctly I accused ‘the wire’ of political bias which is quite different from “leftist propaganda”. This is not even a disputable assertion, the wire is quite blatantly biased against the current govt, nothing wrong in it, it’s just a one sided politically biased view.
They are definitely not anti national, they just have a different vision for the country. Here is Karan Thapar skewering Bilawal in a thoroughly enjoyable interview by
the wire.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqcPdVtZT2c
Hey, who would have thunk cherry picking is this much fun.
You might have said “political bias”. Others have actually used the phrase “leftist propaganda”.
Karan Thapar himself has been labeled on BP as a Pakistani plant. This is ridiculous. I pointed out how incredibly rude he was to Hussain Haqqani–so much so that Haqqani cut the interview short.
Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari is an ex-foreign minister of Pakistan. He will never repeat the Indian line in public no matter how much anyone pushes him. The official Pakistani line is that Pahalgam was a false flag. As a representative of the Government of Pakistan, Bilawal has to stick to that.
Even if the figures are relatively the same, India having 2x Pakistan’s pci and growing means that Indian Muslims are better off than Pakistani Muslims.
Once again, the Sachar Committee Report stated that Indian Muslims are worse off than Dalits.
I wouldn’t want to be compared to a Dalit.
Pakistani Muslims rule a sovereign country. Indian Muslims are a beleaguered minority.
What’s wrong with Dalits? Why can’t you compare yourself to anyone?
Dalits have had tremendous social upliftment. Much as I was against reservation as a student vying for a college seat some of my closest friends during and after college are people who had come in through the quotas, it made me realise the worth of engineered mingling of people. There’s even a very severe creamy layer problem, but that’s getting off topic.
All that terminology you give yourself feels tainted when you keep touting your mansion and your servants. It’s all just insincere fake bourgeoisie liberalism. No morality, just a veneer of civility and a self given title to mask the supremacist beliefs and callous superciliousness.
Dalit literally means “broken”. There’s a professor who was interviewed in the last Scroll Adda who has just written a book called Meet The Savarnas. The interview was quite interesting.
You can call me “bourgeois”. I’m fine with that. It’s probably the appropriate term for someone who comes from a family of doctors, lawyers and civil servants–all typical bourgeois professions. I never claimed to be a socialist or Marxist. I’m centre-left not far left.
If “servant” is a politically incorrect term, they can be referred to as employees or domestic help.
Frankly, in Pakistan you are either part of the servant-having class or you are part of the servant class. I’m incredibly grateful that I was born (no achievement of my own) in a family wealthy enough to have cooks and drivers rather than being a cook or a driver. Wouldn’t you be happy about that? It should go without saying that domestic employees are doing a job for a salary and are worthy of the respect that goes with that.
Affirmative action in India is definitely a huge achievement. The “forward castes” never cease complaining about it though.
If I were an Indian citizen, I would be voting INC. Hardly a revolutionary party!
Dalits are richer than Pakistani Muslims.
Africans in Africa rule sovereign countries. African Americans are a beleaguered minority. I know who I would like to be, if given a choice.
It’s not all about wealth as you seem to think. There is something to be said for being the majority in a country rather than a minority existing on sufferance of the majority.
But you’re free to hold your opinion.
no they are not. that’s wrong to say that Pakistani Muslims are fair better off than Indian Dalits.
that is wrong and you are forgetting subjective comparisons as well.
I would suspect that post Hasina, Bangladesh is going to move back towards a Bengali Muslim identity.
I don’t follow that country too deeply so I’m not going to say anything more on that.
I fear they’re going more fundamentalist, leaning more Islamic less Bengali.
BNP and Jamaat boycotted the last few election cycles. It’s now their turn. Awami League is banned I think.
Eventually, I’m sure a new equilibrium will be reached.
My ustaad was Bangladeshi-American. So was one of our neighbors and dear family friends (their family was also involved in music. The sons played tabla and the mom sang). Our neighbor was more conservative than my family. Her son used to lead prayers in her home and she would pray behind him. That didn’t happen in my family. But they were pretty Bengali as well as evidenced by their participation in Hindustani music.
Bangladesh seems to have huge political swings
As I understand it, there are really two parties. Awami League (center-left) and BNP (center right). But the last two elections were not credible given that the opposition boycotted and Hasina turned into a dictator. Now the tables have turned and Awami League is banned. The next election is supposed to be held around April 2026 and I would anticipate a victory for BNP.
But I think fundamentally the country is OK with its identity as a Bengali Muslim country. Their conflict with (West) Pakistan was not about the Muslim identity but about the disrespect shown to their Bengali identity.
If the Bengali identity had been paramount why didn’t they merge with West Bengal after they won the war against Pakistan?
I can tell you that most Pakistanis are very happy that Partition happened. If you did a poll and asked people if they think that the creation of a separate sovereign nation-state was positive or negative, I would venture the majority would say it was positive (I don’t know if such a poll has actually been done). Muslims are ruling Pakistan. That wouldn’t have happened in an undivided India.
I can’t speak for Bangladeshis but I would imagine that if asked the same question they would argue that being ruled from Dhaka is better than being ruled from Delhi.
In a pak t v show which I saw 25 years ago, one in the audience said that sweets were distributed in Lahore when Bangladesh separated.
More recently the show loose talk carricaturing a Bangladeshi cricketer is a nice example for this.
I don’t know about that. I don’t know why people would celebrate. The “Fall of Dhaka” (as we call it in Pakistan) is still deeply traumatic for Pakistanis.
In the same way the liberation of Auschwitz must be deeply traumatic for Germans, presumably.
Your concentration camp analogy is not appropriate and in fact quite offensive. East Pakistanis were not being sent to the gas chambers.
Germany did not lose an entire wing of their country.
East Pakistanis were tortured.
And Germany was divided into two.
But there were no gas chambers. To compare what happened in East Pakistan to the Holocaust of 6 million Jews is actually really offensive.
Germany was divided at the end of WWII. It was reunited post the fall of the Berlin Wall.
For the record, most Pakistanis have accepted the existence of Bangladesh. Our relations with that country are improving post the ouster of India’s client Sheikh Hasina.
What is the offence here? Who is being offended?
Taking offence is not the way to acknowledge the horrific war crimes perpetrated by the Pakistani Army + Razakars.
Pakistan needs a law like Germany where denial of the genocide is illegal. But then the front pages of your news was covering a sex scandal during the time and declaring victory during surrender.
You really think that comparing the civil war in East Pakistan to the Holocaust against 6 million Jews is a tenable comparison? If so, you have serious problems with logic and argumentation.
Gaza is a concentration camp. Dhaka was not.
I will acknowledge war crimes. I will not use the word “genocide”. I will also never use the phrase “Bangladesh liberation war”. That’s an Indian and Bangladeshi phrase. Pakistanis will never call it that.
