Do you know what is Pakistan's official policy towards India (and hence Indians)? Do you know what is officially taught in schools for India (and Hindus)? Could you mention one act of friendship Pakistan did for India since it's formation?

I suggest reading at least following to begin with -

1. Pakistan, courting with the abyss - Tilak Devasher

2. Magnificent Delusions: Pakistan, the United States, and an Epic History of Misunderstanding - Hussain Haqqani

3. Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War - Chrisine Fair

That doesn't preclude empathy for fellow humans, or wishing for a better future.

Please don't obfuscate things here. Both OP and I are talking about Pakistani state. We all are aware that individual (particularly sane ones) have minimal control on government policies.

No I wasn't talking about the Pakistan state, I literally said an avg citizen. Calm down, dial down the propaganda and read my comment again.

Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes things worse.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Lol this is literally propaganda. One could say the same about Modi and his RSS mob.

The original post was making a point about humanity, and you hijacked it with your own agenda. Way to go bud.

Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes things worse.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: you've unfortunately broken the site guidelines in other cases too, such as https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33906633. Please don't do that - we have to ban accounts that do that sort of thing.

As a Pakistani, I know none of the things you hint at is true.

In sindh, there loads of Hindus. And there is no internal strife or persecution of them.

In fact, the only point of animosity with India starts and stops at Kashmir.

LOL

Please stop now.

Ironic that a post claiming Pakistani hostility to India is posted unprovoked, on an unrelated post, as supposed proof of it

I was waiting for you to arrive, not you literally but some propaganda machine, I've moved to the US last year for higher education, and fortunately for me here I was able to meet a lot of Pakistani's. And not once did anyone say anything against India or me. In fact even the older generation was so thoughtful, and recognized our shared culture and history. And they were sometimes more friendly and less judgemental than fellow Indians here.

> Do you know what is officially taught in schools for India (and Hindus)?

Please enlighten me, how a govt controlled curriculum, doesn't affect what's thought in schools. Which is exactly what my point was and BJPs influence on NCERT in the past few years are no better.

If you come outside the bubble of propaganda between both the countries, you quickly realize how played the citizens of both nations are.

There is a company called Google just for this. But you can begin digging the rabbit hole here, which has more links https://www.reddit.com/r/pakistan/comments/mpd7cm/pakistan_a...

@dang wants this to stop, so i'll respect that and wont be back in this thread. But do put a link from india's textbook which spews hatred against Pakistanis or muslims? Please enlighten me.

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. This part of your comment was great:

> I've moved to the US last year for higher education, and fortunately for me here I was able to meet a lot of Pakistani's. And not once did anyone say anything against India or me. In fact even the older generation was so thoughtful, and recognized our shared culture and history. And they were sometimes more friendly and less judgemental than fellow Indians here.

But the rest was much too disputatious and aggressive.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

Please do not take HN threads into nationalistic flamewar, or any other kind of flamewar. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I appreciate your moderation. This was not flame war, I even gave well cited references for OP to read. I also never attack anyone personally, but I do want them to be more informed.

I appreciate that you didn't attack anyone personally, but your comment was definitely written in the flamewar style: cross-examining, argumentative, and polemical on an inflammatory topic. That is not the curious conversation we want here, and even if you didn't intend it, it was likely to (and indeed did) provoke others into responding with inflammation of their own.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

The whole world seems to be aligning with this type of politicking, unfortunately.

Not at all: it s not because we have to alternate we should tolerate corruption, and what you see a lot is investigations catching up to criminals.

At least as a French even if we sue a few former presidents here and there, I still accept my candidate loses and we try something else for a whole (I vote Macron, as centre right).

I dont think the US should count much: they dont really transfer power, there are the same immutable parties that havent welcomed a serious challenger for decades playing theatre while having policy continuity by most standards, bar a few candies for the populace at the edge.

The so-called deep-state exists in all countries that have not experienced recent revolution. The deep state is simply entrenched unelected (appointed) bureaucrats who continue a steady policy who only marginally change course during elected government changes. Only revolutions tend to almost completely sweep out the old and usher in the new guard. In France you have the sciences po graduates. In America we have the Washington Establishment which consists of revolving door politicians|lobbyists.

In any case, the world is gravitating to Us vs Them in politics to win by divide & conquer.

While imperial Britain has much to take blame for in South Asia, the partition is not really one of them.

