Partition of India - biggest mistake in our history?

[زده کوونکی]

And i never said you did.



'Desi' inferiority complex alert!

You mentioned colour first not me.

Your Baloch in Lyari are even more colour conscious than Muhajirs in Orangi.

[Firdousi]

This is false.

Most of Pakhuntkhwa and Balochistan are part of the same physical geographical region that Afghanistan is. There is no "natural" border between Afghanistan and British invented Pakiland. It is fake British made Durand line.

The natural border between Afghans/Baloch and Dravidians is where the moutain ranges of the Eurasion plate end and the Indian tectonic plate begins.

Pashtuns and Baloch belong to the same geographical space which is at a much higher altitude than the natural homeland of the Dravidians of Punjab, Sindh etc who belong to the plains and tropics of India.

Fake Durand line is NOT a natural border between Afghans and Baloch/Pashtuns on the wrong side of where the border really should be.

Dont try to divide Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan from Afghanistan by making up fairy tales about 'natural borders' when there isnt one.

The border between Afghanistan and Balochistan/Pakhtunkhwa is political not 'natural'.

Hope you can see the inconsistency in your own argument. You just moved the line a bit eastward in order to include yourself in the "Iranic group".

Pakistan is a Brit-made country but so are almost all modern Islamic nation-states. This includes Afghanistan, which is by nature a joke of a country, and Baluchistan which is even a worse case basically because it has never existed. Never.

Ironically you look down on Pakistan because its a fake country while at the same time you are happily playing the colonialist game by drawing new fake nation-states which are toxic and alien to the Islamic world.

Racism and nationalism are clouding your judgement. Historically there has been no real divide or border between Iranics and Indics. I even wonder why we should include Baluchistan into the Iranian civilization. You guys never mingled with the rest of the Iranic bloc (Pashtuns did, and heavily if you ask me). Other than speaking an Iranic language, what makes you Iranic, dude?

[Firdousi]

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.

You Desis and your inferiority complex are annoying, thats why "we" mock "you". You are always trying to relate yourselves with us, which is hilarious. But nobody denies the historical ties with Greater India. I as a Persianspeaker Tajik have more in common with Punjabistan and India than with our fellow Baloch brothers.

But don't try to portray our relationship as "brotherly" because thats not true. India has been the place our ancestors used to plunder, loot and seek for glory. We always took advantage of Indians political and nature weakness and used that in our own benefit.

Hindus are not our brothers. But I do consider Pakistani, Bangladeshi Indian muslims as our brothers in faith. So do most of Afghans.

[زده کوونکی]

You Desis and your inferiority complex are annoying, thats why "we" mock "you". You are always trying to relate yourselves with us, which is hilarious. But nobody denies the historical ties with Greater India. I as a Persianspeaker Tajik have more in common with Punjabistan and India than with our fellow Baloch brothers.

But don't try to portray our relationship as "brotherly" because thats not true. India has been the place our ancestors used to plunder, loot and seek for glory. We always took advantage of Indians political and nature weakness and used that in our own benefit.

Hindus are not our brothers. But I do consider Pakistani, Bangladeshi Indian muslims as our brothers in faith. So do most of Afghans.

You are anti-Hindu because from your perspective, religion is a competition.

For me, Hinduism and Islam are equal.

I care about the cultural similarities I have with the people of the same region - not about the religious similarities I have with people in distant lands.

When I go to Lucknow, the Hindus in the village embrace me as their own.
When I go to Lahore, Punjabis couldn't care less because I'm not one of them.

I have nothing against any nation except the Muslim Punjabis of Pakistan, and Saudi Arabian *******s who promote their barbaric worldview.

[maneatinglizard]

I think the best thing for everyone would've been for India to have been split up into a bunch of smaller states, instead of the one or two mega-states that were proposed.

While Hindustan was one single land and people from an outsider's perspective, to Indians themselves that was never the case until the British took over. South Indians even now don't seem to like the fact that Hindi has a higher status in the country than their native languages (I have a south Indian on my team at work that constantly argues with a Gujarati over Hindi lol).

While the failures of Pakistan are well known to us, I don't think India is actually that much better. Comparing it to Pakistan makes it seem better off than it actually is, as India is far larger and populous than Pakistan. Rather, India should be compared to China, which is doing way better. And I think the problem is that China has actually been a single state for a long time, and actually has a single, unified culture and historical identity (aside from places like Xinjiang which should be independent). On the other hand, Indian identity was imposed on Indians by foreigners (which also explains their inferiority complex). Hindutva is a symptom of this manufactured identity.