Faiz Ahmed Faiz (one of my great heroes) wrote a poem called “Dhaka Say Wapsi Par”. Perhaps you should read it. Better yet here it is in a musical rendition:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB7aZ8RYTD4
We need to have a truth and reconciliation commission with Bangladesh but that doesn’t require us to accept their POV in its entirety.
Kindly reply to the question I asked. Where is the offence?
You can disagree with history all you like but how is it for you to take offence. A genocide is a genocide, method of execution is irrelevant. You might not like the term because it does not suit you. Some estimates have up to 3 million Bengalis killed (the lowest estimates are 300,000).
Wikipedia has a page on it. The consensus is that it is a genocide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_genocide
You can reject this all you like. Taking offence is another of your appalling and entitled stances in an attempt to shut down a conversation. You cannot void comments on this thread so instead you declare an offence. There is no offence whatsoever, there aren’t even contentious claims.
Offence is subjective. I find comparing the situation in East Pakistan to the Holocaust (as was done with the mention of Auschwitz) offensive. I think Hoju knew that it would come across that way. He has previously been extremely nasty to me. The point could have been made in a more measured fashion.
If there was an Israeli on this thread, he or she would find my calling Gaza a concentration camp extremely offensive as well (though many left-leaning people the world over have come to that conclusion).
History is not an objective science the way physics is. It is all interpretation.
I am well aware that Bangladesh and India consider it to be “genocide’. Pakistanis will always contest that interpretation.
If I were to use a term like the “Kashmir Liberation War” (suppose Pakistan is able to free Kashmir from India) you wouldn’t find that term offensive? I don’t honestly believe that.
What is nasty is your effort to deny a genocide where 3 million were killed and 300 thousand were raped.
It’s certainly not just India and Bangladesh that consider it a genocide. Most of those Western scholars you love to cite when it comes to rightly criticizing Hindu nationalists also agree.
the 3mm figure is contested fwiw
Your genocide denial is deeply offensive and destroys any claim you make to try to be a liberal who cares about humanity at large.
About 2-3 million Bengalis were killed, and about 200-300 thousand Bengalis were raped, often kept as sex slaves in Pakistani military camps.
During the war, a Pakistani general expressly stated that one of the goals of the campaign of mass rape is to improve the gene pool of the Bengalis. Religious leaders in Pakistan declared Bengali women to be public property, and therefore suitable for rape and sex slavery.
Among the Bengalis, the Hindus in particular were targeted. Lungis were lifted to identify uncircumcised (and therefore Hindu) men and they were summarily killed. Hindu homes were marked with an “H”, and many were burned down.
Even the Bengali Muslims that were killed were killed specifically because they were ‘too Hindu’ and not Muslim enough. This was supposedly demonstrated by their preference for the Bengali language which, due to having more Sanskrit-derived vocabulary and not using the Arabic script, was more Hindu than Urdu; their physical appearance which, due to dark skin and shorter stature, was identified more with Hindu than Muslim; their attire, including saris and lungis; their greater participation in classical Indian forms of dance and music; and their disposition for intellectual pursuits and clerical work which was not consistent with the martial race ethos they attributed to Muslims.
This was a genocide through and through, from top to bottom. Everything from time ideological heft given to dehumanize (=Hinduize) the villain, to the slaughter of millions and the rape of hundreds of thousands.
I can provide countless sources on this atrocity. The genocide of Bengalis, and particularly Hindus, is one of the greatest crimes in human history. For you, a so called self anointed liberal, to deny the genocide is appalling.
I agree it was genocide but I think the numerical count may be a tad high?
Possibly, but these are not just figures I made up out thin air; they are on the higher end of the widely publicized ranges.
You are entitled to your POV. As a Pakistani, I will never call it a “genocide” nor will I ever use the phrase “Bangladesh liberation war”.
I am a Centre-Left Pakistani (emphasis on the Centre).
Pakistanis may accept the existence of Bangladesh, but they never went through the denazification process that Germany did. Germany atoned for its sins. Has Pakistan?
Germany targeted Jews. Pakistan targeted Hindus (see my other post; Hindus in Bangladesh were particularly targeted, but even the Muslims in Bangladesh were targeted because they were ‘too Hindu’, and not Muslim enough). Has the German treatment of Jews post-WW2, both within Germany and abroad, at all reflected the Pakistani approach?
I don’t think Pakistan is really Nazi Germany
Yes, there were no gas chambers in East Pakistan. The Holocaust resulted in the murder of 6 million Jews. The very comparison of the events of 1971 to the Holocaust is extremely offensive.
I will admit that war crimes were committed. But as a Pakistani, I cannot endorse the word “genocide” in this case.
We are all entitled to our interpretations of events.
Genocide denial is not simply a matter of different interpretations. The same Western scholars you cite to rightfully criticize Hindu nationalists generally agree that this was a genocide. Genocide denial is far more offensive than comparing one genocide to another. The existence of gas chambers does not make the Holocaust somehow sui generis in cruelty. Read up on the horrific atrocities in the Bengali genocide. It’s blood curdling.
If the victims were people who the world cared about (like Whites) and if the US was on the ‘good’ side, the victims of the Bengali genocide would get the recognition they deserve and the perpetrators would be held to account.
Once again, you are entitled to call it a “genocide”. As a Pakistani, I will not do so. It is too far outside the national consensus (or the national “Overton Window” if you will).
I would not expect even the most liberal Indian to use the phrase “India Occupied Kashmir”. That is a Pakistani POV. Similarly, even the most liberal Pakistani will not use the phrase “Bangladesh genocide”.
I think I’ve said everything I have to say on this topic.
It does not matter what the Indian or Pakistani take on the matter is but what is right
Everything we discuss on this site is a matter of interpretation. There are no objective facts in history or politics unlike in physical sciences.
I don’t want to get hung up on the term “genocide”. I will admit that war crimes happened.
Pakistan and Bangladesh need to go through a truth and reconciliation process but that doesn’t mean that either side has to completely agree with the other’s POV.
I think the elimination of significant Hindu (& Sikh) presence in both wings of India can be disconcerting?
Ethnic cleansing happened at Partition. I don’t think I have ever defended that.
Unfortunately that was the logic of the Two Nation Theory on which Partition was based.
And let’s not forget that Muslims were ethnically cleansed from Indian Punjab as well.
I don’t think the idea was for the two Provinces to be ethnically cleansed; that was spontaneous.
I don’t see why the Overton window matters in an online discussion. You’re not running for office in Pakistan. It’s sad that a so called liberal is unable to look at the evidence of what was done to Hindus by the Pakistan Army and acknowledge it for what it is. Until then your claims of being a liberal ring hollow.
