> The India-Pakistan debacle today is an extension of a nearly millennium-long Hindu-Muslim feud.
Not really. A lot of these arbitrary borders in modern times came about due to actions of former colonial powers. Prior to colonial times, there were many individual kingdoms/territories throughout the subcontinent. Other examples of arbitrary borders include the Durand line, and the Wakhan corridor.
> A lot of these arbitrary borders in modern times came about due to actions of former colonial powers.
By 1940, Jinnah had come to believe that the Muslims of the subcontinent should have their own state to avoid the possible marginalised status they may gain in an independent Hindu–Muslim state. In that year, the Muslim League, led by Jinnah, passed the Lahore Resolution, demanding a separate nation for Indian Muslims. - Wikipedia
A single state spanning most of the Indian subcontinent wasn't a political reality prior to colonial times. There were many individual kingdoms and territories prior to that time. The political structure set up by the British was a major contributing factor behind the partition.
Another instance of a partition happened about 10 years prior to India's and Pakistan's independence. The British Raj decided to split Myanmar from India. Maybe if they had not done that, India would have extended further east to encompass present day Myanmar.
> A single state spanning most of the Indian subcontinent wasn't a political reality prior to colonial times. There were many individual kingdoms and territories prior to that time.
Never said it was. It came closest to the current boundaries under the Mauryan empire and Peshwai rule, however.
> The political structure set up by the British was a major contributing factor behind the partition.
Yes, the political structure that forced the majority of Muslims to vote for a separate Muslim state to be carved out of India. So sad, that the British did this to Indians. Without the British, there would be no enmity between the Hindus and Muslims. Truly a travesty.
>> A single state spanning most of the Indian subcontinent wasn't a political reality prior to colonial times. There were many individual kingdoms and territories prior to that time.
> Never said it was.
Had Europe been colonized and been organized into a single state, then, when the colonists relinquished power, areas with different ethniticies and/or religions would probably have voted to have more autonomy or be separate states altogether. The fact that there are many languages in India that are mutually unintelligible would indicate that gathering all of them in a single country is a relatively recent construct, and that the default arrangement was that control was much more local.
>> It came closest to the current boundaries under the Mauryan empire and Peshwai rule, however.
Just because political arrangements from centuries/millenia past existed doesn't mean that they're a good idea in modern times. Hence the reason we have many countries in Europe rather than a modern single political entity spanning an area similar to the Roman or Byzantine empire.
> Yes, the political structure that forced the majority of Muslims to vote for a separate Muslim state to be carved out of India.
Had the British Raj not split Myanmar off from India, it's likely they may have voted for a partition along similar lines based on religion (Budddhism vs Hinduism). Another example of strife caused by political structures set up by the British resulted in the civil war in Sri Lanka. In fact, the Tamils in Sri Lanka wanted to create their own independent state because of discrimination they faced from the Sinhalese majority.
> Without the British, there would be no enmity between the Hindus and Muslims.
Enmity really comes from trying to group people from different cultures, ethnicities, religions, etc under a single political entity where one group is a minority. Tyranny of the majority becomes a problem in those cases.
> Had Europe been colonized and been organized into a single state, then, when the colonists relinquished power, areas with different ethniticies and/or religions would probably have voted to have more autonomy or be separate states altogether. The fact that there are many languages in India that are mutually unintelligible would indicate that gathering all of them in a single country is a relatively recent construct, and that the default arrangement was that control was much more local.
Partition would never have been so hotly contested if this was indeed the case. However, it wasn't. Thousands of Hindus and Sikhs had to flee the newly created Islamic nation of Pakistan, who knows exactly how many were killed in that process.
> Had the British Raj not split Myanmar off from India, it's likely they may have voted for a partition along similar lines based on religion (Budddhism vs Hinduism)
Buddhism and Hinduism have coexisted in relative peace (with a few exceptions) for millennia. No such thing would have happened.
> Enmity really comes from trying to group people from different cultures, ethnicities, religions, etc under a single political entity where one group is a minority. Tyranny of the majority becomes a problem in those cases.
By this point it is abundantly clearly that you are not educated on the history of the Hindu-Muslim conflict. Before you further embarrass yourself, have a gander at this page [1] and see the timescales involved.
> Partition [between would never have been so hotly contested if this was indeed the case.
> Buddhism and Hinduism have coexisted in relative peace (with a few exceptions) for millennia. No such thing would have happened.
They weren't forced exist under a single political entity where one group was a substantial majority of the total. The civil war in Sri Lanka[1] is the result of trying to do so. The actions[2][3] of the Myanmar government towards people originally from India residing in Burma suggest that your assertion isn't really true.
> They weren't forced exist under a single political entity where one group was a substantial majority of the total.
See: The Mauryan Empire, various Khmer kings. The Kings were previously Hindu, converted to Buddhism with no conflicts arising from this change. There was no iconoclasm, no discrimination against Hindus, no mass genocide.
In the entire article the word "Buddhism" is mentioned but once.
"Moreover, the British pushed for the dominance of Christianity and the removal of privileging Buddhism in the state government, the main religion followed by the Sinhalese"
> [2]
"Indians played a prominent role in the British administration and became the target of Burmese nationalists. Racial animosity toward Indians because of their skin-colour and appearance also played a role. Meanwhile, the price of rice plummeted during the economic depression of the 1930s and the Chettiar from South India, who were prominent moneylenders in the rice belt, began to foreclose on land held by native Burmese."
