yoda Posted July 23, 2010 Posted July 23, 2010 Without partition' date=' India would be at war with the west as the stronghold of the Taliban.[/quote'] Are you saying that the Indian government would have colluded with the Taliban and provided them safe haven like ISI and Pak have?
bharathh Posted July 23, 2010 Posted July 23, 2010 The LTTE was created in India and safe haven was provided for them until the IPKF was dispatched to Sri Lanka.
Manny_Pacquiao Posted July 23, 2010 Posted July 23, 2010 Those that chose to stay back haven't created havoc' date=' so there is no reason to believe that if everyone had stayed back there would be havoc.[/quote'] there was havoc before the partition was even arranged...stuff like this would have happened every single month http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Action_Day
bharathh Posted July 23, 2010 Posted July 23, 2010 Are you saying that the Indian government would have colluded with the Taliban and provided them safe haven like ISI and Pak have? No I'm saying that the Taliban would have succeeded in taking over the Northern parts of India and we would have a huge north-west frontier province/balochistan like land where strikes were being launched across the world.
yoda Posted July 23, 2010 Posted July 23, 2010 The LTTE was created in India and safe haven was provided for them until the IPKF was dispatched to Sri Lanka. Are you kidding? Yes the LTTE did have some sympathizers in TN, but to say it was created in India and safe haven provided to them in India is absurd.
yoda Posted July 23, 2010 Posted July 23, 2010 there was havoc before the partition was even arranged...stuff like this would have happened every single month http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Action_Day That was the period when there was no nation, security apparatus was broken and emotions high, confused leadership which was so retarded it agreed to split the nation with one part on the west and another on the east. We have 180 million muslims now. Do we have Hindu/Muslim riots every single month?
Texy Posted July 23, 2010 Posted July 23, 2010 please tell me this is a joke. if partition hadn't happened, you would have mass riots going on every day and the subcontinent would turn into a larger, uglier and more violent version of somalia or some other crappy african country. there would be no economic progress, and chances of peace would be zero with the all the would be paki nutjobs having yet another reason to create havoc. sure, things arent great as they are and its not nice having a nutjob of a neighbour with nukes but people on either side can get on with their lives and the governments think a hundred times before going to war, so at least its an enforced peace. excellent post Imagine 160 million from Pak, 160 million from BD combined with India's population.....there would be riots everyday.... with millions of religious groups vying for their own vote bank, millions of political parties dividing the country based on their own agenda...not to mention millions of jihadis and millions of illiterate voters who would vote for sher khan if given color tv. It would have been impossible to manage and administer the sheer size of the subcontinent
The Outsider Posted July 23, 2010 Posted July 23, 2010 sometimes? indians should be grateful for partition every single day. imagine sharing a country with these retards...:((:((:(( Without partition' date=' India would be at war with the west as the stronghold of the Taliban.[/quote'] It all depends on how far back you want to go in the independence movement. Things would have been very troublesome if partition had not happened after 1930-40, when the two nation theory started becoming a reality. However, if we go further back and India had gained independence without the two nation theory gaining in popularity, things would have not been much different. There would have been the usual communal tensions and problems, but hardly anything more than that.
Clarke Posted July 23, 2010 Posted July 23, 2010 Although I agree with almost everyone here about the Pak journos and their society in general' date=' how good are we at holding up a mirror to our own society? Reg hating Pak and Pakistanis let us not have a holier than thou attitude... [b']we Indians are not much better towards them. In fact the very fact that someone posts something aired on a Pak tv channel here shows that we are equally obsessed with them. The people of India and its govts have been kind enough not to give that country a proper thrashing (just a partial one in 1971) over the decades we have co-existed. Their dictatorial military establishment has been mistaking India's desires to solve issues without armed conflicts as a sign of weakness. Nowhere in the world would a proxy war or an incursion be tolerated like it has been considering the levels of disparity between India & Pakistan. If Indians were so damn hateful, we would've had successive right wing governments that would threaten a disproportionate response for every damn holy warrior that crossed the border. Instead, all u have is generic requests to prosecute the accused. Letting out your anger on a forum is barely the benchmark on judging how antagonistic our society is towards theirs. And the fact of the matter is we've been pulled into the discussion on multiple fronts here by their journos on their channel .. shouldn't we be concerned that to this day they blame their problems on us ?
bharathh Posted July 23, 2010 Posted July 23, 2010 Are you kidding? Yes the LTTE did have some sympathizers in TN' date=' but to say it was created in India and safe haven provided to them in India is absurd.[/quote'] http://ibnlive.in.com/news/secret-of-rajivprabhakaran-meet/14464-3.html You are welcome to thrash the investigation if you wish.
