Partition of India - biggest mistake in our history?

[زده کوونکی]

For many years I was a hardcore ethno-nationalist but now I support bridges, not walls.
AM i the only one who got a very strong vibe of "300" movie? Jesus, i can't stop thinking them persians getting their asses kicked by spartanians in tight at the hills.
Man, what a bull**** movie. But funnier and better than "Alexander" though.

Lol those Persians have nothing to do with Tajiks of Central Asia.
Besides, Old Persian is probably closer to Pashto than it is to New Persian.

[jama0112]

Well, if there were uzbeks(well, the mongoid persians in the movie probably were uzbeks), then why wouldn't there be tajiks? But i didn't mention they were though.

[زده کوونکی]

Uzbeks existed as a tribe ever since there was an Oz Beg Khan who became Muslim. Oz Beg Khan - Wikipedia

AFAIK - the name "Tajik" was given to Tajiks by outsiders.

[Friends of Baloch]

Lol those Persians have nothing to do with Tajiks of Central Asia.
Besides, Old Persian is probably closer to Pashto than it is to New Persian.

You're wrong. New Persian is the direct continuation of Middle Persian, which is directly evolved from Old Persian. Please dont make stuff up!

Also Central Asia up to Chorasmia was part of Achaemenid Persia and the Medes, Persians, Parthians, Bactrians, Soghdians, Chorasmians etc all belonged to the same pre-Persian Zoroastrian civilization. It's there in the Avestan who and where the 'Aryan' people are and who is the "Aniran" and this continued right the way through to the Sassanid and beyond. So again please stop making stuff up just because one Tajik member sometimes is annoying.

Tajiks of Central Asia do indeed have very much to do with Persian civilization and history. They are just not the same anymore as modern Iranians because the modern societies and contemporary cultures are very different in Iran, Tajikistan, Afghanistan and Uzbekistan. Also the racial differences have obviously grown too after the Mongol invasion and Tukic influx after 12th century, in some places much more than in others. But dont make up lies that Tajiks "have nothing to do with Persians". That's just being stupid.

[maneatinglizard]

Not really. This isnt quite correct from my reading of history. The concept of a common civilization in the Indian subcontinent and who belongs to it is indigenous to them, it is not foreign imposed. Only a single Indian state or political entity has been imposed from the outside.

From circa 2000 / 1700 BC to around circa 560 / 570 BC the people of the Indian subcontinent were almost entirely insulated from the events happening with their western, northern and eastern neighbours due to India's geographical 'fortress' like features.

For most of history there was only one land route that was considered viable to enter into India and that was the Khyber Pass, and going down the Khyber Pass was easier than going up it to leave. Any other land route was extremely difficult, if not impossible for people to traverse safely, especially in ancient times but even well into the Christian calendar.

Internally within the Indian subconient there are no such obstacles that made it extremely difficult for people to travel and migrate within. Frequent long distance and back and forth migrations and mass movements of people within the subcontinent are a feature of Indian life-style noted even in Mughal times. Much of it to do with seasonal influences, things like drout, famine, internal conflict etc and even because of reasons of superstition, which is rampant within Hinduism. It was not uncommon for Indians in Mughal times to abandon entire villages and migrate hundreds of miles away for all kinds of reasons. This is something they've no doubt been doing for aeons which is what would have helped them eventually develop into a common civilization over the millenia that they had no significant contact with foreign peoples from their 'Vedic' era until the Persians invaded.

So anyway, between at even the minimum estimate of the beginnings of Indian civilization at 1500 BC (some historians put this earlier) to 560 BC (when Darius I of Persia staged the first invasion by a foreign imperial power), thats around 1000 years of culture and civilization that developed organically there largely in isolation from the rest of the World but very much connected internally.

Generic labels like "Hindu" and "Indian" have come from outside much later, but these Dravidians, Indians, Hindus, whatever you want to call them, arent aliens to each other. They had over 1000 years of relative isolation from the rest of the World with only each other to fuse, mutate and develop with.

I havent read ancient Indian history in any great depth, but from general reading it is clear that by the time Darius I invaded India that a large "Indian" civilization was well established and the scholars / intellectuals from India had a very clear sense of 'who' and 'what' their people and country were, and this in turn influenced how the Persians viewed India, then the Greeks, then the Romans after them and so on.

Nice post. I'm probably not as well-versed in Indian history and society as you are, so I could be misunderstanding things.

However, my understanding is that, even with a shared history and some sense of common identity, Indians traditionally saw a lot of difference in each other too. Even today, if you tell an Indian that you can't tell a Punjabi apart from a Bengali, they'll insist that they look much different and might get offended. That's why I compared them to Europeans. Europeans also have a lot of shared cultural and historical ties, and have seen themselves as distinct from their neighbors for a long time as well.