What the British did would be akin to Muslims taking over Europe, ravaging it of all its wealth, and then deciding that Europeans are all the same, so they should be granted independence under a single state called "Farangistan" or "Rum" or something. From our perspective, they're all just light skinned kuffar with a goofy culture, but that doesn't erase the centuries of difference and rivalry from their mindsets.

Between the two choices that were actually presented by the British, however, I think a united India might've actually been better for Muslims, Pashtuns included.

Splitting India resulted in three states with Indian Muslims (East Pakistan was never going to work), with all three being weak, whereas a united India would've been something like 40% Muslim. Still a minority, but not one as weak as Indian Muslims are today. I think Hindutva types would've been much more marginalized in such a country. Though, if they weren't, we would've had to endure Indic morons excavating in Pashtun areas for Hindu temples and what not.

BTW double partition of India was a huge failure. Muslim population was split into three different political entities, hostile to each other weakening their strength while most of Apus remained in an united dalkhor state. I couldn't care less about Peshawar, Quetta or Baluchistan. To me Hindu Kush is a natural border that separates us from a different "civilization".

The Hindu Kush was a natural border in the past, but now (due to Iranic south and eastward expansion, plus Indic contraction) the natural border is the Indus.

Think about it like this: if west Pakistan (Balochistan, FATA, and KP) were actually Afghanistan (or whatever else you want to call it, name doesn't matter that much), our country wouldn't be landlocked, and we'd no longer be reliant on Indians or Iranians for long-distance trade. I think that'd benefit Tajiks and other northerners too, wouldn't it?

[Friends of Baloch]

Hope you can see the inconsistency in your own argument. You just moved the line a bit eastward in order to include yourself in the "Iranic group".

I moved something eastward? No i didnt move anything, that's called geography. It has nothing to do with me. It is just a fact. Learn it.

FACT: There is no 'natural' barrier between Pashtuns and Baloch on either side of the Durand line. They are both living in the same natural geographical space. The only boundary is a political one and the one that exists in your imagination when you suffer from bouts of anti-Afghanistan and anti-Pashtun episodes.

By the way nobody in the real World actually cares about a so called 'Iranic' designation. The term is only relevant in a fiew fields of academia. Not even in politics is it relevant.

Maybe some Punjabized "Pathans" try to take up that term because they have confused feelings of loyalty yet insecurity about being a "paki" so try to adopt the label "Iranic" thinking that this somehow distinguishes them from the overwhelming Hindu/Dravidian identity of pakiland and by extension it's mother India, but your typical Pashtun and Baloch of Afghanistan isnt that insecure and doesnt care about or need labels like "Iranic" to feel comfortable in their own skin and culture.

Pakistan is a Brit-made country but so are almost all modern Islamic nation-states. This includes Afghanistan, which is by nature a joke of a country, and Baluchistan which is even a worse case basically because it has never existed. Never.

Ironically you look down on Pakistan because its a fake country while at the same time you are happily playing the colonialist game by drawing new fake nation-states which are toxic and alien to the Islamic world.

Racism and nationalism are clouding your judgement. Historically there has been no real divide or border between Iranics and Indics. I even wonder why we should include Baluchistan into the Iranian civilization. You guys never mingled with the rest of the Iranic bloc (Pashtuns did, and heavily if you ask me). Other than speaking an Iranic language, what makes you Iranic, dude?

Do you suffer from some kind of schizophrenia?

You dont know geography. You cant make up your mind if there is a 'natural' barrier between 'Iranics' and 'Indics' or if there 'historically was no real divide' between them. You call yourself Afghan then mock Afghanistan as a 'joke' and a fake country etc etc etc, lol. You are mental and clearly as confused and disturbed like your "Apu" rivals here

[Firdousi]

You are anti-Hindu because from your perspective, religion is a competition.

For me, Hinduism and Islam are equal.

I care about the cultural similarities I have with the people of the same region - not about the religious similarities I have with people in distant lands.

When I go to Lucknow, the Hindus in the village embrace me as their own.
When I go to Lahore, Punjabis couldn't care less because I'm not one of them.

I have nothing against any nation except the Muslim Punjabis of Pakistan, and Saudi Arabian *******s who promote their barbaric worldview.