Great Britain (or rather Mountbatten on its behalf) really just acted as a third party arbiter in the partition. It was Jinnah's insistence on a separate carveout for Muslims in South Asia, together with Nehru's refusal to meet any demands for federalism, that resulted in partition. Imperial Britain had nothing to do with Direct Action Day.

I think the argument is that for the previous 100 years, Imperial Britain had deliberately encouraged violent divisions between the Hindu and Muslim populations as a means of exerting external control, again this is called a 'divide and conquer' policy.

Your argument is sort of like saying, just because the British gave them the dynamite, they're not responsible for lighting the fuse.

Indeed, safe handling of dynamite involves not lighting the fuze deliberately.

What happened after the abolition of British Raj was in part a consequence of it, but I would not deny agency of the participants of the warfare that ensued.

> While imperial Britain has much to take blame for in South Asia, the partition is not really one of them.

I’m going to disagree; however little direct control they exert at that point, the imperial power always bears significant responsbility for the costs of problems that accompany imperial collapse.

The problem is when we start creating stories that place groups of people as perpetual victims, or they play that rôle themselves.

It is hard to be honest about our faults and easy to blame others. Balance that against total erasure of the past - denial is rife.

The present controls the past.

> The problem is when we start creating stories that place groups of people as perpetual victims, or they play that role themselves.

Recognize imperial powers’ blame for the adverse results of imperialism doesn’t do that, because blame is not exclusive.

Considering today's Hindu supremacist government you could argue Jinnah was right to be worried about the status of the muslim minority.

> drifted apart

is a kind way of framing "were partitioned intentionally to foment division, by the departing colonizers"

Not exactly.

The brits were to blame for process of partition (or lack there-of). The haste, wanton disregard for life, the casual approach towards the largest refugee crisis in human history was certainly avoidable. They were also to blame for further exacerbating divisions via divide-and-conquer.

But the divisions already existed. The idea of a Muslim state had had been stewing for decades in certain circles. It was inevitable.

> The brits were to blame for process of partition

Yeah, no. They took advantage of the divisions created in the population based on religion. Divisions created by Islamic fundamentalist parties.

That's why I pointed to the 'process of partition'.

The border-lines were drawn by a man who had never visited India over a few months. They withdrew all state machinery overnight, and somehow expected 2 nations born into war to fare alright. Did they expect millions to cross borders and leave their homes behind without any resulting repercussions ? How is a country (Pakistan) divided in 2 by its biggest enemy (India) even supposed to work ? How are Sikhs supposed to live if the borders go right through their fields, dividing their 2 holiest sites ?

Animals when kept in captivity, cannot return back into the wild without supervision. Systems of govt are no different.

So it's the Brits fault that Pakistan/India immediately went at each others throat the moment they were gone and the solution was to keep both under "supervision" i.e. empire control? When exactly could they have left without that outcome? Or is the idea here that the British empire still exists in the 21st century?

At what point do the people living there take responsibility for ending their own violence, in this scenario?

If an outsider comes into your family (in the form of a wife or husband or some such relationship), destroys it from within, ensures your family is split and creates lifetime hostility. Then washes his/her hands off the mess and says "Sorry boys, you fight it out, I am out of here! Ciao!" would you be kind to someone coming up to you and saying "At what point do you take responsibility for ending your own violence?".

> At what point do the people living there take responsibility for ending their own violence, in this scenario?

Name your Country and I'll give you at least 3 examples of this.

So before the British, there was absolutely no Hindu/Muslim tension in south east Asia at all, it was all peace and friendship? The Mughals were taxing non-Muslims just for being infidels in the 1600s and that led to the Maratha empire which then proceeded to conquer parts of the Mughal empire, often inflicting retribution in return.

The idea that India was one happy family until the British came along is ridiculous. If anything the Brits were suppressing this conflict which is why it re-emerged literally the very same day they left.

I never said we were one happy family until the Brits came along. Whatever wars we had pre-Colonization was always the internal matter of the Indian subcontinent. It did not involve outsiders who took decisions on our behalf. Even when we fought the Greeks, it still did not end up in Colonization of any kind. Only post the Portuguese, the French and then finally the British did we experience Colonization. And this Colonization was through "trade" not through "wars". It was a gradual process because even the Brits knew they could not fight militarily (Wars not battles/skirmishes) and had to adopt a "Divide and Rule" policy to subjugate India.

