zen Posted June 10, 2015 Author Posted June 10, 2015 IIRC pre Narsimha Rao era' date=' Pakistan had better infrastructure, More wealth and GDP per person was higher(allthough kids per household was more). It was only after Our MMS opened ecoomy and IT boom, that we started overtaking these guys.[/quote'] How is Pak having a better whatever in 1980s (the time when Mujaheddin were funded through Pak, drug trade flourished, etc) show that Muslims were way more wealthier than other communities in pre-independence India?
randomGuy Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 IIRC pre Narsimha Rao era' date=' Pakistan had better infrastructure, More wealth and GDP per person was higher(allthough kids per household was more). It was only after Our MMS opened ecoomy and IT boom, that we started overtaking these guys.[/quote'] Yaar superiority complex happens when you have some genuine superiority/achievements or something. What you are referring to is chest thumping by a bunch of loudmouths. Pakis never come across as people having superiority complex. they have nothing to feel superior over India abt. They are our brothers.
Book_Worm Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 My point is that Muslims were by and large as rich or as poor as many of the other communities during pre-independence India .... The poster that I replied to claimed that Muslims were way wealthier and thus had superiority complex. However, speeches by Jinnah (the founder of Pak) claims otherwise. So if people want to show that Muslims were considerably wealthier than other communities, you need to show relevant data or what is generally accepted as truth If parts of Muslims dominated India were rich, so were parts of areas dominated by other communities. Punjab had rich Hindus as well for example. And your per your Sindh example shows that business class was dominated by non-Muslims .... Who can be considered as intellectuals is a different topic No not parts of muslim dominated. I mean parts that comprised of north west british india that is punjab,sindh kashmir etc And yes They did feel superior and still do. When u give example of sindhis i agree and it is goes with my argument that people and land there was very rich and developed be it hindus or muslims. Partition was never about muslims of india but about the north west part of india which was muslim majority the first draft of partition by iqbal they was no mention of muslims of up bengal, gujrat south etc, "I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single state. Self-government within the British Empire, or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated Northwest Indian Muslim state appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of Northwest India.[5] And that is what happened. Indian muslims or other muslims were just used to make the dream of pakistan come true.
zen Posted June 10, 2015 Author Posted June 10, 2015 No not parts of muslim dominated. I mean parts that comprised of north west british india that is punjab,sindh kashmir etc And yes They did feel superior and still do. When u give example of sindhis i agree and it is goes with my argument that people and land there was very rich and developed be it hindus or muslims. Partition was never about muslims of india but about the north west part of india which was muslim majority the first draft of partition by iqbal they was no mention of muslims of up bengal, gujrat south etc, "I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single state. Self-government within the British Empire, or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated Northwest Indian Muslim state appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of Northwest India.[5] And that is what happened. Indian muslims or other muslims were just used to make the dream of pakistan come true. In that case, so would people of others communities! That's just one person's opinion vs. others And the other info is not relevant to what is being discussed, however re-quoting from post #10 "In rallying Muslim support for his political party, Muhammad Ali Jinnah claimed that Muslims could not progress in their various spheres of life without pakistan. It was impossible, he claimed, "to live under Congress authority on account of acts of injustices." Muslims, he warned, would be "reduced to the status of Shudras [low castes]." He added that he would "never allow Muslims to be slaves of Hindus." Jinnah said that he wanted the Muslims of India to develop to the fullest of "our spiritual, cultural and economic life in consonance with our own ideals, and according to the genius of our own people."
panther Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 Yaar superiority complex happens when you have some genuine superiority/achievements or something. What you are referring to is chest thumping by a bunch of loudmouths. Pakis never come across as people having superiority complex. they have nothing to feel superior over India abt. They are our brothers. This is something that applies across The subcontinent muslims do feel we are different and better than hindus because we are Muslims, anything else doesn't matter but even the poorest muslim will say he is better than any hindu.
