Hacker News Reader

Comment by wdvh | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com