Are Europeans more distinct among themselves than Indians? I don't know enough about either group to say for sure (I live in America, and here people don't seem to differentiate between Europeans much).

[Firdousi]

You? Who are you? I dont reply because i dont care who you consider to be this or that or who you like and what you dont like. That is irrelevant.

You tried to tell people that the Hindu Kush is a natural barrier between one civilization to another but you are wrong and you have been told why that is. That is all. I dont care about your take on "Iranics" or Baloch or "Apus" or Afghanistan being 'fake' or a 'joke' That is all your internal mental problem to deal with.

You were trying to falsely separate Pashtuns and Baloch from each other because of a British imposed border calling it 'natural' and then you start whining about colonialists and fake borders, lol. Sychophrenic. You dont stand for anything and have zero consistency.

It makes you insecure that Tajiks and other wanabe Iranians are a minority in Afghanistan and always will be so long as Afghanistan exists as it does now. That is obvious to everyone here. I would be amazed if anybody else cant see through you and your erratic enmity against Pashtuns and Afghanistan.

You get too defensive when someone challenges your hilarious and artificial nationalist world. Its called dissonance cognitive. Seek help, brother.

Its not about willing but rather inability to provide reliable and rational answers. You claim that Pakistan is fake country. I do agree. At the same time you praise a fake country called Baluchistan. You claim that Apus are inferior. I find it legit. But at the same time you fail to prove that Baluchs are superior. You laugh at Pakis for being patriot and loyal to their Brit-made country but at the same time you are happily and willingly eager to create new Western nation-states on the basis of ethnic nationalism. You are deluded.

Pashtuns and Baluchs just like Tajiks and Uzbeks are complex ethnic groups where people have different cultures, ideologies, experiences and religions. Most of Baluchs in Afghanistan don't even share your nationalism and from my own experience plenty of Baluchs from Zahedan are indifferent to it too. I believe we should get rid of nation states. Artificial Western borders separates Baluchs, Tajiks, Pashtuns and Turkemans, not me. All these ethnic groups should be allowed to have strong and close ties.

But creation of new fake nation-states must be thwarted at all cost. Thats why I was happy when the Shia Fascist militias thwarted the Kurdistan project in few days. If one day something likes ever happens in Baluchistan, Tajikistan or Pashtunistan, I would gladly support all the attempts to destroy such projects.

Your rants at Tajiks are hilarious and doesnt affect me at all. I left all this nationalist BS behind long time ago and now I prefer Muslim Uzbek or a Desi over a stupid Tajik nationalist from Kabul but as i stated in my previous comment, I don't believe in cultural and historical relativism, so let me make this clear to you: It pretty well known the Tajik heritage and Tajik history. Tajiks history and civilization is thousand of years old. Tajik ancestors created the first Iranic civilization, BMAC. Tajiks are sons of Bactria, Soghdia, Parthia and Persia. Tajiks are sons of Samanids, Ghorids, Tahirids, Saffarids, Parthians, Sassanids and Achaemenids. Tajiks founded great cities such as Balkh, Samarkand, Termez, Merv, Bukhara, Tus, Neyshabur, Ghazni and Herat. Tajiks gifted humanity with wise people such as Ibn Sina, Ferdowsi, Mawlana, Behzad, Biruni, Ibn Faryabi, Juzjani, Khwarezmi, Attari, Omar Khayyam, Zardusht and the Barmakids. Tajiks helped to found the Turco-Persian tradition, that took the Iranian civilization from the walls of Vienna to Bangladesh.

Now compare all that rich heritage with your deserts in Baluchistan. Know your place, Apu.

[Firdousi]

For many years I was a hardcore ethno-nationalist but now I support bridges, not walls.
AM i the only one who got a very strong vibe of "300" movie? Jesus, i can't stop thinking them persians getting their asses kicked by spartanians in tight at the hills.
Man, what a bull**** movie. But funnier and better than "Alexander" though.

Dont let the Western propaganda fool you: more Greeks fought and died for Persia in that war than for Hellas. Actually Persians won that battle and thousands of Greeks died in there and also the naval battle of Artemisio. There was no "kicking asses" just a battle where Greeks used the geography in their advantage and kept the Persian army at bay for few days.

[a.s.takhar]

You're wrong. New Persian is the direct continuation of Middle Persian, which is directly evolved from Old Persian. Please dont make stuff up!

Also Central Asia up to Chorasmia was part of Achaemenid Persia and the Medes, Persians, Parthians, Bactrians, Soghdians, Chorasmians etc all belonged to the same pre-Persian Zoroastrian civilization. It's there in the Avestan who and where the 'Aryan' people are and who is the "Aniran" and this continued right the way through to the Sassanid and beyond. So again please stop making stuff up just because one Tajik member sometimes is annoying.