Again, sticking to the analogy of a family, there is never a "happy family" anywhere in the World. Every family has its warts. I bet you have plenty of fights within your family. But still you stick together despite the fights. But all it takes is one outsider to undo it all. And that "undoing" cannot be reversed. Colonization is what happens when you let outsiders into your family and take decisions on behalf of your family.

> If anything the Brits were suppressing this conflict which is why it re-emerged literally the very same day they left

The Brits weren't "suppressing this conflict" by any stretch of imagination. They actually were fomenting it even more. It only turned against them in the 1857 First War of Independence when both Hindus and Muslims united. The reason for that is simple. Brits used cow and pig fat to grease gunpowder cartridges which required one to tear it open with his teeth. This insulted both Hindus and Muslims for obvious reasons. That was the trigger for both communities to unite and fight the Brits. But that still did not stop the Brits from exploiting the division based on religious lines.

> The Mughals were taxing non-Muslims just for being infidels in the 1600s and that led to the Maratha empire which then proceeded to conquer parts of the Mughal empire, often inflicting retribution in return.

And that won't stop even now. We still have groups like ISIS, Al-Qaeda etc which still wreck havoc in all parts of the World. I bet your Country is no different either and I am pretty sure your Country has been at the receiving end of Terrorism since you are unwilling to divulge which Country you belong to. Makes it all the more obvious since you are willing to pontificate to Indians about how we should let all enmity be set aside and live like one happy family while not saying anything about your own Country.

> Name your Country and I'll give you at least 3 examples of this.

Asking you again.

> no Hindu/Muslim tension

To explain it better, we have had fights/relationships between both communities going all the way back to 6th century. And the people who are Muslims today were of various Religious ethnicities (majority of whom were Hindus, Persian/Zoroastrians etc). So our relationships run way back before Anglo-Saxons entered our shores as traders/merchants. If you pick up our History you will see references to not just trade, politics or wars but also familial relations that spanned from present day Bangladesh all the way to the other corners of Iran. Even our Ancient Scriptures like Ramayana and Mahabharata has references to these regions and the Kingdoms within them. So yes when I say Indian Subcontinent I mean the entire extant region that includes present day Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. So even if we fought wars with each other and one Kingdom sometimes reigning over other Kingdoms, we never felt it was some "outsider" who ruled over us.

The reason we blame the Brits is purely because of the Partition of India and the mess they created with drawing the various borders. That does not just include borders between India and Pakistan. It also includes borders between India and China. Pakistan and Afghanistan. Pakistan and Iran. Afghanistan and Iran. They left a huge mess when they left as the lines drawn did not account for natural resource sharing or even towns/cities. In some states, the border lines ran through actual homes. The Partition of India is heavily criticized also because the British Empire decided to divide British-India based on Religious lines. The ones who claimed to talk about "Freedom, Democracy, Rule of Law, Equality, Liberty" etc decided to divide the Country on Religious lines. This resulted in millions dying as they crisscrossed these artificially drawn borders which required them to leave their homes, family, everything on the basis of religious lines. There was absolutely no requirement for the Brits to divide India at all.

The consequences of the division directly resulted in all the crazy stuff that happened after 1947. It was a ticking time bomb. 9/11 attacks, bombing of WTC, Taliban taking over Afghanistan, Iran going towards autocracy, emergence of ISIS and Al-Qaeda... all of this could have easily been prevented if India was not Partitioned. It was not just Indians but the World that paid the price for the British folly. And we Indians were in the right because in the entire Region we are the only prosperous ones as we chose Democracy, Freedom, Liberty, Rule of Law over Religious nonsense. The rest of the region fell apart into chaos after the Partition. Bangladesh is an outlier only because it took the support of India to help it achieve Independence from Pakistan and liberate itself. If not for India, Bangladesh would be in ruins today.

> The idea of a Muslim state had had been stewing for decades in certain circles.

How much of this was fostered by the "divide-and-conquer" approach the British took to ruling the country, including the partition of Bengal on religious lines decades before the partition of the country itself?

Unfortunately, India today is not exactly a beacon of righteousness. The current government in India is taking the country on exactly the same path as Pakistan except that India has an oligarchy which is being setup by people in government which would make it more like Russia. I'll give the country 10 years to implode if it doesn't course correct to become more inclusive, social justice oriented, and less violent.