I don’t need a certificate of liberalism from you. You’re just a random person on the internet.
I’m Center-Left on the Pakistani spectrum. However, I’m still a patriotic Pakistani. Expecting me to fully take the Bangladeshi or Indian line on such a contentious topic is unrealistic.
I think this reveals a lot about Pakistani liberals vs liberals in the rest of the world. The former is liberal-in-name-only; a thin veneer mostly used to criticize others rather than self-reflect; a type of liberalism that embraces genocide denialism.
Saying you deny the Bengali genocide because you are a proud Pakistani is no different from a neoNazi in Germany saying they deny the holocaust because they are a proud German. The main difference being, of course, that the neoNazi is a fringe alt right in Germany while you are a liberal in Pakistan; really says a lot about the two societies.
I don’t think liberal or conservative are worthwhile tags.
The kind of ideology that led to the Bangladeshi genocide must be confronted and there should be a process of deradicalization and atonement to ensure that it never happens again.
The state engaged in a campaign of mass rape in order to improve the gene pool of Bengalis; religious leaders declared Bengali women to be public property; women were taken and kept as sex slaves in military camps; there was significant racial animus against the ‘small, dark, weak’ Bengalis; Hindus were singled out; Hindu temples were destroyed; Muslim Bengalis were regarded as ‘too Hindu’ (because of alleged racial characteristics, cultural practices, language) and therefore worthy of being killed and raped.
They were not Nazis in the literal sense; they weren’t advocating some kind of Aryan supremacist ideology. But they built up an ideology of hatred against a minority and set out to wipe them out.
Indian Muslims might be poorer than other groups but still richer than Pakistani Muslims, just like Black Americans are richer than Africans even if poorer than White and Asian Americans.
The two richest Muslim men in South Asia are Indian billionaires. The richest Muslim movie stars, musicians, cricketers in South Asia – all Indians.
That doesn’t mean anything; your African American example is a bit egregious .
Not really. The gap might not be as big but thing is the biggest South Asian Muslim entrepreneurs, industrialists, actors, cricketers etc are all Indian.
Just like most of the famous black celebrities are American.
This gap will only grow as the economies diverge further. In 30 years the gap will be insane.
Shahrukh Khan is an outlier. It doesn’t mean that the condition of the average Muslim is not lamentable. A report commissioned by Manmohan Singh ji’s government stated that Indian Muslims were worse off than Dalits. The report cannot be accused of Pakistani or Muslim bias.
I’m not going to belabor this point further.
Pakistan is not a first world country. It is the poorest country in South Asia and is poorer than many African countries.
Shahrukh is not an outlier.
The average Indian Muslim might be poorer than the average Indian Hindu but is richer than the average Pakistani Muslim.
“Pakistan is not a first world country”. Neither is India. Your country is also a third-world country.
Stop trolling.
Talking of Indian Muslims, Mohammed Siraj took a 5fer in India’s victory against England at Edgbaston and became the 2nd Asian to have a a 5fer in a winning cause in all three of SA, England and Australia (First is Bumrah – a Sikh). No Pakistani bowler has achieved this feat.
Shaheen/Naseem have taken ZERO 5fers AGAINST SENA (home/away) and have won ZERO matches IN SENA (I think Naseem has never won a test match vs SENA home/away).
I’d leave off the cricket team identities, do we really need to point out everyone’s (quite obvious) religion, happily with IPL etc this sport has gotten to be very close to solely merit based success. We can do them the honour of being just that.
I’m happy to join your celebration of their achievements, the religious breakdown is uncomfortable.
I think Honey makes very good insights about the cricket team
I couldn’t be less bothered about cricket either way.
Pakistani Muslims have a country. We don’t have to live on Hindu sufferance. Thank Allah for that.
Well, if they’re Ahmadi or Shia, they’re fucked
I’m from a mixed Shia-Sunni family. Find a better argument.
You are the “outlier”.
Shias were bombed in a mosque during prayers on the Prophet’s birthday.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/29/bomb-attack-near-pakistan-mosque
Find a better argument.
I don’t think you ever studied the humanities because you display a lack of the ability to argue coherently.
Yes, there are extremist attacks against Shias. However, this is not state policy.
Ashura was last week. It passed by without incident.
There are Shias in Pakistan who are extremely powerful. Approximately 20% of Pakistani Muslims are Shia (according to some estimates).
>Yes, there are extremist attacks against Shias. However, this is not state policy.
And yet, when it comes to Indian state policy on muslims, you are quick to dismiss the constitutional and legal secularism, and focus on random anecdotal ‘cow-lynchings’ to make sweeping generalizations.
>Ashura was last week. It passed by without incident.
The fact this claim is trumpeted, says a lot actually. Because it is sadly not the norm. If it were, you wouldn’t feel the need to proudly proclaim it.
>There are Shias in Pakistan who are extremely powerful.
Shahrukh, Azim Premji, Zaheer Khan, Javed Akhtar, Imtiaz Ali, Aamir – all outliers. But since there are “some shias in Pak that are powerful” everything is fine.
For someone who brags about “studying the humanities”, the irony is …
The point is that attacks on Muharram processions used to be much more common than they are now. Security has greatly improved.
Many of my relatives are Shia. I think I know more about Shia issues in Pakistan than you do.
Surely you are capable of understanding that Bollywood celebrities are not the typical Muslim. For the umpteenth time, I will remind you that the Sachar Committee Report pointed out that the average Indian Muslim is worse off than a Dalit.
You are constantly trolling. Is it not possible for you to write a comment without being obnoxious?
Now you sound like the people who cite the existence of powerful and successful Indian Muslims to brush aside the discrimination and challenges faced by common Indian Muslims, who also comprise a large percentage of the Indian population and include powerful and successful members.
Kabir has a right to his opinions?
No doubt, and I enjoy reading them.
I think this is structure by elite status?
How so? If you are participating in a Muharram procession and that procession gets attacked your elite status is not going to save you.
You are a rich man with mansions and servants at your beck and call.
The persecution of Shia in Pakistan is widely reported on by Western sources. The Ahmadi point does not even need to be mentioned.
I don’t know if Shi’ites are persecuted in much the same way.. I would need to ask Ammar my friend
I’m not that rich actually. The entirety of DHA (Defense Housing Authority) is full of people with mansions and servants. Frankly in Pakistan you’re either part of the servant-having class or you’re part of the servant class.
In any case, wealth does not protect people from being caught up in random violence on a Muharram procession.
Attacks against Shia have decreased in frequency in recent years.
That is a very provocative statement to make Kabir.
Why? You’ve said worse things about Islam. Don’t play the victim.
The fear of “Hindu Raj” was a very real thing pre Partition. You and I weren’t alive in 1947 (unless you’re in your 80s and then I apologize). We have no way of judging how reasonable this fear was. The Indian constitution was written post Partition.