Tajiks of Central Asia do indeed have very much to do with Persian civilization and history. They are just not the same anymore as modern Iranians because the modern societies and contemporary cultures are very different in Iran, Tajikistan, Afghanistan and Uzbekistan. Also the racial differences have obviously grown too after the Mongol invasion and Tukic influx after 12th century, in some places much more than in others. But dont make up lies that Tajiks "have nothing to do with Persians". That's just being stupid.

^^^ dude you start crying too easily ^^^
but you bad mouth others all the time and write about stuff you know little about in real depth.

[Firdousi]

Ha, you know, I liked the older version of you better.
The one that smoked hashish, was anti-Islam and a hardcore ethno-nationalist.

People can always change (and change back) - I myself was once Islamic and anti-hashish.

And btw being a "good" Muslim is impossible and unrealistic, especially if you live in the West.

FYI - the Saudi middle class overwhelmingly supports DAESH

Off topic but please answer:

"Western values and Islam do not go hand in hand."

Do you agree with the above or disagree?

So what? Western civilized nations just butchered up to 11k Iraqi civilians only in Mosul and nobody gives a s*it. But if an Arab from Dammam supports a small, marginal and weak Khwarijite terrorist movement, you lose your head. Stupidity at work here lol

What is Western values? It doesn't even exist. West is just a complex mix of several political, social, philosophical, economical theories such as secular humanism, liberal democracy, capitalism, reason, individualism, secularism, etc. So no, I don't think a conservative faith like Islam can go "hand in hand" with Liberalism. Actually no religion can actually be compatible with Liberalism thats why Liberalism created some "means" to keep religion at bay. But people just lose their mind when it comes to Islam due to media brainwashing.

[Firdousi]

BTW this Indian guy asked me why I believe Islam is superior to Hinduism. Just think about this: there like close to 500 million former Hindus who turned to Islam in a matter of few centuries.. How many Muslims did or are doing the other way around? Almost none. Not even in "secular" India. Those Muslims unhappy with Islam turn to atheism, agnosticism, liberalism or even Christianity but very, very few turn to Hinduism.

Hinduism is an unattractive faith. Do the maths. Numbers never lie. Islam is superior to Hinduism. Period.

[زده کوونکی]

BTW this Indian guy asked me why I believe Islam is superior to Hinduism. Just think about this: there like close to 500 million former Hindus who turned to Islam in a matter of few centuries.. How many Muslims did or are doing the other way around? Almost none. Not even in "secular" India. Those Muslims unhappy with Islam turn to atheism, agnosticism, liberalism or even Christianity but very, very few turn to Hinduism.

Hinduism is an unattractive faith. Do the maths. Numbers never lie. Islam is superior to Hinduism. Period.

Really? Based on numbers you think Islam is superior? Using the same logic I can say that Christianity is superior to Islam because there are more Christians worldwide.

[Firdousi]

Really? Based on numbers you think Islam is superior? Using the same logic I can say that Christianity is superior to Islam because there are more Christians worldwide.

Christianity is like 600 years older than Islam so it had more time to develop itself. Although Christian message and Christian morality, canonic law and cultural heritage are indeed great, it is still inferior to Islam for it lacks of attractive: modern Christianity means old virgin women. It is a dying faith while Islam is strong and vigorous, its pure testosterone. Most of the Levant, North African and Balkans were Christian but once Muslims showed up they turned to Islam by their own will. Superior message.

Hinduism is inferior to both Christianity and Islam. Period.

[زده کوونکی]

Christianity is like 600 years older than Islam. Although Christian message and Christian morality, canonic law and cultural meaning are indeed great, it is still inferior to Islam for it lacks of attractive: modern Christianity means old virgin women. It is a dying faith while Islam is strong and vigorous. Most of the Levant, North African and Balkans were Christian but once Muslims showed up they turned to Islam by their own will. Superior message.

Hinduism is inferior to both Christianity and Islam. Period.

I agree that Christianity, among White Western people, is dying but in places like Africa it is strong and growing, syncretizing with local beliefs and customs.

Actually not always converted by their own will - it was an act of upward mobility or for financial reasons (Jiziya) or even by sword.

I know the Balkans - my company has projects there (and in CIS and GCC countries), in Montenegro (10+% Muslim), Bosnia and Kosovo - actual practice of Islam is pretty much as dead there as the practice of Christianity is in the UK - just the Bosniak and Albanian Islamic cultural identity remains, as in the UK a Christian identity remains though few people even believe in the religion itself. Albania is even worse because of the years when Enver Hoxha was in power. Turkey is hardly a Muslim country - its secular and most Turks do not even care about practicing Islam as a religion. - Things are better in Central Asia tho (Kazakhstan and Tajikistan and Uzbekistan - Kyrgyz not so much)

Also, can you give me an example of a singe peaceful and prosperous Islamic/Muslim nation in modern times?