Literally nothing to do with their religion
> [3]
"After he seized power through a military coup in 1962, General Ne Win ordered a large-scale expulsion of Indians. Although many Indians had been living in Burma for generations and had integrated into Burmese society, they became a target for discrimination and oppression by the junta. This, along with a wholesale nationalisation of private ventures in 1964, led to the emigration of over 300,000 ethnic Indians from Burma. Indian-owned businesses as well as Burmese businesses were nationalised due to the so-called "Burmese way to Socialism". Many Indians returned and were given 175 kyat for their trip to India."
The common thread between your assertions are that one side is predominantly Buddhist and the other side is predominantly Hindu, however this does not mean the religion is the source of the conflict. Deeper investigation reveals in fact that the conflict was anything but religious. Nationalistic, linguistic, cultural, yes. But not religious. There isn't any bad blood between Hinduism and Buddhism the way there is between Hinduism and Islam.
Stop trying to manufacture a conflict between Buddhism and Hinduism where none exists. These two religions have coexisted for millenia in relative peace, unlike Islam and literally any other religion.
> Stop trying to manufacture a conflict between Buddhism and Hinduism where none exists.
The point I'm trying to make is that these conflicts are caused by trying to place people of different ethnicities, religions, traditions, etc under the same political entity when they did not consent to it. It has nothing to do with particular religions. I've posted examples of various artificial partitions in previous comments that had nothing to do with religion, yet those borders still exist today. For example, the Durand Line dividing Pakistan and Afghanistan. That has nothing to do with religion, yet the line still exists because of the British. Many of the country borders in the Middle East were decided based on negotiations between France and the UK.
Religion is one of the reasons behind the divisions, but you seem to be focused on that reason to the exclusion of all others. Just like you're overly focused on the partition of Pakistan and India to the exclusion of all other examples that have been presented.
> Religion is one of the reasons behind the divisions
My brother it is literally in the founding documents of Pakistan. There is no other reason. There is no ethnic, cultural, genetic or other such divide between Pakistanis and Indians - we are the same for all intents and purposes except for religion.
> it is literally in the founding documents of Pakistan.
Have you looked into any of the other examples I cited in the last several comments I made? Why do you keep circling back to Pakistan and religion when I literally just told you that there are many other reasons why conflicts exist. For an ethnic Tamil living in the Tamil Nadu state in India, Pakistan isn't even relevant to them. They definitely would be more focused on what's happening in their state and Sri Lanka. Similarly, someone living in the Uttar Pradesh state wouldn't really be following what happens in Sri Lanka.
I'm looking at this from a more holistic point of view and trying to show that there are multiple factors beyond religion. I said religion is one of the reasons, but I didn't say it was the sole reason or primary one. This is referring to many examples of political entities and artificial devisions between them in general. You're not really using the most charitable interpretation of what I'm stating when responding.
I'm not just talking about border disputes, and I don't make this connection lightly. Pakistan was explicitly founded as a country for 'Indian Muslims'. The 1971 war wasn't over a border dispute: West Pakistanis openly genocided and raped[1] Bengali Hindus (and Muslims, for that matter), declaring Bengali women 'war booty', which forced India to step in.
As for 'no united India before colonial times': what about the Maurya and Gupta empires, or even the Delhi and Hyderabad sultanates? They governed over a significant portion of modern-day India + Pakistan.
If this is your sort of goalpost, then even relatively homogenous countries like Germany and Italy shouldn't really exist today, given that they only coalesced in the late 19th century.
> If this is your sort of goalpost, then even relatively homogenous countries like Germany and Italy shouldn't really exist today, given that they only coalesced in the late 19th century.
The strength of modern state propaganda is such that people have developed all kinds of crazy notions about history. The nation state is a modern invention and this involves myth building about the country going back to ancient times.
The French spoken in southern France had much more in common with northern Italian. Its just common sense that it would be so. Modern French was forced down it's subjects just like Urdu in Pakistan, Standardized Mandarin in China and ongoing attempts for Hindu in India.
The state has been elevated to the status of a mythical quasi religious entity.
It's a typo: I meant Hindi-India. In any case, I won't be responding to ultra nationalist, religion supremacist, right wing trolls anymore. So you can take your "edifications" and random articles elsewhere.
>>If this is your sort of goalpost, then even relatively homogenous countries like Germany and Italy shouldn't really exist today, given that they only coalesced in the late 19th century.
Yup. The Holy Roman empire, Roman Empire, Byzantines, Greeks, Hellenistic period etc etc.
Over a period of long intervals the geographical boundaries of any and every region on earth expand and shrink. That's just fact of life. And boundaries are basically things written on a piece of paper, where one administration decides to start or end its control. Also what does things like 'new countries' even mean here. It is not like when people make new countries they take they dig up their region from beneath and relocate to Mars. They are just saying they don't wish to live under your political administration.
There is no need to overthink these things beyond a certain point.
Not really. A lot of these arbitrary borders in modern times came about due to actions of former colonial powers. Prior to colonial times, there were many individual kingdoms/territories throughout the subcontinent. Other examples of arbitrary borders include the Durand line, and the Wakhan corridor.