The above words are spoken by none other than Delhi HC (Delhi High Court). This was as a minister said 'goli maro saalo ko' kill those bastards (crude translation)

https://indianexpress.com/article/citie ... c-7836774/

And yes, that resulted in numerous deaths of the minority Muslim population

India has so many problems. I thought the smile part was some sort of weird sarcastic remark, but wow it's literal! My home state in India has a lot of religious tensions now as well. Very concerning to see.

IceCream wrote:

India has so many problems. I thought the smile part was some sort of weird sarcastic remark, but wow it's literal! My home state in India has a lot of religious tensions now as well. Very concerning to see.

Sadly it is, record number of lynchings and whatnot are happening but the records are easily censored, cut off the next day. I am sure many of my Muslim, Sikhs, and Christian friends, brothers, and sisters who are here, in India have to learn to live with this fear that it can happen to them tomorrow and the courts will not rule in their favor. That is sadly where India is

pune wrote:

IceCream wrote:

India has so many problems. I thought the smile part was some sort of weird sarcastic remark, but wow it's literal! My home state in India has a lot of religious tensions now as well. Very concerning to see.

Sadly it is, record number of lynchings and whatnot are happening but the records are easily censored, cut off the next day. I am sure many of my Muslim, Sikhs, and Christian friends, brothers, and sisters who are here, in India have to learn to live with this fear that it can happen to them tomorrow and the courts will not rule in their favor. That is sadly where India is

Agreed. I'm from Punjab so the situation here is a little different but still shocking. The religious divide is especially stupid here because historically Punjabi Hindus are more Sikh than Hindu (compared to the rest of India). It's so sad to see politicians stoking the flames of violence for no good reason. I wonder how different Punjab's fate is compared to the other states.

IceCream wrote:

pune wrote:

IceCream wrote:

India has so many problems. I thought the smile part was some sort of weird sarcastic remark, but wow it's literal! My home state in India has a lot of religious tensions now as well. Very concerning to see.

Sadly it is, record number of lynchings and whatnot are happening but the records are easily censored, cut off the next day. I am sure many of my Muslim, Sikhs, and Christian friends, brothers, and sisters who are here, in India have to learn to live with this fear that it can happen to them tomorrow and the courts will not rule in their favor. That is sadly where India is

Agreed. I'm from Punjab so the situation here is a little different but still shocking. The religious divide is especially stupid here because historically Punjabi Hindus are more Sikh than Hindu (compared to the rest of India). It's so sad to see politicians stoking the flames of violence for no good reason. I wonder how different Punjab's fate is compared to the other states.

Punjab actually had the worst luck or whatever after Kashmir. From the 1970s onwards, it suffered from both terrorism as well as drugs although I think the roots of both go way back to the partition. IIRC, both Punjab and Bengal suffered the worst from Partition. It wouldn't be far of a jump to use that pain, fear of the Punjabis, and use it for terror as well as drugs. The Bindrawale episode was also complex and it could have been handled diplomatically and state intelligence faltered for a long time.

The net result of all the above is that the state has the worst finances and Punjab which used to have some of the best machining products at one point in time has fallen of the map. I do know they are doing a bit in hosiery or whatever but nothing to scale what it was before. Farming is the only real occupation that is keeping Punjab on the map.

And now you have bhagwat mann, who is himself an alcoholic, as the state's chief minister AAP even made Delhi alcoholic

pune wrote:

IceCream wrote:

pune wrote:

Sadly it is, record number of lynchings and whatnot are happening but the records are easily censored, cut off the next day. I am sure many of my Muslim, Sikhs, and Christian friends, brothers, and sisters who are here, in India have to learn to live with this fear that it can happen to them tomorrow and the courts will not rule in their favor. That is sadly where India is

Agreed. I'm from Punjab so the situation here is a little different but still shocking. The religious divide is especially stupid here because historically Punjabi Hindus are more Sikh than Hindu (compared to the rest of India). It's so sad to see politicians stoking the flames of violence for no good reason. I wonder how different Punjab's fate is compared to the other states.