Thats nonsense. Typical Liberal relativism: are religions are equal, genders are equal, cultures are equal, civilizations are equal, races are equal,.. its BS.

No, Islam and Hinduism are not equal. Islam is way superior faith than Hinduism. Superior morality, superior message, superior philosophy, superior jurisprudence and law,.. very few religions can equal Islam.

That KSA spreading extremism makes no sense. Saudi policy regarding Islamist movements always has been picky: only to keep Iran at bay. You explain to me why KSA and Emirates backed a secular militarist coup in Egypt against an islamist government? Why both countries back secular al Fatah against Islamist Hamas? Why they are bombing Islamist forces in Libya? Fools, educate yourselves. You Apus know nothing about the Islamic world.

[Firdousi]

I think the best thing for everyone would've been for India to have been split up into a bunch of smaller states, instead of the one or two mega-states that were proposed.

While Hindustan was one single land and people from an outsider's perspective, to Indians themselves that was never the case until the British took over. South Indians even now don't seem to like the fact that Hindi has a higher status in the country than their native languages (I have a south Indian on my team at work that constantly argues with a Gujarati over Hindi lol).

While the failures of Pakistan are well known to us, I don't think India is actually that much better. Comparing it to Pakistan makes it seem better off than it actually is, as India is far larger and populous than Pakistan. Rather, India should be compared to China, which is doing way better. And I think the problem is that China has actually been a single state for a long time, and actually has a single, unified culture and historical identity (aside from places like Xinjiang which should be independent). On the other hand, Indian identity was imposed on Indians by foreigners (which also explains their inferiority complex). Hindutva is a symptom of this manufactured identity.

What the British did would be akin to Muslims taking over Europe, ravaging it of all its wealth, and then deciding that Europeans are all the same, so they should be granted independence under a single state called "Farangistan" or "Rum" or something. From our perspective, they're all just light skinned kuffar with a goofy culture, but that doesn't erase the centuries of difference and rivalry from their mindsets.

Between the two choices that were actually presented by the British, however, I think a united India might've actually been better for Muslims, Pashtuns included.

Splitting India resulted in three states with Indian Muslims (East Pakistan was never going to work), with all three being weak, whereas a united India would've been something like 40% Muslim. Still a minority, but not one as weak as Indian Muslims are today. I think Hindutva types would've been much more marginalized in such a country. Though, if they weren't, we would've had to endure Indic morons excavating in Pashtun areas for Hindu temples and what not.



The Hindu Kush was a natural border in the past, but now (due to Iranic south and eastward expansion, plus Indic contraction) the natural border is the Indus.

Think about it like this: if west Pakistan (Balochistan, FATA, and KP) were actually Afghanistan (or whatever else you want to call it, name doesn't matter that much), our country wouldn't be landlocked, and we'd no longer be reliant on Indians or Iranians for long-distance trade. I think that'd benefit Tajiks and other northerners too, wouldn't it?

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.

[Firdousi]

I moved something eastward? No i didnt move anything, that's called geography. It has nothing to do with me. It is just a fact. Learn it.

FACT: There is no 'natural' barrier between Pashtuns and Baloch on either side of the Durand line. They are both living in the same natural geographical space. The only boundary is a political one and the one that exists in your imagination when you suffer from bouts of anti-Afghanistan and anti-Pashtun episodes.

By the way nobody in the real World actually cares about a so called 'Iranic' designation. The term is only relevant in a fiew fields of academia. Not even in politics is it relevant.

Maybe some Punjabized "Pathans" try to take up that term because they have confused feelings of loyalty yet insecurity about being a "paki" so try to adopt the label "Iranic" thinking that this somehow distinguishes them from the overwhelming Hindu/Dravidian identity of pakiland and by extension it's mother India, but your typical Pashtun and Baloch of Afghanistan isnt that insecure and doesnt care about or need labels like "Iranic" to feel comfortable in their own skin and culture.

Do you suffer from some kind of schizophrenia?

You dont know geography. You cant make up your mind if there is a 'natural' barrier between 'Iranics' and 'Indics' or if there 'historically was no real divide' between them. You call yourself Afghan then mock Afghanistan as a 'joke' and a fake country etc etc etc, lol. You are mental and clearly as confused and disturbed like your "Apu" rivals here

Not a single answer was provided. All your comment is limited ad hominem and nationalist rants.

