Who was in the wrong here?

>congress
>hindu populism
pick one.

No england did nothing of that sort and their bangup job of partitioning india led to huge tales of suffering on both sides of the border.

Kautilya wrote that you disgusting shudra.

>No england did nothing of that sort and their bangup job of partitioning india led to huge tales of suffering on both sides of the border.
No such thing. That was all you Pajeet. Own up to your own mess.

Now fuck off.

Pakistan was wrong in an all of them.

>radcliffe dindu nuffin
>he a gud boi, drawing lines on maps.'

>pick one.
You seriously think congress means to be 'secular' when they say it? And we're talking about Gandhi turning congress into a mass party, not nerhuite 'socialism'

>Kautilya wrote that you disgusting shudra.
Kautilya is supposed to be the Aristotle to Chandragupta Maurya's Alexander

This. Pakistan hasn't done anything positive in its history as a nation.

The congress was far more secular than the muslim league, since they wanted an undivided india without fixed electorates. The muslim league was full of butthurt muzzies who thought that it was unfair that they would have to be treated as equal citizens and dreamed of the days they were mughals and shit.

Now now, most pakistani terrorists blow themselves up in pakistan and kill pakis.

The brits constantly tried to keep hindu and muslim elites divided. Basic colonial shit.
In the independence movement they cooperated with each other but an unified country was already impossible.

Bengali scum.

t. pan islamist.

Pakistan has consistently been the shining light of civilisation and righteousness in the subcontinent, Indian subhumans just won't admit that to themselves

Inshallah brother, soon pakistan will become evolved human beings with all the cousins they marry.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rats_of_Shah_Dola

Of course Pakistan. First it attacked Jammu & Kashmir which was not succeeded to anyone and now blames India for violence in Kashmir.

Churchill hated the Hindus and adopted a more positive attitude towards muslims. Push for partition had his endorsement behind it.

>implying

>I hate muslims so much so it makes me support poo in loos

who was in the fail?

>pic related

after 700 years Jinnah just did the indians and indian civilization a yuuuuuge favor with his """pakistan for muslims""" meme and these two dickwads didnt agree to it and still allowed a large segment of the muslims to remain in India.

Partition should have been completed wwith complete transfer of muslim population to Pakistan and complete transfer of Hindu/Sikh/Buddhist to India. If that means Kashmir be gone to pakistan, so be it.

Atleast it would have prevented so many wars, countless riots, a nearly enslaved and exploited hinduminority in Pakiland, a distrusted muslim minority in India and permanent enmity between the two nations

'
And thank Jinnah it failed. I cant imagine having 500 million muslims in India permanently bitching and rioting, not to mention exploding.

I thank everyone who scuttled the idea of """"United""""" India which would have been a powderkeg that would have exploded at the slightest disturbance leading to far more deaths than during partition and each state would have gone its own way.

Atleast with a controlled division the states of modern day India could share a united vision and develop. Only issue, partition should have been taken to its logical conclusion not leaving behind embittered and disenfranchised minorities on either side.

t.Indian

This is semi-off topic, but do you know what truly pisses me off about about Indians and Pakistanis in the US? Reading a book called "The Way of the Knife" which partially deals with the CIA contractor Raymond Davis case (a bulky, 6 foot 4, former Spec Operations who ended up having to shoot 2 Afghans dead when they tried to rob him and it caused a huge scandal after they found photos of Pakistani military complexes on a special camera he had, etc..)

Now, here in the US we are always told "diversity is our strength" and there's a huge controversy about putting females in frontline infantry and even letting them do the Ranger course. What does it say about the lack of patriotism Indians and Pakistanis have of rthe US that they needed a 6 foot 3 White former special forces to be doing this? Or maybe Davis should have just told the men attempt to rob him "Race is just a social construct, I'm not really White?"
The one area where having so many minorities from all over the world would be a genuinely asset for the US, and this case illustrates, few of them want any part of the truly dangerous jobs that don't pay well. And this isn't just one case, this goes all the way back to India's nuke program and then AQ Khan.