asterix Posted July 23, 2010 Posted July 23, 2010 If you go further back, then the Indian subcontinent was actually devided in many states (princely states). So you would have Peshwas, Nawabs, Rajas and every region was being taken care by these local rulers...The nation was more devided back then. That's why it was easy for Britishers to devide and rule..
bharathh Posted July 23, 2010 Posted July 23, 2010 If Indians were so damn hateful, we would've had successive right wing governments that would threaten a disproportionate response for every damn holy warrior that crossed the border. Instead, all u have is generic requests to prosecute the accused. Letting out your anger on a forum is barely the benchmark on judging how antagonistic our society is towards theirs. And the fact of the matter is we've been pulled into the discussion on multiple fronts here by their journos on their channel .. shouldn't we be concerned that to this day they blame their problems on us ? Yaar... regardless of who started what... are you saying that the average Indian does that blame almost all of India's security problems on Pak? I mean we often overlook our corruption riddled govt's role in allowing all these attacks to take place time and again - our continual non-preparedness to deal with emergencies etc. We have a lot of things to sort out ourselves as well... however's it's easy to blame our problems solely on Pak... (I am talking about the aam admi and our sensationalist media here). After we found that Kasab & co were responsible for 26/11 how much did the media delve into the problems with our coastguard. How much did our media focus on the local help that these guys must have gotten to have done what they did. Did our media or our people demand the information from investigations that were held by our govt? The 9/11 investigation report was a best seller in the US for a while. Most people had access to information about security lapses that allowed the terrorists to slip through and attack the towers. It was easier just to say Pak did it. How is it different from what Pakistanis do? The whole point of my bringing this up is to state that most Indians don't think very differently about Pak than Pak does about us. We blame a lot of our problems on the other without thinking about what we can do to improve our own. So we cannot say ooh.. look at these guys ... they suck and we don't do anything like they do.
bharathh Posted July 23, 2010 Posted July 23, 2010 It all depends on how far back you want to go in the independence movement. Things would have been very troublesome if partition had not happened after 1930-40, when the two nation theory started becoming a reality. However, if we go further back and India had gained independence without the two nation theory gaining in popularity, things would have not been much different. There would have been the usual communal tensions and problems, but hardly anything more than that. A good point. But with BD and Pak's muslim population put together, I feel that we would have broken apart at some point anyways. I'm sure some form of ethnic cleansing would have happened in the north to drive out all the hindus... esp after the formation of the Mujahideen to combat the Russians.
The Outsider Posted July 23, 2010 Posted July 23, 2010 A good point. But with BD and Pak's muslim population put together' date=' I feel that we would have broken apart at some point anyways. I'm sure some form of ethnic cleansing would have happened in the north to drive out all the hindus... esp after the formation of the Mujahideen to combat the Russians.[/quote'] I feel the role of Mujahideens and even their existence in India would have been radically different in the case of a united India. The main problem center of Mujahideens in what would have been a united India has been the NWFP. Now, NWFP was a very strong Congress stronghold under Abdul Ghaffar Khan - Congress had got an absolute majority in the constituent assembly elections there trouncing the Muslim League in the province where all seats were Muslim electorates. It's impossible to imagine that the Mujahideen culture would have developed in NWFP under Abdul Ghaffar Khan. A united India's role in the cold war is also very unclear, but being such a big country India definitely would not have allowed it's soil and people to be exploited like Pakistan did by the CIA and USA. Regarding, strong Muslim populations, Punjab would surely have been a troublesome state. But maybe with the passage of time there would have been a more uniform demographics. Bengal would never have been much of an issue - there is a strong Bengali identification feeling in the region, which was in fact the reason for the division of Pakistan.