Punjab actually had the worst luck or whatever after Kashmir. From the 1970s onwards, it suffered from both terrorism as well as drugs although I think the roots of both go way back to the partition. IIRC, both Punjab and Bengal suffered the worst from Partition. It wouldn't be far of a jump to use that pain, fear of the Punjabis, and use it for terror as well as drugs. The Bindrawale episode was also complex and it could have been handled diplomatically and state intelligence faltered for a long time.

The net result of all the above is that the state has the worst finances and Punjab which used to have some of the best machining products at one point in time has fallen of the map. I do know they are doing a bit in hosiery or whatever but nothing to scale what it was before. Farming is the only real occupation that is keeping Punjab on the map.

And now you have bhagwat mann, who is himself an alcoholic, as the state's chief minister AAP even made Delhi alcoholic

Yup totally agree, Even farming is going down, The 90's were the best time for Punjab unfortunately. The terrorism was quite bad in the 1970's (my family is from Amritsar which was the hot spot for all of it). In terms of partition our entire ethnic group and homeland was split up into 2 (and then later 3) groups with animosity towards each other. Looking at the state of India nowadays I wonder if splitting Punjab was even worth it (nothing against the people of the rest of India at all).

IceCream wrote:

pune wrote:

IceCream wrote:

Agreed. I'm from Punjab so the situation here is a little different but still shocking. The religious divide is especially stupid here because historically Punjabi Hindus are more Sikh than Hindu (compared to the rest of India). It's so sad to see politicians stoking the flames of violence for no good reason. I wonder how different Punjab's fate is compared to the other states.

Punjab actually had the worst luck or whatever after Kashmir. From the 1970s onwards, it suffered from both terrorism as well as drugs although I think the roots of both go way back to the partition. IIRC, both Punjab and Bengal suffered the worst from Partition. It wouldn't be far of a jump to use that pain, fear of the Punjabis, and use it for terror as well as drugs. The Bindrawale episode was also complex and it could have been handled diplomatically and state intelligence faltered for a long time.

The net result of all the above is that the state has the worst finances and Punjab which used to have some of the best machining products at one point in time has fallen of the map. I do know they are doing a bit in hosiery or whatever but nothing to scale what it was before. Farming is the only real occupation that is keeping Punjab on the map.

And now you have bhagwat mann, who is himself an alcoholic, as the state's chief minister AAP even made Delhi alcoholic

Yup totally agree, Even farming is going down, The 90's were the best time for Punjab unfortunately. Terrorism was quite bad in the 1970s (my family is from Amritsar which was the hot spot for all of it). In terms of partition, our entire ethnic group and homeland were split up into 2 (and then later 3) groups with animosity towards each other. Looking at the state of India nowadays I wonder if splitting Punjab was even worth it (nothing against the people of the rest of India at all).

That has to be blamed on the UK. There was an effort from the UK side to stroke religious identities and use the hate for fueling a nation-state. Gurvinder Chadha in the memoir 'The Last Viceroy' shares how the idea of the partition and the practicalities of the partition were taken in the 1920's alone. The above from the UK declassified files of a few years above which she cited in the closing credits. A nation wanting to cut competition, cuts a nation in half

pune wrote:

IceCream wrote:

pune wrote:

Punjab actually had the worst luck or whatever after Kashmir. From the 1970s onwards, it suffered from both terrorism as well as drugs although I think the roots of both go way back to the partition. IIRC, both Punjab and Bengal suffered the worst from Partition. It wouldn't be far of a jump to use that pain, fear of the Punjabis, and use it for terror as well as drugs. The Bindrawale episode was also complex and it could have been handled diplomatically and state intelligence faltered for a long time.

The net result of all the above is that the state has the worst finances and Punjab which used to have some of the best machining products at one point in time has fallen of the map. I do know they are doing a bit in hosiery or whatever but nothing to scale what it was before. Farming is the only real occupation that is keeping Punjab on the map.

And now you have bhagwat mann, who is himself an alcoholic, as the state's chief minister AAP even made Delhi alcoholic

Yup totally agree, Even farming is going down, The 90's were the best time for Punjab unfortunately. Terrorism was quite bad in the 1970s (my family is from Amritsar which was the hot spot for all of it). In terms of partition, our entire ethnic group and homeland were split up into 2 (and then later 3) groups with animosity towards each other. Looking at the state of India nowadays I wonder if splitting Punjab was even worth it (nothing against the people of the rest of India at all).