People have been predicting Pakistan will collapse since 1947. It can’t be as fragile as it looks or it’d be gone already. Regarding India, hoping people who have different values to you suffer isn’t a prediction .

> People have been predicting Pakistan will collapse since 1947

It would have. But decades of war in Afghanistan and the pouring of USD by America, disregarding the very fact that they are funding a well known and open military dictatorship, has kept the country floating.

It is in a deep cycle of debt and has no meaningful economy to speak of.

> I'll give the country 10 years to implode

I'll take predictions that won't happen for 100, Alex.

10 years to implode on what basis? That there's an oligarchy of sorts? What an absurd statement.

    I'll give the country 10 years to implode

I am willing to take a bet for any $$ value with 10x odds in your favor to contest that claim.

    more inclusive, social justice oriented, and less violent

Hot take. If you genuinely cared about these things, you'd end up a supporter of the Modi Govt.

I do not mind views that are diametrically opposite to me. But, every article in western media seems to be written by someone who is 1 degree of separation from the Indian opposition. The claims are never backed by statistics, and the infographics are often so absurd that I have to wonder if I live in an upside-down world. Apparently, India has the 150th [1] least free press in the world and India has been a country with on average 2nd highest chance of genocide [2] for the entire last decade. Dig into their data a little bit, and you realize that they either only interviewed opponents of the current govt. or used zero data what-so-ever.

Note: Modi is the world's most popular leader[3]. About 20% of Muslims and 30% of Christians voted for his 2nd term[4]. For reference, Republicans have never been able to come anywhere close to 20% of the black vote-share, and no is claiming that America will collapse when a Republican wins every alternate election.

The opinion of the average HNer on India, is as bad as a Q-anon supporter on American issues. I apologize for the somewhat angry tone I take on these threads. I do not intend to start a culture war. But when ignorance and arrogance are paired this frivolously, I can't help but respond in kind.

[1] https://rsf.org/en/index

[2] https://earlywarningproject.ushmm.org/countries/india

[3] https://morningconsult.com/global-leader-approval/

[4] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/06/29/nationalism-...

[5] my previous rants on the matter - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Are you claiming that BJP under Modi isn't pushing for "Hindutva", or that the latter is somehow "more inclusive" than the policies that preceded it?

Yes. But not the way you might think.

Let me be clear. I am not a Bhakt, don't particularly love Modi and have complained quite often about bad policies during his regime. My goal is to help people build a representative view of India, not one that fawns over Modi.

The BJP absolutely pushes for Hindutva, but 'Hindutva' is an umbrella term that can mean anything from 'places greater importance on cultural traditions that have been in the subcontinent longer' to 'murderous nazis' depending on who you ask. Since you asked the question, it would help if you specify what you mean by hindutva.

to your question--> what does 'inclusivity' look like? If inclusivity is complete blindness towards religion in front of the law, then you get France style secularism which BJP pushes. On the other hand, you have the Congress's secularism that is in complete contrast to those values. In that sense, both the BJP and the Congress are secular parties, without agreement on wat that term means.

85%+ of Indian muslims are pasmanda low-caste muslims. The previous govt. (congress) did not have a single pasmanda muslim represented in their govt. The BJP is now reaching out to them directly. India never had tribal representation at the national stage, and the BJP elected a tribal woman to the presidency. The BJP has time and again, promoted meritocratic candidates over nepo-babies, making the electoral system more inclusive. India is a not a nation divided on religion alone. It is mostly divided on economics. By focusing in more effective governance and distribution of social welfare, BJP's govt. has disproportionately benefited the poorer population of India. These policies do not discriminate by religion or any other identity. Western style views of inclusivity do not translate well to other nations.

As for the bills like CAA, removal of 370 and the like. The Congress's own policies show that these had bipartisan support up until the BJP brought it up. I don't blame them, politics is politics. But, in isolation, both parties acknowledge that these were necessary changes for national security. The CAA was initially instituted by the Congress itself and the sorry state of section 370 at removal was also a result of bipartisan erosion of that bill over time. (it was meant to be a temporary provision anyway. But I won't get into that right now).