Clarke Posted July 23, 2010 Posted July 23, 2010 Yaar... regardless of who started what... are you saying that the average Indian does that blame almost all of India's security problems on Pak? I mean we often overlook our corruption riddled govt's role in allowing all these attacks to take place time and again - our continual non-preparedness to deal with emergencies etc. We have a lot of things to sort out ourselves as well... however's it's easy to blame our problems solely on Pak... (I am talking about the aam admi and our sensationalist media here). After we found that Kasab & co were responsible for 26/11 how much did the media delve into the problems with our coastguard. How much did our media focus on the local help that these guys must have gotten to have done what they did. Did our media or our people demand the information from investigations that were held by our govt? The 9/11 investigation report was a best seller in the US for a while. Most people had access to information about security lapses that allowed the terrorists to slip through and attack the towers. It was easier just to say Pak did it. How is it different from what Pakistanis do? The whole point of my bringing this up is to state that most Indians don't think very differently about Pak than Pak does about us. We blame a lot of our problems on the other without thinking about what we can do to improve our own. So we cannot say ooh.. look at these guys ... they suck and we don't do anything like they do. The media focused quite a bit on all aspects; the coast guard, the initial response, the bullet proof jackets, the 303 rifles and lathis, the lack of a local & competent special task force, the lack of coordination between agencies, Marcos vs NSGs, the response from home ministers, the terror tourism and what not. The local help aspect was prolly kept under the carpet on govt insistence so as to apply pressure on Pakistan wherein they do not classify the incident as a local issue. I do not agree that we ignore our corruption, its just that the legal system takes decades to handle it. There is a section of media that is indeed crappy; but the point is focusing on external matters is not the business of the exclusives who got their house in perfect order. Both take their place in the priorities of the nation depending on the threats that either presents. Your assertion that Indians in general should place much lesser importance to the external threats is not fully amiable. We have indeed been very tolerant in the decades of conflict and there is no guarantee we will be so in the future. And yes, calling a spade a spade is no wrong unlike the padosis calling it a knife. Therein lies the difference.
bharathh Posted July 23, 2010 Posted July 23, 2010 I feel the role of Mujahideens and even their existence in India would have been radically different in the case of a united India. The main problem center of Mujahideens in what would have been a united India has been the NWFP. Now, NWFP was a very strong Congress stronghold under Abdul Ghaffar Khan - Congress had got an absolute majority in the constituent assembly elections there trouncing the Muslim League in the province where all seats were Muslim electorates. It's impossible to imagine that the Mujahideen culture would have developed in NWFP under Abdul Ghaffar Khan. A united India's role in the cold war is also very unclear, but being such a big country India definitely would not have allowed it's soil and people to be exploited like Pakistan did by the CIA and USA. Regarding, strong Muslim populations, Punjab would surely have been a troublesome state. But maybe with the passage of time there would have been a more uniform demographics. Bengal would never have been much of an issue - there is a strong Bengali identification feeling in the region, which was in fact the reason for the division of Pakistan. I'm not sure about that. Given that India was friendly with the Russians, the US would have done something to destabilize the region to prevent the reds from taking over the whole of South Asia. Along with the oil-rich Saudis, the radicalization of the north-west of India would have been impossible to stop.
yoda Posted July 23, 2010 Posted July 23, 2010 No I'm saying that the Taliban would have succeeded in taking over the Northern parts of India and we would have a huge north-west frontier province/balochistan like land where strikes were being launched across the world. Taliban became what it is with the help of the Pak government. Yes that NWFP would have been a problem area, not to the extent it has become now.
bharathh Posted July 23, 2010 Posted July 23, 2010 When dealing with hypotheticals.. who knows what could have happened. It's all conjecture anyway. The Pakistan govt did what they did to act like a superpower with the full blessings of the US military.
The Outsider Posted July 23, 2010 Posted July 23, 2010 I'm not sure about that. Given that India was friendly with the Russians, the US would have done something to destabilize the region to prevent the reds from taking over the whole of South Asia. Along with the oil-rich Saudis, the radicalization of the north-west of India would have been impossible to stop. It's all a hypothetical game and an exercise in mental masturbation anyways, but USA was able to destabilize the region because the Pakistan government was complicit in allowing the US to do so, in return for arms, aid, and support against India. What interest would India have in allowing the CIA to create Mujahideens in the country? Moreover, USA was supporting Iraq and not Iran and we would have shared a border with Iran. Plus due to the Shia angle, India's relationships with Iran have always been good. Again, with the Saudis, it's the complicity of the Pakistan government which allowed them to funnel so much money for setting up radical madrassas in return for oil and Muslim unity. India would have it's oil from the Soviets and would have no interest in fostering unity with a Saudi radicalized state. Taliban became what it is with the help of the Pak government. Yes that NWFP would have been a problem area' date=' not to the extent it has become now.[/quote'] I don't think NWFP would have been a problem area at all. Abdul Ghaffar Khan was a cult figure there and lived for 40 years after independence.
bharathh Posted July 23, 2010 Posted July 23, 2010 You are assuming that we would have continued to have a strong center that would dictate policy. What I'm saying is that the muslims of the North West, who would have identified themselves more with the Arab world, would have happily take up arms against the Russians to form the Mujahideen.
Recommended Posts