What this discussion essentially boils down to is that Pakistanis have a sovereign state. We don’t really have to justify why that sovereign state exists to anyone. We are ruled from Islamabad by Muslims instead of by Hindus sitting in Delhi. The vast majority of us are happy with that outcome.
Suppose that the demographics of British India had been the other way around. Are you saying Hindus would have wanted to live under Muslim rule?
Fear of “Hindu Raj” was not about fear of Hindus as such. it was about fear of being dominated by them. I’ve brought this up earlier and you didn’t respond to it (which is fine) but the Muslim League tried for twenty years to get safeguards for minorities such as separate electorates and weighted representation. Congress didn’t budge leading to a failure of negotiations.
“the leaders at independence were fine sharing power”– Yes, because Muslims were a demographic minority. In our thought experiment, if Muslims made up 80% of India, you think there wouldn’t be a Hindu party that would demand a nation of their own?
Gandhara is physically located in Pakistan. It’s part of Pakistan’s history. I don’t need a certificate from you.
I think we already know what happens to any religious minority in a Muslim majority country (this is factual, so please don’t get worked up by the statement). Can the Pakistani Hindus agitate for a separate state for example?
You know very well I was not referring to the geographical location of Gandhara. As you say we’re all welcome to our delusions.
You refuse to answer the question (which is fine it’s your right) but its actually a very straightforward question. In a situation in which the demographics were reversed and there was an “Indian National Congress” which was majority Muslim would you or would you not support a party called the “Hindu League” which advocated a sovereign state in Hindu majority provinces? If your answer is yes, then you have no right to get upset about the Muslim minority deciding it couldn’t live under majority rule and opting for a homeland of our own.
Pakistan is not going to be Partitioned. That is a non-starter. Pakistani Hindus are my fellow citizens and I want them to get all the minority protections that they were promised under the Pakistani Constitution.
I’m a liberal Pakistani. I believe we should claim all our history not just the Muslim parts.
Don’t try to play semantic games with me. You will not win. I’m far more intellectually capable than you seem to give me credit for (probably far more well-read than you as well).
Only someone deeply insecure about their intellect feels the repeated need to declare themselves smarter than someone else.
I’m not insecure LOL. My degrees speak for themselves.
I didn’t say “smarter” I said “more well-read”. It’s fine. I’m more well-read than 90% percent of people I know. I was reading Shakespeare and Dickens at the age of 10.
Yet you are not intellectually capable enough to realize the obvious lie in that statement.
I’ve finally joined Daves and your august company of the intellectually and / or English deficient untouchables 😀 Sorry Honey Singh, did I miss including you here too?
Already lost the majority of the population back in 1971.
Yes and that remains a deep trauma for the country. What’s your point?
Pakistan perpetrated one of the worst genocides in human history which led to the survivors seceding from Pakistan. And it is Pakistan that experienced the deep trauma? Holy smokes.
yes 1971 was terrible
I mean you display your own cognitive dissonance.
This is the tragedy of Pakistan. The cognitive dissonance requires fanatical unshakeable belief in India and Hindus being “anti-muslim” as a principal tenet. Facts be damned.
Because if you allow yourself to accept the truth, the entire raison d’etre for Pakistan’s creation, and even continued existence is called into question.
I mean the “butcher of Gujarat” is your PM so the facts suggest quite a lot of Indians are anti-Muslim.
As for Pakistan’s continued existence: We are a nuclear-armed state. We’re not going anywhere.
You are right about one thing ironically – the ‘not going anywhere’ part.
You cannot wish away the existence of Pakistan.
that is true Pakistanis are very happy with Pakistan.
I don’t think anyone is saying to “undo” Pakistan in any way, shape or form
You made a point that the Muslims of India have *their* sovereign nation. But the Muslim majority provinces of Punjab, Sind & Bengal would have been largely autonomous in any scenario.
It is a Muhajir pathology which has dispersed to all (I’m very proudly quarter Muhajir, Shi’ite Sayyid to boot via my late paternal grandmama).
The entire premise of your post is that Partition was not good for British India’s Muslims. I am arguing that it was good for Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims. Obviously, it was a loss for Indian Muslims.
Part of the failure to compromise was precisely about provincial autonomy vs a strong center. Quaid-e-Azam accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan. Pandit Nehru initially accepted this but then walked back his acceptance. This is what led to Direct Action Day.
At least we agree that the boundaries of the modern day nations are not going to change.
yes but in the end Federalism anyway won. Partition was a bluff that didn’t really work out.
I think the idea of softer or weaker borders is good for all.
Both India and Pakistan have their own issues with federalism. Both countries have a strong center.
In Pakistan, the issue of more provincial autonomy vs greater centralization remains a live one.
I’m a hawk when it comes to Pakistan’s national security. I used to be much more of an “Aman ki Asha” type but recent events have disabused me of that notion. There is no question of “softer” physical borders until there is some acceptable resolution of the Kashmir issue.
Partition saved Indian muslims from sectarian and ethnolinguistic genocide. The unlucky ones ended up outside of Indian borders.
This is the harsh truth that requires a constant cacophony of false tales of “hindooooootva” hegemony to cover up.
You’re entitled to your opinion.
Why does it threaten you so much that Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are happy to have sovereign states of their own?
Aaand the goalposts are shifted to sidestep the obvious bitter truths pointed out. Since they can’t be refuted, lets talk about some imaginary “threats”.
where do you get the ‘threaten’ from? The sorry existence of both Pakistan and Bangladesh is not a threat to India or Indians. The only threat is the terrorism risk, and now that India is steadily getting richer, it will be increasingly able to afford protection against said risk. The rest is irrelevant.
Do you know how to read? You clearly misunderstood the entire context of the comment.
Why do you constantly have to make the case that the creation of Pakistan was a bad thing and that Indian Muslims are the lucky ones? You are free to believe that. Indian Muslims are free to believe that.
Pakistanis count ourselves lucky we don’t have to live with the likes of you.
>Do you know how to read?
This, from a man who constantly whines about “being offended”.
why does it bother you so much if many people view the creation and existence of Pakistan as a folly.Pakistan ‘exists”. For better or worse. I’m not about to charge at it, talwar in hand, for some sort of reverse ghazwa-pak. But we are allowed to have perspectives.
>Pakistanis count ourselves lucky we don’t have to live with the likes of you.
Such repeated personal attacks are unbecoming of a child in high school, let alone a full grown adult who asserts to be an ‘expert in reading’, and “liberal” academic.
You are allowed to have your perspective. I’m allowed to have mine.
Clearly, a large percentage of Hindus hate Muslims and are therefore happy that the existence of Pakistan means that there are less Muslims within your national borders. Had it not been for Partition, the Muslim percentage in India would have been 33% rather than the 14% it is now.