Discussions around vague words like Hindutva and inclusivity are never productive. It would be more helpful to define what we mean by these terms. Create a list of policies implemented by the Modi govt. over the last 8 years and compare those against the govt. that came before. If there is a clear trend that emerges, then we can play ball. Or else, it is all smoke-and-mirrors.

    somehow "more inclusive" than the policies that preceded it?

That one I can say with confidence. The congress has been a party of nepotism for so long, that Modi did not have to do too much to appear more inclusive than them. Modi's biggest strength right now, is the sheer incompetence of his opposition. They continuously pushed away their very best to the point of humiliation.

>If inclusivity is complete blindness towards religion in front of the law, then you get France style secularism which BJP pushes.

If I could give you points for humor, I would.

You can keep your points.

Congress supports religion specific exceptions for personal laws - marriage, inheritance, etc.

BJP stated policy position opposes this, which by definition is more close to French secularism.

I don't even like BJP, but y'all seriously need to get over your Gell-Mann amnesisa.

> I am not a Bhakt,

I am a Bhakt. I became one after I voted for the first time in 2019. I had to choose between Congress and BJP at that time and I decided to go with Congress because I hated Modi for the 2002 riots.

Afterwards, I had a nagging feeling that I had been conned. I am a 90s kid and am staunchly anti-Congress. I have seen first hand how they have ripped off millions in scams and destroyed India. It's almost as if the British loot of India never stopped. But how did I end up voting for corruption then? The con finally dawned on me when I realised that they point at Modi and vilify him not because he's anti-Muslim (he's not) but because he's cleaning up the mess. He is delivering on growth and and transforming India at a rapid pace. He's going to be the Deng Xioaping of India.

However, I was branded as a Hindutva fascist as soon as I voiced my support for him. And I have embraced that term fully. I've studied Hindutva and have turned into a complete Sanatani. My goal in life is now Moksha!

One of my greatest regret in life will be that I didn't vote for him in 2019. I am writing this from the queue of Karnataka assembly elections. I voted for him today.

> He's going to be the Deng Xioaping of India.

This is my one hope for India. I disagree with pretty much everything else you've said, but I'm not as worried for India's future as I was previously; because I've come to realize that economic development is probably the best way to actually accomplish social justice - there's a strong correlation between countries becoming poor and them becoming more authoritarian and less fair.

So, even if he squishes press under his thumb, even if Muslims feel 10 times less safe, even if the autonomy of states is being eradicated to centralize all the power in their hands... I hope all of this at least results in significant economic improvement, and makes things work out in the end.

As a casual exercise, I would suggest you look for a graph of lynchings, riots, and raids in India especially of minorities and "others" for varying levels of trivial reasons by groups associated with the ruling party with patronage and overt support from it. Every festival season is open season for riots in many places. Execution style public hit jobs bypassing "due process" on rivals, criminals, and others are becoming more common.

I would also have you take a hard look at the fascist speeches of sitting ministers advocating for violence in India. All of these are documented and the perpetrators and sponsors of this are in government without consequence.

To make matters worse, the administration seems to be gnawing at some independence the supreme court shows by wanting to take over the appointments of Judges. It even gives judges plum positions post retirement for favorable judgements. Need I say more?

Without a course correction, I'll give it 10 years.

We seem to disagree on the basic facts. Don't think anything productive will come out of this. I WILL save this comment and come back to it in 10 years just to be petty. (or eat my own words if it goes that way)

Are you accepting that no amount of contrary data in 10 years would change your mind?

I'd hope that 'total collapse' would be self evident enough that I would not have to look at the data. But, Good data would convince me.

for social collapse, 'Pew Research' has conducted stellar surveys. I'd start there. Another solid metric is low-income refugees. If a measurable number of low-income minorities start leaving India for countries of slightly higher average income (eg: Bangladesh, Philippines, Indonesia), then it's either a sign of collapse or religious authoritarianism. Differential rights is another sign. say for instance, if there exist specific laws that only Indian minorities have to follow nation-wide.

As for press freedoms, every political opposition party should get to have their own newspaper that can be freely shared on social media. ie. exception to exclude any party that actively seeks independence from India. Private universities should be allowed to teach anything that is constitutional, ie: don't teach violent fundamentalism or birth based bigotry. I should be able to call Modi any non-caste-based slur (Fascist, Bigot, Loser, etc.) on social media without getting a case thrown against me or violent assaulted on the streets. The front page of the Caravan or Scroll.in (online subscription based news media, subscription so I know they will be alive unlike ad reliant ones) should still contain a scathing accusation towards the BJP as it always has.