That has to be blamed on the UK. There was an effort from the UK side to stroke religious identities and use the hate for fueling a nation-state. Gurvinder Chadha in the memoir 'The Last Viceroy' shares how the idea of the partition and the practicalities of the partition were taken in the 1920's alone. The above from the UK declassified files of a few years above which she cited in the closing credits. A nation wanting to cut competition, cuts a nation in half

In 1945, the UK had a new Prime Minister who had believed in Indian independence for 20 years, Mountbatten had an impossible task, given the instransigence of the two major players on the Indian side. You wanted independence, talks were even going on during the war despite everything, much to Churchill’s annoyance though even he did not try to stop them
Besides, it’s been 75 years since independence so however blaming the British is a useful get out for domestic policy failures, it’s getting a bit pathetic now. The 1920’s a whole century ago.

Then Nehru managed to bemuse, then piss off what should have been a natural ally, the US. They liked a democratic new nation, then they met Nehru who was also Minister For External Affairs, on his visit to the US in 1949 he spent a lot of time lecturing the US, was described as ‘vain, snobbish, sensitive, complicated who for an agnostic talked endlessly about sprituality’.
But the dastardly Brits did persuade at least for the first few years, the US to put an arms embargo on Pakistan, that would not last of course.

GDB wrote:

pune wrote:

IceCream wrote:

Yup totally agree, Even farming is going down, The 90's were the best time for Punjab unfortunately. Terrorism was quite bad in the 1970s (my family is from Amritsar which was the hot spot for all of it). In terms of partition, our entire ethnic group and homeland were split up into 2 (and then later 3) groups with animosity towards each other. Looking at the state of India nowadays I wonder if splitting Punjab was even worth it (nothing against the people of the rest of India at all).

That has to be blamed on the UK. There was an effort from the UK side to stroke religious identities and use the hate for fueling a nation-state. Gurvinder Chadha in the memoir 'The Last Viceroy' shares how the idea of the partition and the practicalities of the partition were taken in the 1920's alone. The above from the UK declassified files of a few years above which she cited in the closing credits. A nation wanting to cut competition, cuts a nation in half

In 1945, the UK had a new Prime Minister who had believed in Indian independence for 20 years, Mountbatten had an impossible task, given the instransigence of the two major players on the Indian side. You wanted independence, talks were even going on during the war despite everything, much to Churchill’s annoyance though even he did not try to stop them
Besides, it’s been 75 years since independence so however blaming the British is a useful get out for domestic policy failures, it’s getting a bit pathetic now. The 1920’s a whole century ago.

Then Nehru managed to bemuse, then piss off what should have been a natural ally, the US. They liked a democratic new nation, then they met Nehru who was also Minister For External Affairs, on his visit to the US in 1949 he spent a lot of time lecturing the US, was described as ‘vain, snobbish, sensitive, complicated who for an agnostic talked endlessly about spirituality.
But the dastardly Brits did persuade at least for the first few years, the US to put an arms embargo on Pakistan, that would not last of course.

I say part of it. Have you seen Viceroy's House. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4977530/ also check the citations. Mountbatten was manipulated plain and simple.

Many people haven't seen it. They thought that Partition would be violent less affair. Many were shocked when they saw Viceroy's House, especially from the UK. Also, read up on https://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-Relentle ... 1635573955 where UK apologist Mr. Damryple seeks to put all the blame on the East India Company as a rogue company and the UK Govt. which profited as not having known what was happening. There are also memoirs of the first Punjab Commissioner of Police of independent India and he has shared how the communal violence raged throughout the 1950s, 1960s to 1970s.