All your comments on this site reflect a deep hatred for Pakistan. So we are definitely lucky that we don’t have to share a country with you.
In contrast, I don’t hate India. I hate the BJP. Now if you’re going to argue that BJP= India than that’s a stupid argument.
>Why do you constantly have to make the case that the creation of Pakistan was a bad thing and that Indian Muslims are the lucky ones? You are free to believe that. Indian Muslims are free to believe that.
The title of the post on the page, asks this very question. And I am answering it, I believe, from an informed perspective. The facts support my argument. Why are you getting so emotionally defensive? This is just a simple academic discussion on “was Partition good for muslims”.
I can understand that you are having trouble accepting the reality that out of the sub-continent’s muslims pre-partition, the clear ‘winners’ are those who stayed within Indian borders.
Democratic Rights? No contest.Religious freedom? No contest.Life expectancy, economic opportunities? No contest.
Since you can’t refute the facts, attack the messenger with “can’t read”. “don’t want to live with the likes of you” and other such tangential ad hominem BS.
Nobody today argues that the Koreans north of the armistice line are “better off” than those in the South. The same argument applies to the Radcliffe line, and the argument is getting increasingly difficult to contest, with the passage of time.
In the face of this bitter reality, all that’s left really, is to hurl “hindoooootva” allegations, and harp on “feelings”. Of supposed ‘happiness’ on the Pakistani side, and ‘otherness’ on the Indian side. Because the data and numbers can’t be cooked.
The Muslims that opted out of India are ruling ourselves rather than being ruled by Hindus from Delhi.
For most Pakistanis and Bangladeshis that is a net positive.
This back and forth has gone on long enough. You’ve made your point. I’m not going to be responding to you further.
For most North Koreans living under “Democratic Socialism” is a net positive instead of the capitalist pigs in Seoul.
Sure, Baghdad Bob.
Pakistan is not North Korea
of course it isn’t, but the parallels are undeniable. Yes, in one case its a single family run dictatorship, where the other one is a Venetian style oligarchy with the Doge (COAS/Field Marshal/Chief Executive) Kursi being open to non-familial rotation.
Can anybody deny that Pakistan is a kleptocracy ruled ultimately with military force, and the ruling elite is utterly unconcerned with the current or future welfare of its citzens? Is that too different from “DPRK”? In both nation-states, it is life threatening to question the state’s governing ideology.
Both nation-states were…assisted in their quest to obtain nukes by the very same CCP.
North Korea was fashioned out of an arbitrary armistice line, based on “ideological differences”. Pakistan carved out similarly, based on a justification of “religious ideology”.
Now obviously SoKo has already attained first wold status economically, and Pakistan isn’t quite at NoKo’s disastrous levels (yet). But the socio-economic gap between Ind-Pak are on similar trendlines, if a bit slower and lower.
The parallels, as I said, are undeniable.
To add, the only muslims who “benefited” from Partition are the exploitative elites who got a new virgin serfdom to exploit.
that is not a correct reading
At this point, it is quite clear that Daves is a troll (at least when it comes to Pakistan).
If this had been my thread, all these comments would have been voided. He has a right to his perspective (as does everyone) but he must know that putting it across in the manner that he does is only going to antagonize me as a Pakistani. Perhaps he gets his jollies by pushing my buttons. But that is no way to conduct a good faith conversation.
On my threads, I will not accept any attacks on Islam or on Pakistan. That’s my bottom line.
I haven’t really been following
That’s fine.
I’m just making a general point (one that you have also made before). It is fine for people to have whatever perspective they have but this should be expressed in a measured fashion. There is really no need to use inflammatory language and trigger each other.
yes but where were the triggers
anybody who challenges your bias, or dares express a perspective that you dislike is a ‘troll’. or ‘can’t read’. or isn’t ‘educated in the humanties’. or is an ‘Islamophobe’.
Repeated personal attacks instead of discussion.
And “I” am the troll?
How can I make this simpler for you?
You have the right to say whatever you want. However, I object to your tone. You come across as extremely obnoxious. Is it really too much to ask you to express your opinion (and that’s all that is being discussed here) in a measured fashion?
This applies to everyone. I have also been provoked at times and that is something I need to work on.
Shouting at each other is not going to help anything.
This is something that people who are educated in the humanities actually learn: How to express your perspective in a neutral and respectable manner. Perhaps it’s not something you’ve actually learned?
do you realize how hypocritically obnoxious what you wrote, sounds? Is this what you learned in ‘humanities’?
You have a frog in the well ponga pundit holier than thou attitude that leads to conflict with not just me, but anyone who has a perspective that’s different.
I understand that it can be uncomfortable when your assertions are called out for hypocrisy and inaccuracy. But there’s a difference in debating a thesis, and getting prissy and aggressive. Perhaps in your bubble, you can get away with this zamindari attitude. Not in any open discussion.
You feel free to make arguments about “hinduism” being an artificial construct, or challenging the idea that “India” is a civilizational state. But the moment such discussions turn the spotlight on Pakistan, the rabid tribalist surfaces and the attacks are unleashed.
the humanities shouldn’t be inflecting discussions here any more. than necessary
The humanities teach people to argue properly. People are free to hold whatever perspective they want. They are free to argue it. They are not free to be rude and nasty.
Obviously this is not an academic forum. No one is demanding citation of sources or footnotes etc. But I don’t think it is too much to demand that the tone employed should be one of mutual respect.
I agree but also worth disengaging when it gets much?
Once again (since you clearly do not get it) you can argue what you like. But you are not free to be rude to me. Do not write in a tone that you would not assume in a face to face conversation.
“conflict with not just me but anyone who has a perspective that’s different”– I may not like the arguments that others make but they usually do not make them in the type of obnoxious and argumentative tone that you employ. Therefore I do not consider them to be trolls.
that is the problem with online conversations
yes but some leeway can be given?
no one is a troll here
My only point is that people need to use a respectful and a neutral tone. This type of “rage baiting” is not on.
agreed
A failed state where no democratic leader has completed a full term and which is poorer than most African countries is hardly a “country”.
Now you are trolling.
President Zardari completed his full five year term as president (his first term). #Fact Check.
You should start writing on Sports & Cricket for BP (among other topics)..
I really want to explore this angle; how India & Pakistan diverged in terms of cricketing success over the last few decades ..
You can email the address and I can set you up
Yes, alhamdullilah, I’m very, very happy that partition took place. Under a united subcontinent, we’d be in a horrible position. We may not be the richest, but at least we won’t get lynched over mere beef-eating rumors. I’d rather be a poor man in Pakistan than a rich man in united South Asia.