IMO, Judaism is superior to both Christianity and Islam - just look how successful they are - one tiny Israel in a sea of hostile Arabic Muslim countries - and yet the Arabs are kept on their toes by the Israelis constantly.

[Sarbani]

I agree 100% with Admin Khan's post.

Shocking that most of you guys here claim to hate Punjabistan but then due to your Pakistani upbringing (or for whatever other twisted personal reasons) you guys are equally, if not more, Indophobic.

Hindustan has always been the backyard of Afghanistan and there was ALWAYS some kind of exchange between the two - people, culture, religion, technology, learning, etc.
Do not even try to deny this or you'll just be fulfilling Zia Ul Haq's fantasy of Pakistani Muslims people denying their historical linkage to India altogether.

Each state of India has a distinct language and culture. Pakistan forced everyone to learn Urdu and ended up ruining a beautiful language that was actually a 100% Indian language in the first place - now Urdu is dominted by a Punjabi accent in Pakistan and you guys Pathan accent is mocked the world over. Original Urdu is only spoken by some in Karachi.

In a united India, Pashto would have definitely fared better.

We would have been largely colonized/Desified by India if we were annexed by them. Our language may have official status, but that's the only thing. We would have still been forced to learn Urdu/Hindi and we would have ended up in a worse condition than Northeast India. In NE India, Punjab, and South India (inc. Maharashtra); they constantly complain about migrants from the BIMARU states coming in like invaders and committing crime. We would have had the same situation here.

I don't know if you've ever visited KPK but we have seen a decent chunk amount of slumdog Indic people invading our lands and begging on the roadside in Urdu. They're like a plague. If we were part of India, we would have been completely swarmed by them. And our culture would be far more Desified than it is today. If India were to annex Balochistan or Pashtunistan, that would be an illegal annexation of rightful Afghan/Baloch land that has no business being part of their dirty country. Our language might have official status and be in a slightly better shape under India but we would be only just barely the majority ethnicity or maybe even a plurality with Pashtunistan and Balochistan full of gpysy beggars. Our Pashtun food and culture would be completely Indian.

Originally Tripura was majority Sino-Tibetan, but then Indics swarmed the land and now Tipris are a minority in Tripura and Bengalis are the majority. Sikkim used to be majority Tibetan but then Indic migrants from Nepal mass migrated and then voted Sikkim out of existence. Bhutan saw this and deported all the Indic Nepalis from Bhutan. Currently, Bengalis are mass migrating to Northeast Indian states and have even become the majority in some of their districts. All they've done is be involved in riots and cause trouble, especially in the Bodoland region of Assam.

With Pakistan, it definitely sucks. And Pakistan should be broken up like Yugoslavia was by any means necessary. But at least the number of colonialists will be massively less than if we were part of India. The only small positive to being part of India is that there is a chance the country could collapse USSR or Yugoslavia style since both Pakistan and India are united by their hatred towards each other. With nothing to unite them, the whole scheme could fall apart. But that's a HUGE thing to bank on. If separatism doesn't take off under a united India, then it would be even worse for Pashtuns (in terms of trying to separate) because we would be oppressed by a country with a far more powerful/populous military than the one that currently oppresses us. And we are in a hopeless position right now under the current government.

I'm fine being friends with India and having mutual cooperation somewhat similar to what is going on now between Afghanistan and India, but I draw a very clear line at land claims. India doesn't deserve an inch of Pashtun/Baloch land or else they would culturally genocide us very quickly.

[Sarbani]

India being a superstate won't last forever basically because Indian social dynamics has always been hostile to strong centralist systems. I am right now reading this book about political theory written by Francis Fukuyama called "The Origins of Political Order" and I believe its just a matter of time before this system collapses due to several factors deeply rooted in the Indian psyche.

Adding Baluchistan and Pashtunistan into Afghanistan is off the table, brother. Nothing personal, but emerging those provinces into our country would dramatically increase the Pashtun demography which would be catastrophic for non Pashtuns. Its nothing personal nor nationalist, just after witnessing several Pashtun attempts to Pashtunize and monopolize the country bringing 30 million extra Pashtuns doesn't seem like a smart policy to me.

Anyway, I have come to despise nation-states, brother. Fake nation-states have stopped the free and historical flow of human beings, cultures and ideas in our region. Why should Pashtun and Tajik cultures be confined within some fake borders when we have close ties with all our neighbors? For many years I was a hardcore ethno-nationalist but now I support bridges, not walls.

Even if you don't want the Pashtun regions of Pakistan to join Afghanistan, it should still separate from Pakistan. It should either be it's own country or part of Afghanistan. Pakistan has no right to it.