For economics, poverty and safety, the numbers should be easier to obtain. Proxy metrics like electricity availability, internet availability, infrastructure building and use rate, etc. are also great.

Those are my metrics on 3 fronts.

There were a total of 117 lynchings in India in 2019, compared to 41 for the US in the same time period. This is the same number of lynchings on a per capita basis - while 117 lynchings is a 117 too many, the number is effectively negligible in a country of 1.2 billion people.

Execution style hit jobs on rivals? When did these happen? Are you simply making up executions in your mind?

Claiming India will collapse in 10 years is one of the weirdest statements I've heard in a long time. Which countries will not collapse according to your standards then? I'm honestly asking - no major country seems to be surviving the next 10 years as per your worldview.

I'm open to debate, but you seem to be inventing executions in thin air.

Sources: https://ncrb.gov.in/en/crime-in-india-2019 https://indianexpress.com/article/india/117-lynching-inciden... "ADL Report: At Least 50 White Supremacist Murders in 2018" by the Anti-Defamation League: https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-report-at-least-... "What We Know: The Far-Right and Extremism in 2019" by the Anti-Defamation League: https://www.adl.org/resources/reports/what-we-know-the-far-r...

>Execution style hit jobs on rivals? When did these happen?

You haven't heard of Uttar Pradesh?

I see what you're getting to - while you're not wrong, you're not right either.

They're not carrying hitjobs on rivals or opponents - they're eliminating gang leaders and major criminals. The judiciary is either afraid of giving these gangsters actual sentences, or have been bribed by the gangsters. To solve this, the police has effectively taken the execution of justice into their own hand.

I know it may sound absurd, and the idea of the police taking matters into their own hands would normally scare me, but Uttar Pradesh seems to be an exception. The rule of law has broken down so completely it needs the law to be broken to be brought back, if that makes any sense to you.

The gangsters that were killed were a bit like the mafia in that sense - everyone knew they were crooks, and everyone knew what they did. It seems the tipping point for the ruling party to execute (or 'encounter', as it is called in India) these gangsters is when they kill policemen. Since the judiciary will not punish them, it becomes necessary for the police to inculcate a fear of the police in gangsters' minds in order for their policing activities to actually be effective.

>The gangsters that were killed were a bit like the mafia in that sense

Except that some of them were rival politicians. I'd also want you to look at the number of criminals elected into power before you tell us that "but those killed were criminals, so it's okay." It's systemic rot. Due process doesnt exist in some places and mobs rule.

You see the issue I have with people like you on forums is that you depend on westerners not knowing the details of these things in your country. Your messages appear referenced etc showing that you took time to make those answers, but you seem to miss key points, selectively.

Is there a source for the 41 lynchings in America?

In my above comment, in order to acertain the data and compare India's statistics to those of the US, I tried googling it, but could not seem to find any reliable answers. As an alternative, I decided to use ChatGPT.

Unfortunately, I did not do my due diligence and visit each link - the links seemed to be authentic, and I went along with it. ChatGPT gave me the number 41 and the links that I have mentioned above.

Now that you have pointed it out, I tried visiting those links and the pages seem to not exist. I also put them in the Wayback Machine, which says it hasn't archived them.

That's why you'll notice the statistics are for 2019 - the pandemic is not yet part of the equation and I expected ChatGPT to have information for 2019.

I fear ChatGPT may have 'hallucinated' the data and the links. I can't seem to find a reliable source for the 41 lynchings. As such, my comment above stands moot, and I hope it is ignored - I can't seem to find the delete option.

I do sincerely apologize. It was not my intention to spread misinformation. I didn't do my due diligence, and now know better.

>I tried googling it, but could not seem to find any reliable answers. As an alternative, I decided to use ChatGPT.

Hilarious.

> would suggest you look for a graph of lynchings, riots, and raids in India especially of minorities and "others" for varying levels of trivial reasons by groups associated with the ruling party with patronage and overt support from it

New Delhi is declining into fascism, though there remains a strong democratic culture in the south. Historically, that creates a short-term bump before decline. So if India hasn’t collapsed in ~5 years, it’s unlikely to collapse for ~25 more. (Unless it goes militaristic nationalist, in which case all bets are off.)