"Diversity is our Strength!" Yes, wonderful. So what happens The Dutch allow AQ Kahn, a native of Pakistan, to work in their nuclear reactor and about 8 years later he emerges with a project for a "nuke in a box" and seems in to Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, tried to sell it to Iran but Saddam thought he was CIA. Based on US demos and all the minorities, should have the best HUMINT in the world and instead we need 6 foot 4 White males driving around Pakistan taking photos-- because that isn't going to raise suspicion at all...

the anglo-saxon parasite scum that created this bastard idea called india and indian identity. the ideas of enlightenment and civilization that turn brother against brother and cause fight where there is not reason before, by creating the nation state. the western races are slave races. that is why they seek to impose their wy of life on others. their way of life is slavery of their masters and by imposing it on others they seek to increase the slaves for their masters.

the nation state sees human beings as cattle. the nation state is the highest form feudalism has yet achieved. the nations state is a plauge on humanity. the west destroys all truth wherever it goes. it is the enemy of turh itself for it denies the very existance of the abstract concept called "truth". he used the word/sound "turth" as a way to con others.

there was no such thing as a UNITED people called indian, except in the masterbatory fantasises of the anglo scum. to be divided it has first be ONE. the only thing divided were the noble races of the punjab and lands to the north of punjab.

drawing line on a map does not create reality. there was no british empire upon which "sun never sets". instead that empire is in the process of being constructed. the creation of the nation states, built around the bank to defend and expand the bank, was the beginning of the last stage of this creation process. these nation state were just in the few city streets, but have since creation expanded to cover most of the teritory they claim on a map. this is why you are seeing what you are seeing all over the middle east, not just in pakistan. the noble races were fooled by the parasite that uses the trusting nature of others as a weapon against them. when we break off the chains of the bank and the lying nation state is no more there will be a reckoning.

if conquering over other people was so easy as drawing a line on a map around their homes, then any man can call himself a conqueror. the anglo is nothing but a con man.

the anglo did nothing but play some games with a few collaborators. just because they decided to play the anglo game of democracy-democracy-, parliament-parliament, law-law, does not mean that they spoke for the people they claim to speak for or that they were some elite leaders of these peoples. they were nothing but self-intrested conmen playing one of the many games of the anglo conman.

when the poison of nation state is injected into an unsuspecting people that have no idea what the nation state is and this poison has the same effect as it did in europe, you cannot blame it on local culture. enlightenmet and civilization is the only thing to blame.

one only has to look at how the nation state disease was injected into eastern europe, from germany to russia. one can just look at the two world wars. the only happened because the nation state had to be created. the movement of peoples by the tens of millions across borders defined by elites in germany of poland and the like is only one instance of the pattern the nation state creates. noone pins the two world wars on the natio state ideology.

just because some elite in some city draws as line on a map and some elite in a university determies what are his people and what are other people, so tens of millions of people are forced to move across lines.

this process was carried our in western europe over 500 years. when it was brought to eastern europe it was applied like a shock to the system. i am not even going to talk about the number of dead in the two world wars.

the fact that nation state ideology had a similar effect on our people is only further proof that nation state is a plague on humanity. the only reason the anglo scum could play his games was because we never thought that a humanoid creature could ever behave this way.

a nation is a group of humans that have been bred into a cattle species. we in pakistan are not a nation. you are confusing us with europeans.

as for us doing anything positive, when we exterminate the parasite waging war on humanity for the last 500 years, we will rectify that problem.

there were no hindu or muslims elites. heck even the idea of hinduism was started by the british. what you are calling elites were nothing but local allies of the anglo. they may be elites in the games of the anglo but they held no influence over the masses. you are just myth making and trying to pretend your myth is reality because that is how the parasite conqueres. not with blood sweat and steel but with games and playing with the trusting nature of others.

well, they do have one, of the only two, muslim nobel prize winners in science
so they at least having something. Their autism in Afghanistan and at home under Bhutto and Zia really ruined any chanced they have of a successful future, which certainly was possible.

(((Nobel Prize)))

it was in physics, not some other bullshit
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdus_Salam

nothing but anglo saxon delusions. a race that draws line of maps and thinks it has conquered th people living there by martial prowess even as it is in the process of using words to con them. if one wants to understand the anglo mind, one has to understand chruchhill. it is not without reason that the anglo considers him their best, for indeed by anglo morality he was the most proficient among them in self delusion and cons.

neither of those two monkeys had any right to decide who lives on someone else's land. here is a example, if i collaborate with my brother to take over your home, would you agree or call what i do a criminal conspiracy?

if they had by some magical powers sent masses of people into the land of indus river that would have ended both pakistan and india. remember, india has only survived because pakistan was created and pakistan only survives because india exists. one cannot exists without the other.

this thread is an excellent example of the enlightenment and civilization that the european brings to humanity. he creates a morality where humans are nothing but cattle and conquest is imposed through word play and deception. those men never had the power to move masses anywhere or to make the people in the land of indus river accept such mass migration of slave races.

if pakistan had never been created, there would be no india today. the punajb and kashmir and later the rest of the north-west would split off. and then the rest of "india" north-east and the south would also want to split off. even today if the indian punjab or kashmir are removed the southern "indians" will start getting uppity. the north-easterns are already on fire.

out of all the atrocities of the anglo saxon, the creation of the indian identity and then the indian nation state, through lies and deception, is the greatest.