Yes! There is something to be said for being a majority in a sovereign country. We can at least eat beef without fear of a Hindu mob lynching us.
Not pray in a mosque without the fear of terrorists bombing you though.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/29/bomb-attack-near-pakistan-mosque
Yes, terrorism is a problem in Pakistan. You think you’re really saying something profound?
Beef is overrated
OK. But one should have the right to eat it if one wants.
It depends- I think localities have a right to regulate it. It’s forbidden to drink or eat pork in most Muslim nations.
Aryavarta is sacred space; why should Beef-consumption be allowed in the core Hindu lands.
in no way am I condoning lynching
So then what’s the problem with Pakistanis having a sovereign state and not having to live in “Aryavarta”?
We are Muslims. Our religion allows us to eat beef. We shouldn’t have to pander to Hindu religious law.
In Pakistan, non-Muslims can legally drink.
that’s fine so India should make it’s way to a Hindu Republic; maybe carve out an exception for Khalistan (Sikhs anyway don’t eat beef)..
what is good for the goose is good for the gander
They can amend their constitution if they wish. The Congress party is not going to go for it though nor are any parties to the left of Congress.
But if they do so they cannot continue to hold Muslim-majority Kashmir. You think Kashmiri Muslims want to be part of a “Hindu Republic”?
Who knows Kashmiris haven’t had much success the last 75 years
They haven’t had success. It doesn’t mean the idea of “azaadi” is not real.
India is still a secular state (on paper). If it ever becomes a “Hindu Rashtra” then there will be absolutely no basis for holding on to a Muslim-majority territory (other than might is right which is not a moral basis).
Yeah, you’ll get caught in a bomb blast while praying in a mosque during the prophet’s birthday instead.
Wow!!! Grape!!!
Are Pakistanis not entitled to their opinions?
I doubt Muslims would have been lynched as a third + of the population?
You are probably right that demographic heft would have prevented this kind of thing from happening.
But rising Hindutva in India and the kind of attacks against minorities that we see happening there (even if numerically not very significant) do lead to a certain sense among Pakistanis that it is a good thing we don’t have to live with such a large Hindu population.
Bottom line is that there is a lot of hatred and a lot of distrust. Perhaps had Partition not happened the way it did that distrust would not be there. It’s a counterfactual.
I just want to briefly clarify my position and then I’m not going to be engaging on this thread too much (unless someone directly attacks me in which case of course I reserve the right to defend myself):
The way that Partition was implemented was a tragedy. Muslims were ethnically cleansed from Indian Punjab (a quick Google reveals that the Muslim percentage of Indian Punjab is 1.9%). My own relatives lost their homes in Amritsar and had to flee to Sialkot.
Hindus and Sikhs were ethnically cleansed from Pakistani Punjab. Hindus make up approximately 2% of Pakistan’s population (most live in Sindh). By the way, the Hindu percentage in (West) Pakistan has remained fairly stable since 1947. The percentage decline that some Indians trot out on the internet is because pre-1971, the Hindu percentage included both West and East Pakistan and was therefore larger.
Ethnic cleansing is tragic. I’m not going to defend it. I wouldn’t be a good liberal if I did.
That said, Partition was the price for a sovereign homeland for British India’s Muslims. Most Pakistanis would not undo Pakistan. Most Israelis would not undo Israel. I may despise the Israeli government but I’m not going to argue they don’t have a right to a country. I would only contend that that country should remain within the internationally recognized 1967 borders.
The Muslim League had to sacrifice the Muslim-minority provinces in order to free the Muslim-majority provinces from “Hindu Raj”. That is the tragedy of the Indian Muslim. But for Pakistani Muslims Partition was a net positive.
A genuine liberal would reject the formation of an religious apartheid state. Not use a farcical defense that “its constitution allows for apartheid, so its fine”.
Now I understand that one has to play the cards you’re dealt. And as a Pakistani, it would feel “unpatriotic” to apply liberalism objectively to its formation. Hence the need for cognitive dissonance, the need to exaggerate the fear of “hindooooooootva” hegemony, to justify the original and ongoing sin – Apartheid.
You cannot justify the Pakistan state as it currently exists, and claim to be a “liberal”.
Let’s turn this around and see how you like it: “You cannot justify the Indian state as it currently exists and claim to be liberal”.
I don’t need certificates of liberalism from you. You are a rando on the internet.
For the last time, liberals believe in the right to self-determination. The Muslim minority of British India realized that they could not live under the rule of the Hindu majority. They had the right to opt-out and create a sovereign state in the provinces in which they were a majority. We didn’t take Hindu-majority land for Pakistan but Muslim-majority land. And this was after two decades of trying to work out a compromise with the Indian National Congress. Compromise failed and therefore an independent nation was our only option.
There are obviously problems with Pakistan’s constitution. Don’t misrepresent my views. I have never said that “apartheid” is “fine”. But those problems with the constitution don’t de-legitimize the existence of the nation.
Bottom line: You cannot question Pakistan’s nationhood or existence and expect this to be taken lying down by a Pakistani.
The pre-1971 Hindu figure is valid to use because it was the intentional genocide of Hindus in the only province of Pakistan that had a significant percentage of Hindus that led to that province seceding. Under these circumstances, you can’t disclaim the pre-1971 all-Pakistan Hindu figures, because it was the very hatred of Hindus and the attempt to wipe them out that led to the loss of that province.
fair point
The pre-1971 figure is used to argue that the percentage of Hindus in Pakistan has declined by a huge amount while the Muslim population in India is growing.
As I’ve pointed out many times before, the Hindu percentage in (West) Pakistan has remained stable since 1947. There was ethnic cleansing but it happened in 1947.
You cannot play these kinds of games with statistics and expect to be considered credible.
How did Pakistan go from having a very substantial Hindu minority in 1970 to having a negligible Hindu minority in 1972?
You cannot compare apples to oranges. Pre-1971 demographic statistics are for united Pakistan. Post-1971 statistics are for (West) Pakistan. Most Hindus were always in the eastern wing. Hindus were ethnically cleansed from Punjab in 1947 (just as Muslims were cleansed from Indian Punjab).
Obviously, the secession of East Pakistan explains the change in demographics.
You are trying to play statistical games. I am arguing that that damages your credibility.
But Hoju does make the point that Hindus of East Pakistan were relentlessly targeted
I don’t want to get into an endless debate about 1971. I would argue that the Pakistani state was acting against separatists and not against the Bengali people as such. Obviously, they were more suspicious of Hindus and saw them as being “anti-Pakistan”.
My more limited point (which I stand by) is that it is not correct to conflate demographic statistics from united Pakistan with demographic statistics from today’s Pakistan (meaning West Pakistan). In 1951 (immediately after the ethnic cleansing of Partition) the Hindu population of West Pakistan was 1.6%. In 2023, it was 2.17%. So if any thing, the Hindu population in Pakistan has grown and not declined.
