Aditya_V wrote:Shiv to put your equation in the simple way fromt eh US point of view
Muslims= Better than Bad Hindus
Pakistan = Muslims. India = Bad Hindus, therefore Pakistan Better than EVil Hindu India.
Or from Uber Secular in India. Hindu= Evil Superstitious, Muslim= good, Therefore Pakistan is good.
Actually its not exactly like that. From the US viewpoint the Muslims are not good either. In fact good or bad are not relevant as long as they fight each other.
But let me come to that obliquely.
If Pakistanis believe that they are the descendants of the Mughal empire that lorded over all of India for all of 1000 years do you believe that history as narrated by Pakistanis?
I don't believe the Pakistani version of history.
- Pakistanis are not inheritors of the Mughal "empire" such as there existed
- The empire that goes by that name never lorded over all of India and its rule over a large part of India was brief
- The 1000 year rule is for Sindh and Baluchistan only. Not all of India
If Pakistanis are now loudly announcing that fake history are they the only people doing it? Have they cooked up that history on their own? No. The same fake history comes to us also from our own brothers and sisters the leftist historians of India. Where did Pakistanis and Indian leftist historians learn this fake history of India?
The fake history of India was the one written by British historians. That fake history has "taught" Hindus that they were inferior and subjugated, casteist and unable to form a nation. That fake history taught Muslims that they ruled over Hindus for 1000 years. It suited the racist British scholarship of the day to believe in the inferiority of the Hindu races and the loyal Islamic Gunga Dins - people of the book were given a history that fitted in with the British scholarship of the day.
The white Christians of Europe were the true masters. The greatest races. The Hindus who were low down - having sunk from a high in Vedic times were conquered by the Mussalmans who ruled them for 1000 years. But the superior Brits ended that Mussalman rule. The hierarchy decided by God himself fitted in well with the social world views of the day. This was "real history" not some mumbo jumbo by the inferior Hindus who had "no tradition of history. My narrative is history. Your narrative is bullshit. Not history.
This is where history was when Pakistan was formed. The superiority of the Mussalman over the Hindu and his lording it over Hindus itself was contrived cooked up history. But it was not cooked up by the Mughals, or Allama Iqbal or Djinnah. It was the same bullshit Macaulayite British history fed to the people who formed Pakistan as much as the people who later became Indian historians.
If you remove the British version of history, what is the true nature of the relationship between Muslims and Hindus of India? What sources do you dip into when you quote alternate history that is not a British narrative? We have Al Beruni from 1000 years ago but after that? What sources do we have? Or have all sources of Indian history been covered up by the British version?
History as we learn it today has an important effect on how Hindus and Muslims view each other. If that history was cooked up by the British to a greater or lesser extent to suit their world view, what is the real nature of the relationship between Muslims and Hindus in India?