Hacker News Reader

> not least because the state of Pakistan was in part a reaction to genocidal violence against Muslim Indians.

Are you actually naive or you are just playing this? Do you even have iota of an idea of India, Muslims, Pakistan, genocide or anything about this subcontinent?

I have seen you comment here on almost all the topics and your comment is generally a "scramble" of things without a backup, without a flow, without any intellectual merit, you just say things. But that's mostly about technology but this time you ventured into a field which you seem to have mastered minutes before writing this comment.

Not only that, you embed history in it and make it worse. I wanted to respond to your comment instead of this rant but this one particular statement just stuck out and how do I respond to this factually absurd statement. I've lived here for 28 years. I am a native with friends (and distant family) on both sides of the border so I can safely say that there really aren't many comments that I have found as meaningless on HN as yours, well in a negative way.

Please, Pakistan is warlike and aggressive because they have been manipulated by the US into believing they can take on India (with US support).

> genocidal violence against Muslim Indians.

What's this about? Partition killed as many Hindus and Sikhs as Muslims and pre-Independence India had little communal violence that wasn't explicitly fomented by the British in order to serve their own ends.

If you're so well read in south asian history, you should also know that there are more muslims in India than in Pakistan and that pretty much none of them would like to switch places with their Pakistani siblings.

Sorry, I was wrong. The government of Pakistan are the good guys.

Umm yes you are. The genocidal violence was not a one sided affair. Numerous sources say that it was instigated by the Muslim League to further their case for a separate nation.

In any case, the 15 odd percent Muslims in India are proof enough that the word genocidal is not appropriate here.

You can call it whatever you want. No part of my point hinges on me litigating the distinction you're trying to make.

I'm a bit lost. What genocidal violence was it, that caused the formation of the state of Pakistan?

You know what, if we want to attribute the state of Pakistan and its conflict with India to the British occupation, I'm fine with that too. I'm not spoiling for an argument over this.

No point in arguing with tptacek. Just consider him a right-wing nut job and move on.

You may want to look in to what happened when Hyderabad was annexed to India in 1948.

Are you referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Polo

"After a stalemate in negotiations between the Nizam and India, mass killing and rape of the Hindu population by Razakars, and wary of a hostile independent state in the centre of India, Deputy Prime Minister Sardar Patel decided to annex the state of Hyderabad."

Wow, good thing that genocidal Nizam was forcibly put down...

Er, how about the section of the article titled "Aftermath"

"After having received information that widespread communal violence against Muslims in reprisal for previous atrocities against Hindus,[17] Prime Minister Nehru sent congressman Pandit Sunderlal and a mixed-faith team to investigate. Reporting back the team estimated that between 27,000 and 40,000 civilians have died and that some members of the Indian army and police force participated in violent acts.[18]" I wouldn't call that a minor overreaction. My grandfather didn't leave Gulbarga in 1948 because he was sick of the climate.

The article also fails to mention that Nehru's agent to Hyderabad was the incredibly communal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._M._Munshi

From the cited BBC article: "The investigation team also reported, however, that in many other instances the Indian Army had behaved well and protected Muslims.

The backlash was said to have been in response to many years of intimidation and violence against Hindus by the Razakars."

It's clear we each have our biases, and this discussion could go on.

I only brought up the wikipedia article in the first place to show that violence against Muslims resulting from the annex of Hyderabad wasn't unprovoked. Both sides were wrong in some of their actions though.

The US funds or gives aid to the Pakistani State. The Pakistani state diverts its own money to fund the ISI. So the US does bankroll ISI.

Pakistan is not really one of the most paranoid and aggressive in the world. And that is coming from an Indian here. It is much more civilized than many nations and has much of the institutions that make a modern nation. Just that the military and religious extremism( which incidentally was helped along the way by a desperate general who wanted to hold on to power) has destroyed the idea of the state.

The longstanding conflict with us, is fueled by the United States, who in their quest to have an ally in the region against perceived Russian expansion to the Persian Gulf supported successive military regimes against a presumed 'communist' but democratic India. The United States, replaced a reformist and yes a repressive government, with the most regressive government anywhere in the world in Afghanistan in 1991. And didn't care about it till 9/11. The hindsight of history tells us that maybe communist totalitarianism is what the country needed to break hundreds of years of warlordism.

Maybe what US does on the whole balances out their excesses here. Maybe stopping the spread of communism and totalitarianism required this. But looking at it at a theatre level, US policy in the region has been short sighted and should have been directed at promoting democracy in Pakistan. Not in helping the military. Along with being short sighted it has also been hypocritical. And that is what makes it sad.

>It is much more civilized than many nations and has much of the institutions that make a modern nation. Just that the military and religious extremism

Given that the Pakistani military and ISI control so much of Pakistan's government, is this a worthwhile distinction?

India has led the genocide in Kashmir of over 100,000 kashmiris, Mr Venkatesh, Can India even be regarded as a civilized?

Did you just refer to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan as a reform movement?