In Bangladesh, the percentage of Hindus was 13.5% according to the 1974 census. According to the 2022 census data, the percentage was 7.95%.
So the percentage of Hindus has declined in Bangladesh since that country’s independence. But the blame for this lies with Bangladesh not with Pakistan. Our Hindu population has grown.
All these statistics are only a quick Google away.
If they were just against separatists, what explains:
– justifying mass rape campaigns as an effort to improve the gene pool of Bengalis
– religious leaders declaring Bengali women as public property
– keeping Bengali sex slaves in military camps
– racial animus against Bengalis
– destroying Hindu temples
– checking to see if men are uncircumcised and then indiscriminately slaughtering them
– discourse around Bengalis being too Hindu and not Muslim enough
The state built up an ideology to dehumanize, which meant Hinduize, the population and sought to wipe them out.
All ur comments are going to pending btw
You are welcome to your POV. It’s clearly an anti-Pakistan POV. But hey freedom of speech exists.
Indian troops in Occupied Kashmir rape Kashmiri Muslim women. Two words: Kunan Pushpora.
Wiki notes that up to 100 Kashmiri Muslim women were raped by Indian troops.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Kunan_Poshpora_incident
War crimes occur in wars. No one is defending them but that’s the reality.
I’m really not interested in a long discussion with someone who is so clearly anti-Pakistan. So feel free to have the last word.
not tit for tat?
It’s fine for Hoju to have a POV about Pakistani war crimes in Bangladesh (East Pakistan at the time). It is also fine for me to have a POV about war crimes committed by the Indian state in Occupied Kashmir. Rapes happen in wars (not defending that but this is a reality).
To focus exclusively on one side reveals an animus against that country.
hmm I do feel pluralism is stronger than exclusivism?
Agreed.
So I do think 1971 & Kashmir aren’t really comparable?
They are two different situations obviously. But if 1971 is Pakistan’s “dirty laundry”, the Occupation of Kashmir is India’s “dirty laundry”.
Kashmir and Balochistan aren’t comparable either. Kashmir is a Disputed Territory while Balochistan is constitutionally a part of Pakistan. But the Indian nationalists on BP love making this comparison.
West Pakistan had a distinctly colonial attitude towards East Pakistan. It can be argued that mainland India has a distinctly colonial attitude towards Kashmir.
yes but Kasmir is a tiny fraction of the Indian population; East Bengal was the majority.
True. But the colonial attitude is definitely comparable.
perhaps but it’s like the Hindi cinema clip that Indosaurus shared; India is forming an ever closer union.
Kashmiris may want Independence but also opting out of the Indian Economic Union is a big deal?
I’m talking about the attitude of mainland Indians towards Kashmiri Muslims.
Don’t underestimate how traumatic the abrogation of Article 370 and turning the state of Jammu and Kashmir into a union territory (after separating out Ladakh) was for Kashmiris. Even now, the mainstream parties in Kashmir are fighting to get statehood restored. The BJP government says that statehood will be restored at the appropriate time but who knows when that will be.
It’s no coincidence that the one and only time a fully-fledged Indian state was demoted to a Union Territory happened to be the only Muslim-majority state.
The desire for Azaadi is not about economics. It’s about self-determination and not wanting to be part of a Hindu majoritarian country.
In a weird way I think Kashmiris benefit from colorism?
You are entitled to your POV.
However, the fact remains that the only time a full-fledged Indian state has been demoted to the status of a Union Territory happened to be Muslim-majority Jammu and Kashmir. Imagine the outcry if West Bengal (for example) was demoted to a Union Territory.
Even the “mainstream” Kashmiri leaders (not at all interested in azaadi) are demanding restoration of statehood.
Fascinating .. why would that be the case re Article 370, it would be good to hear Kashmiri perspectives on BP
Definitely would be good to hear Kashmiri perspectives
we should find some
There’s this guy I sort of know (at least we are connected on Insta). His name is Huzaifa Pandit and he teaches English Literature in Srinagar. He published a poetry collection called “Green Is the Colour of Memory” (2018). I can see if he wants to contribute to BP.
As a Kashmiri, he might be reluctant to be active on a site where many of the commenters tend to be (to put it politely) pro-Modi. But one can always ask.
https://worldliteraturetoday.org/2019/spring/green-colour-memory-huzaifa-pandit
care to make the ask?
I emailed him.
Thank you 🙏
Surely you recognize the Rwandan genocide. Does that mean you are anti-Rwandan or anti-Hutu?
Recognizing the genocide perpetrated by Pakistan is not anti-Pakistani, it’s simply recognizing what in fact happened.
And I have zero issues in recognizing that the Indian Army has committed crimes against humanity in the regions of India where AFSPA has been in effect. There’s no Overton windrow or jingoistic patriotism that will let me ignore things like arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, torture, and rape.
But that’s where you and I differ. You are eager to call out Indian Army atrocities in Kashmir, and to label Modi the Butcher of Gujarat. But when it comes to the Bengali genocide, unrivaled in the subcontinent for its death toll and rape toll, you give up all those values you purportedly hold dear and deny, deny, deny.
I am not going to use the word “genocide” for the events of 1971. That doesn’t mean I don’t recognize that war crimes occurred. “Genocide” is a politically sensitive term.
I think Partition was probably worse than the Bengali “genocide” but you are free to disagree.
“Indian Army has committed crimes against humanity in the regions of India”– Kashmir is NOT a “region of India”. It is a DISPUTED TERRITORY. So you are an Indian nationalist after all!
On this very site, Hindutvadis have insisted that the Delhi POGROMS of 2020 were not pogroms but “riots”. Again this is a Hindutvadi argument.
The point of all this that words are politically sensitive. As a Pakistani, I will never use the word “genocide” for 1971 no matter how much you harangue me.
I’m happy to use the term disputed territory.
You are not in any way a liberal. You are a nationalist who engages in genocide denialism. How appalling and offensive.
I don’t know why you are getting so hung up on a particular word. I’m not denying that war crimes happened. Surely that’s the important thing?
As for “nationalist”: everyone on this blog is either an Indian or a Pakistani nationalist. However some are right-wing nationalists (Hindutvadis) and others are more left-wing. I’m Center-Left on the Pakistani spectrum.
1971 was effectively the final solution for Pakistan’s Hindu problem. What is left of the Hindu population is negligible, a rounding error. It’s appalling that now Pakistan sits and talks about how the persecution of Hindus is not a major phenomenon in Pakistan. Yes, it’s kind of true, but how did we get here?
And no doubt that the persecution of Hindus is a major phenomenon in Bangladesh.