You have to be living under a rock to not see the continuous degradation of press freedom in the country. You can go through this research for some in-depth review

https://indianculturalforum.in/2021/01/08/behind-bars-arrest...

Is it the same research that put Pakistan and Afghanistan way above India?

It's a domestic report that says nothing about other countries. I don't know what made you think of comparison to Pakistan and Afghanistan, but forgive me if I say this is classic signs of confirmation bias, where people tend to dismiss information that doesn't fit their worldview.

Thank god you havent been following the shootings of the US. Or else, the 10 year future prediction would be for the US as well?

Doing arm chair analysis on macro economics is quite hilariously ignorant. If you're so sure, why dont you short the indian markets with your life savings.

>We fought together to gain freedom and just drifted apart.

A movement propped up on the idea of a "separate nation for muslims", fought hard for and achieved with much violence and bloodshed is "just drifted apart"

Wow !

I don't know what you are trying to say here, but it didn't have to be violent and persist after too, that's exactly what I was saying by "drifting apart". If they felt safer as a separate nation to have their interests protected that shouldn't be the cause of bitterness. Jinnah and Nehru had both been adamant on their stances, former was proponent of federal governance while later a central. India had several bifurcation of states, it helped in better representation. Recent AP, Telangana state bifurcation was done after much violence, did they drift apart? Does an avg person of the 2 states have anything against each other now? That was exactly my point, for avg people they're just other people, we are constantly washed by propaganda to believe they're enemies.

> Recent AP, Telangana state bifurcation was done after much violence, did they drift apart?

Don't think it is right to equate the violence during the partition of India to the Telangana movement.

The 1947 partition had violence where communities fought and attacked each other.

The Telangana movement except for few minor instances in the very early stages post independence, was not directly against people from Andhra region. A major part of the casualties were during protests as a direct result of government action and self harm.

There may have been general dislike for people from other region but I don't think it ever turned into enemity and hatred towards each other.

You are equating bifurcation of states for political & administrative reasons, within the same country, to splitting a country into two !

When a country is split, crimes committed against those who are migrating to another country will not be prosecuted by the home country, and will not be possible to be prosecuted by the split country.

Land, Houses and other immovable assets will be stolen from those who are forced to leave respective countries.

Rapes, looting and arson are rampant, on both sides.

In the case of India and Pakistan, the division was on explicit religious lines. Islam has an outdated theology of being the only true religion and all other religions are false (as is Christianity). This theology forms the basis (whether that basis evolved later or is advocated by islam is a secondary issue) of the idea than non-believers can be treated inhumanely and are essentially no different from animals.

In essence, Partition of India was not "drifting apart". It was a violent tearing apart of countries and communities. The origin was from the muslim community, whose political leaders realized that for them to seize power, a democratic setup with majority Hindu population will be impossible. So, to preserve their power and egos, they split the country, aided by pacifists like Gandhi and Nehru.

To note, Pakistan has one of the most fertile lands on earth. Abundance of natural resources and a strategically important location.

Also to note, the plan was to destroy Hindu civilization as a whole (a historical dream of Islam. Search google for Gazwa-e-Hind). Jinnah proposed a 10 mile wide corridor, cutting across the heart of India to allow road access to east pakistan (now Bangladesh)

Partition of India is the manifestation of the idea of Gazwa-e-Hind. A strike at the Hindu India.

Jinnah wasn’t religious and didn’t envision a theocratic Pakistan. He thought it would end up like England and Scotland with open borders.

>The origin was from the muslim community, whose political leaders realized that for them to seize power, a democratic setup with majority Hindu population will be impossible.

Or put in other words, muslims being a minority in India didn’t want to now have new rulers as India got independence from the British.

neither Gazwa-e-Hind nor Islam as one true religion was not cause or even ideas behind partition. And speaking about Gazwa-e-Hind, while conveniently ignoring Akhand Bharat, is pure propaganda. If you read about Jinnah in old school history books which unfortunately are being edited out by NCERT in India, he was never was religiously motivated. His idea was Muslim population would be a minority in Hindu controlled state, which wasn't far fetched, look at Indian politics right now, which runs on the basis of Muslim hatred. Also claiming things like Gazwa-e-hind(Ignoring Akhand Bharat) and Muslims believing in one true religion and then saying India is tolerant or Muslims and secular becomes an Irony. You can't run both ways. Also the violence during partition were on both sides, not just one side.