zen Posted June 10, 2015 Author Posted June 10, 2015 This is something that applies across The subcontinent muslims do feel we are different and better than hindus because we are Muslims' date=' anything else doesn't matter but even the poorest muslim will say he is better than any hindu.[/quote'] On one hand, "they" say "that", on the other hand, "they" talk about Hindu Hegemony :dontknow:
amiret Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 This is something that applies across The subcontinent muslims do feel we are different and better than hindus because we are Muslims' date=' anything else doesn't matter but[u'] even the poorest muslim will say he is better than any hindu. Belief in religious Superiority is not dissimilar to a belief in RACIAL superiority . The Poorest White Supremacist / NAZI can feel superior to everyone else , but he is still a NAzI.
panther Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 Belief in religious Superiority is not dissimilar to a belief in RACIAL superiority . The Poorest White Supremacist / NAZI can feel superior to everyone else , but he is still a NAzI. But if that religion Includes every colour and people, your claim goes out the window.
amiret Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 But if that religion Includes every colour and people' date=' your claim goes out the window.[/quote'] It does not , since a belief in religious superiority obviously entails that a whole bunch of people are considered inferior. The problem is not the Ideology of superiority itself but how this belief system treats people it considers inferior . A 1000 years of history stands testament to the consequences of such a pernicious ideology . Quoting from 8 Stages of Genocide : "Classification and symbolization are fundamental operations in all cultures. They become steps of genocide only when combined with dehumanization. Classification and symbolization are fundamental operations in all cultures. They become steps of genocide only when combined with dehumanization. Denial of the humanity of others is the step that permits killing with impunity. The universal human abhorrence of murder of members of one's own group is overcome by treating the victims as less than human"
panther Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 It does not , since a belief in religious superiority obviously entails that a whole bunch of people are considered inferior. The problem is not the Ideology of superiority itself but how this belief system treats people it considers inferior . A 1000 years of history stands testament to the consequences of such a pernicious ideology . Quoting from 8 Stages of Genocide : "Classification and symbolization are fundamental operations in all cultures. They become steps of genocide only when combined with dehumanization. Classification and symbolization are fundamental operations in all cultures. They become steps of genocide only when combined with dehumanization. Denial of the humanity of others is the step that permits killing with impunity. The universal human abhorrence of murder of members of one's own group is overcome by treating the victims as less than human" But that belief system entails to you to encourage others to join you and become a brother in faith. When you have something good it is better to share although those that don't have it may not see any good in it for themselves unless they themselves get to know it.
mishra Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 But that belief system entails to you to encourage others to join you and become a brother in faith. When you have something good it is better to share although those that don't have it may not see any good in it for themselves unless they themselves get to know it. Panther Mian, You are turning it into followers of Islam vs rest of world thing. What I meant was Nawabs who mooved to Pakistan have died. Persian is no more a language of educated. Adab, Tahazeeb sab khatam. The generation of Naya Pakistan is no more seen as sons of Nawab. It must have been hard for them to digest. In cricketing term, You had Zaheer Abbas, Akram, Imran. Then you started producing Anwar, Akhtar, Waqar, Afridi. Now best you got is Azmal. There was a time Surriyaa Beghum proudly choose Pakistan over India, Now young Pakistanis are dieing to rub shoulders with leftover Muslims of Bollywood. Hope you got the message
jonas10 Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 Why are Pakistanis so butthurt over the attack in Burma...can a Pakistani please explain.
swatpulla Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 Why are Pakistanis so butthurt over the attack in Burma...can a Pakistani please explain. It reminds them of how Americans have been slaughtering their people and how their great Muslim Nuclear state stood helpless like a slave. Another reason is that Pakistan have a soft spot for terrorists. They want to reassure their Jihadi brigade about the promised presidential level security.