Once again: what makes Baloch people Iranic? Why should we consider ourselves closer to a Baloch than to a Punjabi? Did ever Baluchistan exist? Why should we support fake nation-states? What makes Baloch people superior than Desis? I mean you look down on Punjabis and their fake country while as far as I am concerned your Baluch identity is even faker than Punjabis.

I call myself Afghan because I was born in Afghanistan. I am realistic human being so for now nation-states are the main players in the global political world, so I unlike you who believe in a fake country called Baluchistan, I don't delude myself with nonsense. Afghanistan exists. I acknowledge reality.

BUT I don't believe in nation-states. Why I should be loyal to a government who wants to submit, oppress, tax my money, take away my properties and limit my individual and collective identity? I support more libertarian stances when it comes to states.

I call Afghanistan a joke because its a joke. Its a fake buffer zone created by Russians and Brits in order to not share a border. Colonialism is dead and Afghanistan has lost all his meaning. All these countries, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, pakistan, Syria, Iraq, UAE,.. are joke of countries. Why I should support psychos and buffons like MBS, Assad, Abbas, Karzai, Karimov or Sharif and their fake countries? They deserve nothing but being mocked.

[زده کوونکی]

Thats nonsense. Typical Liberal relativism: are religions are equal, genders are equal, cultures are equal, civilizations are equal, races are equal,.. its BS.

No, Islam and Hinduism are not equal. Islam is way superior faith than Hinduism. Superior morality, superior message, superior philosophy, superior jurisprudence and law,.. very few religions can equal Islam.

That KSA spreading extremism makes no sense. Saudi policy regarding Islamist movements always has been picky: only to keep Iran at bay. You explain to me why KSA and Emirates backed a secular militarist coup in Egypt against an islamist government? Why both countries back secular al Fatah against Islamist Hamas? Why they are bombing Islamist forces in Libya? Fools, educate yourselves. You Apus know nothing about the Islamic world.

Lol ok fine, I was just being nice saying they're "equal" - I also have my own personal views supremacy. But let's face it, you're only saying Islam is superior just because you believe in it.

Well which country propagates Wahhabism if not Saudi? Where did Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Taliban and others get their ideology from?

There's no "Islamic world" or "Western world". There's just one world.

[Friends of Baloch]

While Hindustan was one single land and people from an outsider's perspective, to Indians themselves that was never the case until the British took over.

On the other hand, Indian identity was imposed on Indians by foreigners (which also explains their inferiority complex). Hindutva is a symptom of this manufactured identity.

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.

[Firdousi]

Lol ok fine, I was just being nice saying they're "equal" - I also have my own personal views supremacy. But let's face it, you're only saying Islam is superior just because you believe in it.

Well which country propagates Wahhabism if not Saudi? Where did Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Taliban and others get their ideology from?

There's no "Islamic world" or "Western world". There's just one world.

For many years I was anti-Islam buddy, basically because like you I was brainwashed by Liberalism and didn't study religion in an unbiased way. Now that the brainwashing is gone, I willingly studied Christianity,Islam, Judaism and Zororastrism and came to the conclusion that Islam is much better organized, more complex, flexible and sophisticated faiths than those other faiths. I am not a good Muslim.

IS, BH, Taliban and AQ are different movements, with different messages, goals and ideologies. There is a rich and complex ideology behind them. Wahhabism, Deobandism, Salafism, Takfirism, are terms and labels widely used by uneducated people but they are quite different. Ironically AQ and IS both are declared enemies of the KSA and have attacked that country several times.

[jama0112]

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.

[Friends of Baloch]

Not a single answer was provided. All your comment is limited ad hominem and nationalist rants.

Once again: what makes Baloch people Iranic? Why should we consider ourselves closer to a Baloch than to a Punjabi?

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.

[زده کوونکی]

For many years I was anti-Islam buddy, basically because like you I was brainwashed by Liberalism and didn't study religion in an unbiased way. Now that the brainwashing is gone, I willingly studied Christianity,Islam, Judaism and Zororastrism and came to the conclusion that Islam is much better organized, more complex, flexible and sophisticated faiths than those other faiths. I am not a good Muslim.

IS, BH, Taliban and AQ are different movements, with different messages, goals and ideologies. There is a rich and complex ideology behind them. Wahhabism, Deobandism, Salafism, Takfirism, are terms and labels widely used by uneducated people but they are quite different. Ironically AQ and IS both are declared enemies of the KSA and have attacked that country several times.

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?