Churchill was based as fuck

>le eternal anglo!!!!

back to /pol/

Jinnah and the Muslim league for pushing the retarded idea that Muslims and Hindus needed separate states - which nicely ignores every other religious minority on the subcontinent - yet in the end India still has a sizeable Muslim minority which makes the whole venture pointless. To say nothing of the fact Pakistan turned into a jihadist borderline failed state shithole with nukes.

Not just that, the Muslim population in India was for a long time larger and is currently catching up to Pakistan's population. Makes the entire endeavor almost useless. Especially after Bangladesh separated.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rats_of_Shah_Dola
>60 percent of all Pakistani weddings are between first cousins
Holy hell I had never heard that before

This guy is a delusional paki who has an utterly assblasted version of madarsah history.

Ignore

What is spicy autism ??

>Jinnah and the Muslim league for pushing the retarded idea that Muslims and Hindus needed separate states

How the fuck is it retarded. I'm asking this as an Indian. I don't think Islam and Hinduism are compatible in any way and a united India would have exploded in civil war had two communities with extensive bad blood going back centuries werw kept together.

Islam isn't compatible with anything but Islam these days.

That's blatantly false and reeks of revisionism

The UK for handeling the partition as poorly as they did, partially out of spite for being forced to give up their only profitable colony, which was basically the only thing holding up the rest of their empire. The British Empire without India is a paper tiger.

It was Both Jinnah and Nehru being autists
Oddly mordern India is closer to Jinnah's vision(Federalised with Power to the States) than the Centralised India Nehru wanted

funny enough, he isn't considered a muslim in pakistan.

every other religious minority in india is a statistical irrelevance.

>implying Pakistan has ever not been in the wrong.

(Pajeetland is usually pretty wrong too, but Pakistan is literally never not wrong)

can't even control entire provinces of its own country, yet somehow still has nukes. The whole region of the world was a mistake.

eh. Its literally a islamic bomb. (the nukes, not the country.)
Pretty sure gaddafi said something to that effect.

>it's safer to be a Muslim in India than Pakistan

really makes u think

It was fine before the Arab conquest.

>Islam isn't compatible with anything but Islam these days

Not even that. Muslims love butchering each for their pig-fucker Muhammad or Allah or the moon or whatever the fuck that box is they pray to.

Islam is a failed religion that exists in failed states. It is just begging to be wiped out sooner or later.

So incompatible it had resulted in an intermingling of populations for centuries? Who were then split based on relatively arbitrary borders that had to result in massive population movements, and again you didn't even get rid of both communities living together in India, you just accomplished that in Pakistan, to say nothing of the fact the singular state for Muslims split in two in its own bloody civil war for non religious reasons. There are plenty of ways you could divide up the modern nation of India and yet they've managed to hold together a federation including a religious minority group that technically should not be there. Which makes you wonder why the partition needed to happen in the first place.
In a statistical sense you're correct, yet it is also the birthplace and pretty much only area you'd (ignoring emigration) find Jains or Sikhs, in the latter case their heartland was split in two and almost all were forced to move to the Indian portion of Punjab.

The borders of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are arbitrary thats for sure. However, that being said, I really dont think the Brits are to blame for the Indo-Pak conflicts. Are they guilty of conquering al of the subcontinent? Yes. And probably for a most of the humanitarian disasters that were commited here during their reign. But imperialism is something that a lot of nations are guilty of and I dont think they had a master plan to begin with to split up the Raj into two factions in the future. After all, how would it benefit them? In my opinion, the subcontinent being the religious melting pot that it is and the cultural one that it became under foreign rule, a partition or civil war was pretty much certain. Especially since a lot of hindus themselves consider Islam to be a religion of oppressors and the Muslims needing assurance that they wouldnt be treated inferiorly as a minority.

t. Indian with Christian/Hindu parents who has lived in the middle east for 6 years

It benefitted Brits and Americans because the Indian freedom struggle had a communist leaning. Russia had advanced on most of Europe and was a superpower. Given India's leftist sympathies it was not inconceivable that it become a Russian ally or worse. The British wanted an American/brit military outpost on the north west which the Indian Congress did not want to grant. Jinnah however was happy to oblige.

Also India has always been very ethnically and religiously diverse. Syrian Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Iranians, Parsis, bohras, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs have managed to live together to different degrees. Never got close to a civil war.

Without partition I'm not sure how the arabized Muslims would have gotten but if it is to to the same degree as Pakistan there could have been problems. Here's the thing though, all Hindus considered all of India theirs all Muslim's did too do I don't think a partition or succession would have happened. The only time we've gotten close is with Sikhs who only really consider Punjab their home, and kashmiris.

Really who knows how it would have turned out. But my feeling is that it would've been better.