mishra Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 ^ Naga issue isnt related to Jihad. they dont like illegal immigrants from neighbor (Specially Bangladesh) or people from rest of India taking control of their land
zen Posted June 11, 2015 Author Posted June 11, 2015 Why are Pakistanis so butthurt over the attack in Burma...can a Pakistani please explain. I will give it a try from an Ind PoV: Facts a) Pak uses militants against Ind b) These militants have bases in Pak Now if Ind were to do in Pak what it did in Burma: a) Pak's strategic assets (militants) will be compromised b) Pak would than lose any leverage the militancy may provide it in the war against Ind What should Ind do? a) Make it the official policy that militants acting against Ind will be targeted. Crossing borders will not ensure their safety b) Highlight the fact that Pak is opposed to Ind carrying out such actions. This implies that Pak is protecting the militants
Kalia_Test Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 I will give it a try from an Ind PoV: Facts a) Pak uses militants against Ind b) These militants have bases in Pak Now if Ind were to do in Pak what it did in Burma: a) Pak's strategic assets (militants) will be compromised b) Pak would than lose any leverage the militancy may provide it in the war against Ind What should Ind do? a) Make it the official policy that militants acting against Ind will be targeted. Crossing borders will not ensure their safety b) Highlight the fact that Pak is opposed to Ind carrying out such actions. This implies that Pak is protecting the militants How is the bolded "facts" ?. They are accusations by India that obviously has a vested interest. How are they different from Pak accusations that India uses militants ( maybe hired locally ) in Balochistan?
mishra Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 ^ Indian RAW (top officials) do admit that Paki ISI was far better (still better), well equipped, linked and better trained in performing proxy wars, because of working directly with American CIA, in its Russia Pakistan cold war. India is still doing a catching up when it comes to Intelligence.
zen Posted June 11, 2015 Author Posted June 11, 2015 How is the bolded "facts" ?. They are accusations by India that obviously has a vested interest. How are they different from Pak accusations that India uses militants ( maybe hired locally ) in Balochistan? You only have to study the history of cross border terrorism in Kashmir to get the answer .... Additionally, there is the example of Hafiz Saeed's involvement in terrorism in India .... Wasn't OBL found in Pak? What reasons would you have to doubt GOI's stand, esp. given the history of militancy in Kashmir? Or on the reports it prepared to show Saeed's involvement On the other hand, has Pak provided with any solid evidence except from arguments such as "Muslims can't kill Muslims so it must be RAW, CIA, Mossad, etc."
Kalia_Test Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 You only have to study the history of cross border terrorism in Kashmir to get the answer .... Additionally, there is the example of Hafiz Saeed's involvement in terrorism in India .... Wasn't OBL found in Pak? What reasons would you have to doubt GOI's stand, esp. given the history of militancy in Kashmir? Or on the reports it prepared to show Saeed's involvement On the other hand, has Pak provided with any solid evidence except from arguments such as "Muslims can't kill Muslims so it must be RAW, CIA, Mossad, etc." - Studying history - Whose version? India's or Pakistan's? It is one Govt's word vs another. - For every Hafiz Saeed ( who is not part of any Pak Govt post AFAIK ), we have people like Ajit Doval ( a high position in Govt of India) openly admitting that India uses terrorism ( for reasons that India believes are for offensive defensive or such crap ). What reports on Saeed's involvement? India claims it sent something to UN. How is this different from Pak claiming it sent evidence of Indian RAW involvement in Balochistan? One word against another - Militancy is a broad aspect and we should explore the causes and maybe learn how the entire world dealt with it. Maybe we can compare militancy in other nations as causes might be the same. - Pak may not have provided any solid evidence but neither has India.
zen Posted June 11, 2015 Author Posted June 11, 2015 - Studying history - Whose version? India's or Pakistan's? It is one Govt's word vs another. - For every Hafiz Saeed ( who is not part of any Pak Govt post AFAIK ), we have people like Ajit Doval ( a high position in Govt of India) openly admitting that India uses terrorism ( for reasons that India believes are for offensive defensive or such crap ). What reports on Saeed's involvement? India claims it sent something to UN. How is this different from Pak claiming it sent evidence of Indian RAW involvement in Balochistan? One word against another - Militancy is a broad aspect and we should explore the causes and maybe learn how the entire world dealt with it. Maybe we can compare militancy in other nations as causes might be the same. - Pak may not have provided any solid evidence but neither has India. * BBC Muzzaffarabad Report * Ajit Doval actually was answering a question on "how to" (and not how Ind is) tackle terror sponsoring states such as Pakistan at Sastra University :P
Recommended Posts