India or Pakistan

Well, giving preference to India is not a neutral approach. The best way to analyse the whole matter is to read books by authors of both countries.
It will provide you a lot of help.Thats my view.

rahul,

i am way out of my depth here but ur name seems to be a typical indian name. Why not do some read atleast something by urself?

sahool,

the current state of affairs in both countries does not give you an idea about the past decisions ?

Cricket diplomacy, that is cool.

Cricket diplomacy - Anything that buys time and without forcing any side to concede has always been welcome in the subcontinent. Anything for "people 2 people" ties

JB, that pic isWest Indies playing Australia !!

They are both wrong, and could both decide to be right. Meanwhile, Pakistan is MORE wrong, because the whole thing was started due to religious intolerance--and the Muslims (Paki) were FAR more intolerant than the relatively peaceful Hindi--but, you threaten and attack someone so many times--and they don't mind attacking you back.

hahaha.

i don't see either side as 'the good guys'. especially under the previous Vajpayee government India has made many blunders in its relation with Pakistan (well same goes for Pakistan). Vajpayee was a nuclear physicist and pulled the whole country deeper into the whole mutual deterrence quagmire.
I hope with the current attempts to restore some resemblance of friendly relations and the upcoming (well, in 2 years) 60th anniversary of I-P partition will bring about some real progress.

Will be back with articles and links.

hahaha was in response to prince.

but i don't see hindu as particularly peaceful either. hindu-muslim riots were violent on both sides (think Godhra train incident in 2002 after which more than 3,000 people were burnt to death in Gujarat, most of them muslim)

Hindu nationalism is a just as dangerous an animal as jihad. Not all Hindu are nationalist, of course, just as not all Muslims follow or wish to follow jihad.

At the genesis, or what I perceive to be the genesis of this problem, the Hindi --polytheists-- weren't put off by Allah. They had their own internal problems, the caste system notably--but they didn't see the need to eradicate Muslims for having a different, or additional god.

The Muslims, however, were not as accomodating of any god or belief system other than their own. They are the ones who pushed the issue, and made enemies of the more peaceful, inclusive Hindu people.

Would be interested in hearing other opinions, though.

I don't really care if people kill for God or for other reason. Hindu - Muslim, and Hindu-Christian violence, as well as Muslim - Christian, or inter-caste conflicts are commonplace in India. In the case of Hindu-Muslim conflicts the riots peaked in 1960s, another large wave in 1990s and in 2002. Much of them was a response to the process of the Partition (certainly 60s) and the growing Hindutva (Hindu way of life, political expression of hindu nationalism) in 1990s and 2000s.
Not to sound defensive of Pakistan. Secularism actually works rather well in India in majority and religious freedom is certainly way more enforced and protected. But when it comes to Hindus and Muslims as entities I can't see them as one good and one bad. Not all Muslims are jihadies and not all Hindus are peace-loving gandhis. Both are a mixed bag, and particularly within India, both are equally guilty of violence and hatred towards the other.
Moreover, Pakistan does not equal Muslims, and India does not equal Hindus.

SSRC report on the above mentioned Godhra Train incident

More links on the left of the main article.

When the countries were divided by the Brits, Paki pretty much = Muslims, and India, Hindu.

The greatest migration of people ever recorded, was it? So the two could separate?

I don't think anyone cast either of them in black and white terms...? I've just had to research them recently, and sort of immersed in Gandhi's era, and a little before--and it seems pretty clear that the Hindu were more amenable to 'getting along' with the Muslims. (And, I'm not counting Gandhi in that.) Most of the divisive, dangerous rhetoric came from the Muslims. I don't know how this can be a surprise to anyone. They must be the most intolerant religion. Haven't come across any that are more intolerant.

I know today, and the 60's and different eras have different realities. Trying to dig back to an origin gives a clearer view of who did what, and how the enmity started. But, I haven't gone back past the 40's. I'll have to do that if I ever again get a spare moment to read for pleasure.

Unless a resident historian wanders by.

(East India--mistake. E. India was Muslim...then it was renamed Bangladesh. Brain fart.)

But at the time of Partition hundreds of thousands of Muslims were driven out of India by the Hindus, right? Many more than vice versa (Hindus driven out of now-Pakistan and Bangladesh)?

No, I don't think that's a fair characterization.

The lines were drawn by the Brits at the insistence of the leaders of the Muslim and Hindu people. The huge migration was out of fear of both religions.

The Muslims couldn't bear to live with the 'idolatrous' Hindus, and the Hindus had come to fear and hate the Muslims, as well.

Mutual.

Thanks. I really know very little about it, myself. Just know the episode from how it came up in a novel or two I read by Indian/Indian-British writers - people in the old generation who lived through that, and still grieved for their one-time Muslim friends, neighbours, who had fled or been killed ...

They were all fleeing in different directions.

I imagine somewhere in the area that is now Pakistan or Bangladesh, there were (hopefully) Muslims who hated to see their Hindu friends, running for their lives.

Of course, I only know a portion of the history of that small period in time there. Not much before, or after... You were aware that the Partition was demanded...? By both sides?

It just appears that the Hindus seem to be getting the blame...

For the love of God, dont try to pass off your ignorace as facts. The last PM of India was not a nuclear physicist . The tests were planned earlier on as well but India's external debt situation was just not comfortable then. The nuclear tests and the following developement of delivery methods simply point to the fact that to deter Pakistan was not the goal. Look at a world map and figure out that India does not need 3500km misslies or airplanes with 3000km range to drop nukes in Pakistan.

How did it escalated tensions with Pakistan? And all along i thought that the Dec 13 2001 attack on Indian parliament by terrorists sponsored by Pakistan was the low point in Indo-Pak ties in last decade.



Where is this Hindu nationalism when the conservative party in India keeps on loosing elections even in Hindu dominated regions?

I don't really care if people kill for God or for other reason. Hindu - Muslim, and Hindu-Christian violence, as well as Muslim - Christian, or inter-caste conflicts are commonplace in India. In the case of Hindu-Muslim conflicts the riots peaked in 1960sa, another large wave in 1990s and in 2002. Much of them was a response to the process of the Partition (certainly 60s) and the growing Hindutva (Hindu way of life, political expression of hindu nationalism) in 1990s and 2000s.[/QUOTE]

So i guess you must be an authority in study of subcontinent because of your sweeping remarks like "inter-caste conflicts". But atleast you can bother to check the decades of independence to make it sound more credible.

Do you know what the "large wave" in 1990s or 2000s was attributed to? Which riots in 1960s?



And the reason is not your enlightenment. Its simple ignorace of the subcontinent history, demographics, politics etc



Thats a scoop. British tabloids must be having a field day. So I take it that this is the characteristic traits of only these two religions. Ofcos all crimes in christian countries are committed by non christians since all christians would be following the 10 commandments.



So you must be knowing the riots and how they started?



This is the best evidence of your ignorance. Do you even know the official name of pakistan. There is a reason why it is called "Islamic Republic of Pakistan". For starters , why don't you tell other posters about the percentage of minorities in both countries during the partition and then e same in 2001 (last census). This would give a support to ur hypothesis as to why pakistan does not equate muslims and vice-versa.