The civil war in East Pakistan was not about Hindus (you are entitled to your POV but this is factually incorrect). The civil war occurred because West Pakistan did not want to recognize the results of the 1970 election which would have made Mujib the Prime Minister of Pakistan. Had the results of that election been recognized, Mujib would not have declared “Bangladesh” and a united Pakistan would perhaps still exist today.
It is a fact that the Hindu percentage in Pakistan has actually risen since 1947.
but there were many tinders to that fire?
Sure. But I would argue that the main issues between West and East Pakistan were political and not religious.
I don’t think you are wrong there. It spilled over but the of course it was a political rupture first and foremost
that is a correct way to look at it
Reality is that at the end of the day Pakistan is one of the poorest countries in the world, with the third worst HDI in Asia (after war-tor Yemen and Afghanistan) and is behind many African countries.
To make matters worse, they have glacial growth rates and are getting left behind by most of the developing world, including their South Asian peers.
As much as guys like @Kabir like to do “Thank You, Jinnah” thing is Muslims in Pakistan are behind Indians including Indian Muslims and the gap is growing.
Don’t be so harsh on them, everyone needs a reason to wake up in the morning. It is a very bitter pill to swallow. That they ripped apart a nation. That they denied all their pagan roots. That the land of the pure is a pure mess.
You really have to feel for the Ahmadiyyas, they really wanted Pakistan and were at the forefront of the movement, can you imagine how it must feel.
Still, they get to eat beef in peace. Surely that’s some consolation, helps the pill go down a treat.
I just want to put on the record that I do not think Ahmedis should be constitutionally discriminated against.
It is up to Allah to decide who is a Muslim or not. This decision should not rest with a country’s parliament.
And the Indian National Congress agreed to Partition. You seem to be forgetting that inconvenient fact. It was a price they were willing to pay for an India with a strong center.
It’s not all about GDP etc.
Why are you so threatened by us being happy about having a sovereign state? Aren’t you happy you have a sovereign state?
and non-Muslim Pakistanis?
They are citizens of Pakistan. Just as Indian Muslims are citizens of India.
This is why I don’t believe in “civilizational” states but in nation-states.
yes but are naturally excluded; a non-Muslim cannot aspire to the Highest office etc etc..
I think it’s all well and good to point out India’s flaw, but Pakistan need to rethink MANY priors
Somehow I don’t think that the main concern of Pakistani minorities is becoming Prime Minister.
Pakistan is an “Islamic Republic”. India is a secular state. You know that I prefer the secular state model but I am in no position to change the Constitution of Pakistan.
you can speak for Pakistan’s minorities and Indian Muslim – bravo
I’m only countering your point that the biggest concern Pakistani minorities have is not being allowed to be PM.
My tabla accompanist is Christian. He loves Pakistan and is even more nationalistic than I am.
Dhimmitude is Bliss!
I’m just telling you the man’s opinion. I’ve argued with him that the army should not undermine democracy (in the context that he’s a staunch PML(N) supporter and hates PTI) and he countered that the army is all that is protecting Pakistan from India. He personally revels in each and every diplomatic defeat for Modi.
There are many issues that minorities face in Pakistan. They should definitely get all the rights promised them by the Pakistani Constitution. I’m only putting it to you that the lack of ability to be PM or COAS is not their number one issue.
may not be “number one issue”, but a self-proclaimed liberal refusing to accept that its an issue, speaks quite loudly about said ‘liberalism’.
I agree that it’s not all about GDP.
I think of a place like Quebec; its largest city, Montreal, was the economic capital of Canada. But Quebecois were living as an underclass in Quebec. Their attempts to secede led to an exodus of wealthier Anglophones to the rest of Canada, particularly Ontario. Over the course of a couple decades, Ontario’s largest city, Toronto, became the economic capital. Montreal / Quebec have never quite recovered and never will be the economic heart of the country again, but after the exodus of Anglophones and compromises by the federal government to ensure autonomy, they feel much more like the masters of their own domain.
Sometimes it’s not all about money.
Montreal is amazing
Since people are talking about how good Indian Muslims have it as compared to Pakistani Muslims, this might be relevant:
https://thewire.in/books/many-lives-syeda-x-neha-dixit-dark-underbelly-new-india
Pakistan doesn’t have a Left consciousness and Partition may have shattered that for Indian Muslims?
Pakistan had a communist party. It still has leftist parties such as the Awami Workers Party that Alia Amirali (Dr. Hoodbhoy’s daughter) is part of.
Of course no party to the left of PPP is electorally viable. Pakistan is naturally a center-right country.
XTM,
Please read ‘Pakistan or partition of India’ by B.R. Ambedkar. You will like it.
‘No electoral leverage’: what you actually mean when they say this is leverage to screw with Dharmics with increasingly unreasonable demands like those made by ML. Muslims have plenty electoral leverage in their own countries. Name one progressive value/ideal that ‘electoral leverage’ of muslims would have got that is not available already in the Indian constitution? leverage to do what exactly? to behead Nupur Sharma? eat beef in Kashi?
‘Islam as a Spent Force’ What spent force? It belongs in the 7th century. You want it to be stronger like it is in Afghanistan or in Pakistan or Iran? Like it sold yazidi girls into slavery? killed Mahsa? Why should Islam be a banner to begin with? do you want christianity in the country you live to behave this same way? Why this carrot for Pakistanis to become deadlier poison on the life in Indian subcontinent and world at large?
I voided part of your comment
‘ protects the totality of South Asia’s Muslims.’
Protection against what? If these protections are so sorely needed why are Pakistanis running to the west? Why are Iraq and Syria two different countries and not one?
Muslims want all the good bits for themselves and hide behind ‘oh our religion mandates we be assholes’.
XTM, your kind of moral confusion and self deception will lead to formation of Pakistans in the west. In pursuit for acceptance, and power in the west don’t betray the countries and peoples where you found a home, a living, and a wife.
X.T.M: If you haven’t read The Indian Ideology by Perry Anderson, I would recommend you check it out.
Here is Anderson’s own summary of his arguments:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Indian_Ideology
this I agree with
For Anderson, Subhas Chandra Bose was “the only leader Congress ever produced who united Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs in a common secular struggle”.
I would rather hear what your own thoughts are Kabir than you referring to scholars. We all refer to scholarship and opinions but honest self thoughts which may not align with your internal politics or ideology are of much more value than what occupational intellectuals say and think
Hi Gaurav,
The reason I refer to scholars is so that I cannot be accused of a Pakistani Muslim bias. These scholars are experts in their fields and therefore have more credibility than you or I do. BP would be a much better place if people (of whatever political views) bothered to use scholarship to support their opinions.
I have laid out some of my personal thoughts here:
https://www.brownpundits.com/2025/07/10/what-being-a-centre-left-pakistani-means-to-me/