Both in Viceroy's House as well as the book mentioned above, it is clearly shared that the Partition was done so that India could never be its competition. Although history had its last laugh when the UK empire set and now of course we see altogether foolish moves by the English of their own making.

pune wrote:

GDB wrote:

pune wrote:

That has to be blamed on the UK. There was an effort from the UK side to stroke religious identities and use the hate for fueling a nation-state. Gurvinder Chadha in the memoir 'The Last Viceroy' shares how the idea of the partition and the practicalities of the partition were taken in the 1920's alone. The above from the UK declassified files of a few years above which she cited in the closing credits. A nation wanting to cut competition, cuts a nation in half

In 1945, the UK had a new Prime Minister who had believed in Indian independence for 20 years, Mountbatten had an impossible task, given the instransigence of the two major players on the Indian side. You wanted independence, talks were even going on during the war despite everything, much to Churchill’s annoyance though even he did not try to stop them
Besides, it’s been 75 years since independence so however blaming the British is a useful get out for domestic policy failures, it’s getting a bit pathetic now. The 1920’s a whole century ago.

Then Nehru managed to bemuse, then piss off what should have been a natural ally, the US. They liked a democratic new nation, then they met Nehru who was also Minister For External Affairs, on his visit to the US in 1949 he spent a lot of time lecturing the US, was described as ‘vain, snobbish, sensitive, complicated who for an agnostic talked endlessly about spirituality.
But the dastardly Brits did persuade at least for the first few years, the US to put an arms embargo on Pakistan, that would not last of course.

I say part of it. Have you seen Viceroy's House. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4977530/ also check the citations. Mountbatten was manipulated plain and simple.

Many people haven't seen it. They thought that Partition would be violent less affair. Many were shocked when they saw Viceroy's House, especially from the UK. Also, read up on https://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-Relentle ... 1635573955 where UK apologist Mr. Damryple seeks to put all the blame on the East India Company as a rogue company and the UK Govt. which profited as not having known what was happening. There are also memoirs of the first Punjab Commissioner of Police of independent India and he has shared how the communal violence raged throughout the 1950s, 1960s to 1970s.

Both in Viceroy's House as well as the book mentioned above, it is clearly shared that the Partition was done so that India could never be its competition. Although history had its last laugh when the UK empire set and now of course we see altogether foolish moves by the English of their own making.

A film was made, not seen it, about partition by a director whose parents came from India, she herself was born and brought up in Southall, West London, near to me.
Whatever the quality of the film and she has a body of well received work, this one by being even handed really pissed off the 'everything is still the Brits fault 75 years on' bunch.

Meanwhile, the real reason Modi is so chummy with Putin is that they are kindred sprits;
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... timidation

'World's largest democracy', not for much longer if Modi and his minions hold power which they are seeking to make absolute.

I don't like the current UK government, Modi however and all his actions are on the Indian voters, no one else, however much increasingly ancient history you try and dig up.
Communal violence, who is actually doing it?

Interesting discussion here. All are very good points. The violence that lasted for decades was certainly very shameful. I would hope contemporary Indian government officials can put this in the past

GDB wrote:

pune wrote:

GDB wrote:

In 1945, the UK had a new Prime Minister who had believed in Indian independence for 20 years, Mountbatten had an impossible task, given the instransigence of the two major players on the Indian side. You wanted independence, talks were even going on during the war despite everything, much to Churchill’s annoyance though even he did not try to stop them
Besides, it’s been 75 years since independence so however blaming the British is a useful get out for domestic policy failures, it’s getting a bit pathetic now. The 1920’s a whole century ago.

Then Nehru managed to bemuse, then piss off what should have been a natural ally, the US. They liked a democratic new nation, then they met Nehru who was also Minister For External Affairs, on his visit to the US in 1949 he spent a lot of time lecturing the US, was described as ‘vain, snobbish, sensitive, complicated who for an agnostic talked endlessly about spirituality.
But the dastardly Brits did persuade at least for the first few years, the US to put an arms embargo on Pakistan, that would not last of course.

I say part of it. Have you seen Viceroy's House. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4977530/ also check the citations. Mountbatten was manipulated plain and simple.

Many people haven't seen it. They thought that Partition would be violent less affair. Many were shocked when they saw Viceroy's House, especially from the UK. Also, read up on https://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-Relentle ... 1635573955 where UK apologist Mr. Damryple seeks to put all the blame on the East India Company as a rogue company and the UK Govt. which profited as not having known what was happening. There are also memoirs of the first Punjab Commissioner of Police of independent India and he has shared how the communal violence raged throughout the 1950s, 1960s to 1970s.

