Why isn't this movie famous?
-
Harrysalt — 15 years ago(July 08, 2010 03:29 AM)
One that WASN'T written by a biased Indian! Stanley Wolpert.
My favourite quote from his book
"
Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. Mohammad Ali Jinnah did all the three.- Stanley Wolpert -
shanx24 — 15 years ago(August 23, 2010 07:54 AM)
It is good to read accounts of history from people other than from one's own nation, but these are facts that Mr. Wolpert himself would find himself hard pressed to disprove:
- Pakistan is quite steeped with Indian history. Ever bothered to find the origin of names of Lahore (Lavapuri), Peshawar (Purushapura), Taxila (Takshashila) etc?
- The civilization of Indus - in Harappa and Mohenjadaro is as far from Islam as possible. Among its many gods - Pashupathi is still worshipped in India as Shiva, and its script and people have been connected with the Dravidian people of South India. Islam came from the Mughals, who, as you know, came towards Indus during the 11th century BC with Babur and his ancestors. They were frm what is now closer to the middle east. That's why there are similarities in the features of the people to this date.
- Regarding Hindu population, here is history: 7.2 million Hindus migrated from Pakistan to India - 1.4 million of whom were Sindhis. Hindu population in Pakistan was well more than 10% - with major concentration in Sindh.
- The king of Peshawar (Purushapura) who fought the famous battle with Alexander was a Hindu (Porus/Purushothaman).
As the partition of Bengal showed, the two nation theory was a failure. Bangladesh and India have as many muslims and in as good condition as Pakistan. So, what did the separate state get you?
We gave you the fertile, well-irrigated lands of Punjab and Bengal, the mighty waters of Indus, business prowess of Sindh and the prosperous cities of Karachi and Lahore. What did Pakistan do with them?
-
la-31 — 15 years ago(August 29, 2010 03:19 PM)
The shared history of the "Indian Subcontinent" (a term I will use because I am referring to the geographic area, and not because I agree with its political ramifications) should not be confused with the political entity that resulted from independence in 1947. Most certainly, the modern state of Pakistan has a rich and ancient heritage comprised of Buddhist, ancient Greek, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Sikh and Muslim history and contributions. I believe that Pakistan should treasure and showcase this diversity, in both the present and in its history. However, simply because various conquerers (including the British) were able to rule as "emperors" over such diverse regions does not mean that the entire region should have been forced to become one country at independence. The British never came upon one single united country, and it's a great fallacy to assume that the entire region from the extremely artificial Durand line to Burma should have been one. To do so would have been to continue with the legacy of British colonialism. A united "India" was able to function (relatively) well with its diversity when it was minorities ruling, ie, the Mughals and the British. As soon as the elite class of representatives of the majority religion (ie, Brahmin Hindus) wrested control at independence, well, we know what life has been like for the outcasts (ie, Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, Muslims, and lower caste Hindus, who actually comprise a majority)
Modern India, a very artificial entity, has its own separatist issues (historically in Punjab, and in the south, and east) which it has yet to resolve.
As for what India has done since independence, it has created a multitude of Indias. It has aspired to create a "first world" country, while the majority of its citizens lack the most basic of necessities, such as access to clean water, shelter, etc. These are difficult problems which are not unique to India and Pakistan. It's better to work together rather than sniping about something that happened 60 years ago. -
singh-ifs — 15 years ago(November 24, 2010 07:34 AM)
Ha ha
You Pakistanis are really something and spin propaganda like nobody.
India's Defence Minister is a Christian. India's Vice President is a Muslim . India's Prime Minister is a Sikh. The leader of biggest Indian State is an "untouchable" lady.
So India has carried along all the minorities in her development.
As for India being a Artificial nation, that is just more laughable. India is a civilizational state with a history of 5000 years, only other country that comes close is China. Unfortunately 800 years of foreign interference divided the people. India has been reconciling these differences over the last 62 years of indepenance. In another 50 years all of them will be resolved. After all it took US 150 yrs to "tame" the West ! -
la-31 — 15 years ago(November 26, 2010 09:52 AM)
Actually Indian propaganda pervades the West in its "largest democracy" b-s ad nauseum.
We know what life is like for the poverty-stricken masses, and God forbid if they happen to be of a minority faith. Prior to 1947, Modern India never existed as a unified state under any non-British and non-Muslim ruler, with the possible exception of Ashoka the Great, who promptly converted to Buddhism from Hinduism. -
la-31 — 14 years ago(November 27, 2011 10:20 PM)
LOL. Wealth doesn't make democracy. However, military occupation similar to Tibet and gross human rights violations, along with the collusion of "democratically elected leaders" in those gross human rights violations might just raise a question about the world's "largest democracy." (C)
-
walidb123 — 14 years ago(November 02, 2011 07:22 AM)
Of all channels, I'm watching it now on movies4men2. Don't ask why but I accidentally stumbled on it and am taping it too because it's harder to find the DVD of Jinnah than class A drugs. What a strange world