He (Jinnah) also basically predicted exactly what would happen during Shah Bano case

Modi is corrupt. The guy does not have the interest of the country at heart, he just cares about the Ambanid and increasing the wealth of his political allies.

> Modi is corrupt

Source? Part of his allure and political inertia comes from being squeaky clean as far as bribes go.

He was complicit in the Gujurat riots ethnic cleansing[0] Demonetization was a scheme to enrich his billionaire friends and party[0]. There's a lot more, and being the PM he hasn't allowed the media to question him. He only appears in staged interviews singing his praises or speeches.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_riots [1] https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/national/bjp-members-kne...

> Gujurat riots ethnic cleansing…Demonetization…only appears in staged interviews singing his praises or speeches

None of this is corruption. Authoritarianism. Populism, perhaps. But not fraudulent, not bribery, and not corruption.

> None of this is corruption

Even if that were true(which it's not), that's your defense?

"Corruption is a form of dishonesty or a criminal offense which is undertaken by a person or an organization which is entrusted in a position of authority, in order to acquire illicit benefits or abuse power for one's personal gain."

> that's not a good defense of Modi

It’s not meant to be.

> in order to acquire illicit benefits or abuse power for one's personal gain

You’re quoting Wikipedia [1]; see the “definition and scales” section. Personal gain in this context is contrasted with political gain. Using state power to openly reward boosters is not corruption, though it might be an abuse of power. Using state power to illegally use violence as a political tactic, similarly, is not corruption. It’s authoritarianism, possibly fascism.

It’s important for the word to have meaning, particularly in India, where overexpanding corruption to mean anything one doesn’t like could be particularly corrosive.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption

The word is commonly used to mean abuse of power, The original usage of the word in this conversation clearly meant that usage of the word:

> Modi is corrupt. The guy does not have the interest of the country at heart, he just cares about the Ambanis and increasing the wealth of his political allies.

Deciding whether Modi is corrupt or not based on technical differences between political gains and personal gains seems purely motivated to keep his image "squeaky clean".

This is how I see it as well - the ethnic cleansing/riot stuff isn't some secret, it's a big part of his appeal to his base.

- Adani - BCCI (cricket) leadership - PM Cares Fund

Just off the top of my head. I will leave you to reach your own conclusions after research.

He’s surrounded by corruption. There is no evidence he is corrupt. There is a difference there in terms of to whom the personal gains accrue. He seems to play India’s corrupt oligarchs for political, not personal, gain. That’s hugely problematic. But it does not make him corrupt per se.

World is not as black and white as you think or how the media portrays.

You are so naive or something else to belive Pakistanis like Indians. They preach hatered towards Hindus/Jews in their schools (books are filled with hatered). And of course who could forget about all the wars initiated by them.

Stop day dreaming man

So you made a throwaway to say this? Did you even read my comment properly? I said average citizens and people like you again go back to propaganda.

Tell me what BJP uses to win elections all the time? Hatred against Muslims?

Top BJP Subramaniyam swami was quoted saying "Muslims are not equals, so they don't need equal rights".

>They preach hatered towards Hindus/Jews in their schools (books are filled with hatred).

Ofcourse, because your propaganda says so? I've met Pakistanis in real life in the US, and none of them want to hate me or kill me even the older generation ones. Also doesn't RSS, VHP, Bajarang dal do the same in India?

Both governments failed us. We're fighting because they say so, tell me on a personal level what you hate about them?

Dude, get real for the fuck sake. USA internal documents said that not my bs.

What's wrong with you to acknowledge the truth?

I create a throwaway account to protect myself from cancel culture. That's not the point you should verify what i said and call me out on those if i lied to you

Maybe your main acount should be examined if this is how you behave psudeo anonymously.

Even Bill Maher was not spared by cancel culture.

Average citizen in Pakistan supports army which instigated 4 wars against India so far

I’ve always felt that its very hard to harbor deep hatred for any people when you can speak their language and share their culture.

unless you are Russian, they have no problem at all as we can see every day (I realize common folks are a bit different from the news image, but any news I hear from within Russia these days just confirms what I stated, and then you have those hundreds of thousands who voluntarily went to Ukraine to kill and steal)