Both in Viceroy's House as well as the book mentioned above, it is clearly shared that the Partition was done so that India could never be its competition. Although history had its last laugh when the UK empire set and now of course we see altogether foolish moves by the English of their own making.

A film was made, not seen it, about partition by a director whose parents came from India, she herself was born and brought up in Southall, West London, near to me.
Whatever the quality of the film and she has a body of well received work, this one by being even handed really pissed off the 'everything is still the Brits fault 75 years on' bunch.

Meanwhile, the real reason Modi is so chummy with Putin is that they are kindred sprits;
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... timidation

'World's largest democracy', not for much longer if Modi and his minions hold power which they are seeking to make absolute.

I don't like the current UK government, Modi however and all his actions are on the Indian voters, no one else, however much increasingly ancient history you try and dig up.
Communal violence, who is actually doing it?

What you are saying isn't new or isn't the truth. If you actually go and look into the history of the BJP, they never took part in the independence movement. In fact, they actually helped the British. Even after India gained independence and even today, they do not recognize the Indian tricolor but their own flag. And somehow they are supposed to be 'a nationalistic party' but this is happening now, what I shared is what has been part of history. That is the reason we need to not only see 'movies' but also see the citations and read the books cited.

Just as an aside - I am halfway through 'For the sake of all living things' - John Del Vecchio where the author tries to lay all the blame on Norodon Sinhounak where 6 million people died. From the book, it would feel like the Americans were doing a 'favor' by doing the B-52 bombings. This again happened in Asia.

Another author Arthur Moore writes -

"If genocide is to be prevented in the future, we must understand how it happened in the past, not only in terms of the killers and the killed but also of the bystanders - 'While six million died' .

If you look at history of BJP/RSS they had always been chummy with dictators. Nothing new you are telling me.

IceCream wrote:

Interesting discussion here. All are very good points. The violence that lasted for decades was certainly very shameful. I would hope contemporary Indian government officials can put this in the past

The bureaucracy's job is to make a legal cover for any policy decision taken by the executive. They can abuse it and do abuse it with the help of the executive and the donors of the executive/ruling party. And this is not just in India, see the UK, see the U.S.A., although, of the three IIRC, individual states have more power than the Central Govt. Part of it might be due to the civil war that the U.S. faced, I'm not so familiar with U.S. history but do know that the federal Govt. is limited to the laws it can make which would interfere with individual states.

GDB wrote:

pune wrote:

IceCream wrote:

Yup totally agree, Even farming is going down, The 90's were the best time for Punjab unfortunately. Terrorism was quite bad in the 1970s (my family is from Amritsar which was the hot spot for all of it). In terms of partition, our entire ethnic group and homeland were split up into 2 (and then later 3) groups with animosity towards each other. Looking at the state of India nowadays I wonder if splitting Punjab was even worth it (nothing against the people of the rest of India at all).

That has to be blamed on the UK. There was an effort from the UK side to stroke religious identities and use the hate for fueling a nation-state. Gurvinder Chadha in the memoir 'The Last Viceroy' shares how the idea of the partition and the practicalities of the partition were taken in the 1920's alone. The above from the UK declassified files of a few years above which she cited in the closing credits. A nation wanting to cut competition, cuts a nation in half

In 1945, the UK had a new Prime Minister who had believed in Indian independence for 20 years, Mountbatten had an impossible task, given the instransigence of the two major players on the Indian side. You wanted independence, talks were even going on during the war despite everything, much to Churchill’s annoyance though even he did not try to stop them
Besides, it’s been 75 years since independence so however blaming the British is a useful get out for domestic policy failures, it’s getting a bit pathetic now. The 1920’s a whole century ago.

Then Nehru managed to bemuse, then piss off what should have been a natural ally, the US. They liked a democratic new nation, then they met Nehru who was also Minister For External Affairs, on his visit to the US in 1949 he spent a lot of time lecturing the US, was described as ‘vain, snobbish, sensitive, complicated who for an agnostic talked endlessly about spirituality.'
But the dastardly Brits did persuade at least for the first few years, the US to put an arms embargo on Pakistan, that would not last of course.

Spirituality has been something that India got blessed with, a long time ago. And any PM or a constitutional head would want to talk from a point of strength. There is a reason that Buddhism spread in India and Asia and not so much in the west.

As far as India and the U.S. is concerned, there was mutual distrust from both sides. Hawks of both sides were against the other. In fact, if you look at history, both in the popular cinema or elsewhere, the U.S. tried to justify its friendship with both Pakistan and Afghanistan. And later, it paid a price for that 'friendship' via terror attacks against it.

pune wrote:

Spirituality has been something that India got blessed with, a long time ago. And any PM or a constitutional head would want to talk from a point of strength. There is a reason that Buddhism spread in India and Asia and not so much in the west.

You write that as if Buddhism is on the rise and that those who practise it somehow have a freedom that others don't.

From: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/05/5-facts-about-buddhists-around-the-world/#:~:text=Most%20of%20the%20rest%20of,of%20both%20identity%20and%20practice.

Buddhists made up roughly 7% of the world’s population in 2015, but they are expected to decrease to roughly 5% by 2060

Half the world’s Buddhists live in China,

Scholars generally agree that Siddhartha Gautama was born in what would today be Nepal and taught in what would today be India, but Buddhism is a minority faith in both countries.

pune wrote:

GDB wrote:

pune wrote:

That has to be blamed on the UK. There was an effort from the UK side to stroke religious identities and use the hate for fueling a nation-state. Gurvinder Chadha in the memoir 'The Last Viceroy' shares how the idea of the partition and the practicalities of the partition were taken in the 1920's alone. The above from the UK declassified files of a few years above which she cited in the closing credits. A nation wanting to cut competition, cuts a nation in half

In 1945, the UK had a new Prime Minister who had believed in Indian independence for 20 years, Mountbatten had an impossible task, given the instransigence of the two major players on the Indian side. You wanted independence, talks were even going on during the war despite everything, much to Churchill’s annoyance though even he did not try to stop them
Besides, it’s been 75 years since independence so however blaming the British is a useful get out for domestic policy failures, it’s getting a bit pathetic now. The 1920’s a whole century ago.

Then Nehru managed to bemuse, then piss off what should have been a natural ally, the US. They liked a democratic new nation, then they met Nehru who was also Minister For External Affairs, on his visit to the US in 1949 he spent a lot of time lecturing the US, was described as ‘vain, snobbish, sensitive, complicated who for an agnostic talked endlessly about spirituality.'
But the dastardly Brits did persuade at least for the first few years, the US to put an arms embargo on Pakistan, that would not last of course.

Spirituality has been something that India got blessed with, a long time ago. And any PM or a constitutional head would want to talk from a point of strength. There is a reason that Buddhism spread in India and Asia and not so much in the west.

As far as India and the U.S. is concerned, there was mutual distrust from both sides. Hawks of both sides were against the other. In fact, if you look at history, both in the popular cinema or elsewhere, the U.S. tried to justify its friendship with both Pakistan and Afghanistan. And later, it paid a price for that 'friendship' via terror attacks against it.

I agree that backing the far from democratic Pakistan has been a strategic mistake by the US, in particular from the 1980’s. We know why, the old trick, used even in the Caribbean with the monsterous madman ‘Papa Doc’ Duvalier, just shout ‘the reds are coming’ to get money. A very absurd idea in that case.
Then with Pakistan the conduit to supply those fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, never mind the Madrassa/Islamist Industrial Education Complex they built, the biggest ever flogger to dodgy regimes of nuclear techology being the head of the Pakistan program. North Korea have a lot to thank him for.

So in recent years the US had pivoted to India, we know how much US equipment India now uses, the industrial offsets in India.
But even before Ukraine, Modi’s aggressive Hindu sectarian policies, clampdown on India’s institutions and freedom of speech, the BJP having links with some very nasty groups, trying to have it both ways with Russia, whose leader we should remember has recently made nuclear threats and has used chemical weapons, not least in a British city where it was a miracle only one person died.

You know what they say about standing in the middle of the road? You get run over by both sides.
Besides, want to be an outlier with of all nations, China?

Virtual737 wrote:

pune wrote:

Spirituality has been something that India got blessed with, a long time ago. And any PM or a constitutional head would want to talk from a point of strength. There is a reason that Buddhism spread in India and Asia and not so much in the west.

You write that as if Buddhism is on the rise and that those who practise it somehow have a freedom that others don't.

From: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/05/5-facts-about-buddhists-around-the-world/#:~:text=Most%20of%20the%20rest%20of,of%20both%20identity%20and%20practice.

Buddhists made up roughly 7% of the world’s population in 2015, but they are expected to decrease to roughly 5% by 2060

Half the world’s Buddhists live in China,

Scholars generally agree that Siddhartha Gautama was born in what would today be Nepal and taught in what would today be India, but Buddhism is a minority faith in both countries.

You are missing a lot of historical contexts, a lot of it in a number of ways. First of all, I said when it started. Even today, the lower castes and tribals gravitate towards Buddhism but sadly that is not captured by the census. When Buddhism became prominent in India, the old Brahmanical structure based on the division of people into four castes rebelled while Buddhism is based more on equality. They literally killed both the preachers and the practitioners of the faith. The Brahmin has no issue with violence while Buddhism's core concept is non-violence. And not just in India but the whole of South-East Asia. For e.g. see this -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_B ... ter_Buddha)

GDB wrote:

pune wrote:

GDB wrote:

In 1945, the UK had a new Prime Minister who had believed in Indian independence for 20 years, Mountbatten had an impossible task, given the instransigence of the two major players on the Indian side. You wanted independence, talks were even going on during the war despite everything, much to Churchill’s annoyance though even he did not try to stop them
Besides, it’s been 75 years since independence so however blaming the British is a useful get out for domestic policy failures, it’s getting a bit pathetic now. The 1920’s a whole century ago.

Then Nehru managed to bemuse, then piss off what should have been a natural ally, the US. They liked a democratic new nation, then they met Nehru who was also Minister For External Affairs, on his visit to the US in 1949 he spent a lot of time lecturing the US, was described as ‘vain, snobbish, sensitive, complicated who for an agnostic talked endlessly about spirituality.'
But the dastardly Brits did persuade at least for the first few years, the US to put an arms embargo on Pakistan, that would not last of course.

Spirituality has been something that India got blessed with, a long time ago. And any PM or a constitutional head would want to talk from a point of strength. There is a reason that Buddhism spread in India and Asia and not so much in the west.

As far as India and the U.S. is concerned, there was mutual distrust from both sides. Hawks of both sides were against the other. In fact, if you look at history, both in the popular cinema or elsewhere, the U.S. tried to justify its friendship with both Pakistan and Afghanistan. And later, it paid a price for that 'friendship' via terror attacks against it.

I agree that backing far from democratic Pakistan has been a strategic mistake by the US, in particular from the 1980s. We know why, the old trick, used even in the Caribbean with the monstrous madman ‘Papa Doc’ Duvalier, just shout ‘the reds are coming’ to get money. A very absurd idea in that case.
Then with Pakistan the conduit to supply those fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, never mind the Madrassa/Islamist Industrial Education Complex they built, the biggest ever flogger to dodgy regimes of nuclear technology being the head of the Pakistan program. North Korea has a lot to thank him for.

So in recent years, the US had pivoted to India, we know how much US equipment India now uses, the industrial offsets in India.
But even before Ukraine, Modi’s aggressive Hindu sectarian policies, clampdown on India’s institutions and freedom of speech, the BJP having links with some very nasty groups, trying to have it both ways with Russia, whose leader we should remember has recently made nuclear threats and has used chemical weapons, not least in a British city where it was a miracle only one person died.

Do you know what they say about standing in the middle of the road? You get run over by both sides.
Besides, want to be an outlier with all nations, China?

Actually, the history between the U.S. and Pakistan doesn't start in the 1980s but is more of a culmination of things. Their relationship started from independence itself -

https://www.usaid.gov/pakistan/history

The idea was to control India as India was seen as close to Russia. Even though we had different languages, culturally we felt closer to each other. And I have met Russians, the few I have met have the same fatalistic attitude as majority of Indians, what will be, will be. Perhaps that's also the reason why Russia always had strongmen as leaders and no democracy to speak of. But that probably is OT to this thread.