India as a future super power? 🇮🇳

[Professor Emeritus]

You’re referring to the state based system. Not national


I’ve never helped any Indians. I have contributed to helping thousands of black ppl worldwide tho. Not as much as I used to do as a youngin tho.

Well, I've helped hundred of poor Indians access hospital services. And not a single one had "government healthcare" that could pay for them to go to a private hospital. Every single one either went to a government hospital or paid out of pocket. So stop talking out of your ass on a subject you know nothing about.

I'm not listening to one more word you have to say about Indian healthcare spending until you provide a link with a trusted source specifically stating that American per capita healthcare spending and Indian per capita healthcare spending would be basically comparable, if only the Indians counted everything.

Never said this.

Breh, that's the basis of your ENTIRE deflection about Indian healthcare expenditure supposedly not counting as much as American healthcare expenditure (a claim you STILL have not linked anyone with legit authority actually saying). If you agree that they're incomparable, then why the fukk did you start the conversation by comparing them?

If Indian healthcare spending isn't comparable to American healthcare spending, then problems in the Indian system have no relation to problems with the American system. Which EVERYONE with a functioning brain already knows.

* That India's position as a pharma exporter somehow has relevance to their in-country healthcare expenditures.

We include pharma exports in ours.

No we don't.


Pharma exports are PROFITS for the country, not expenditures, so even if we did count them (which we don't), it would have the opposite effect.

* That less than 25% of the people receiving healthcare were counted in those Indian figures

Dk what this means

Well you're the one that made the claim, and it was a blatant lie:

And $58 number is stupid low bc you’re lazy in your analysis

Nha numbers are like Medicaid numbers. It’s less than 25% of all ppl receiving healthcare services.

You just straight made that up

* That England didn't treat sickle cell cases until 2022

They don’t. The top treatment to cure sickle cell treatment is through stem cells.

Their approval numbers are abysmal. So rich black ppl come to America

You're wildly moving the goalposts now. Let me repeat, by the sources I already cited for you, sickle cell patients in the UK have a far better chance of reaching adulthood than patients in the UK, and a longer life expectancy. They DO treat sickle cell, and they apparently treat it better than Americans do.

And stem cell treatment is rarely done in the USA either. Less than 1% of sickle cell suffers have undergone a transplant.

Stem cell transplantation in sickle cell disease: therapeutic potential and challenges faced

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is the most common inherited hemoglobinopathy worldwide, and is a life limiting disease with limited therapeutic options to reduce disease severity. Despite being a monogenic disorder, the clinical phenotypes of SCD are variable, ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

One drug until 2022.

We’ve had 10 drugs approved and multiple surgery processes from 1970-2022.

10x+ advantage

I don't trust that stat from you either, since before you claimed it was zero before 2022.

And unless your sole goal is pharma profits, "# of drugs approved" is a meaningless statistic. Who cares if the drug is approved, if the drug doesn't work? A corporate makes a bunch of money, patients get a bunch of side effects, and no one gets any better than they would have with a placebo? What good is that?

Show me where Americans suffering from sickle cell have better OUTCOMES than Brits with sickle cell. Cause I've already proven it's the opposite.

The UK doesn’t test for sickle cell like the US. We made it a requirement to test adults with symptoms (which took years!) and are working our way down to kids.

Just got the ncaa to be required to do it. New NCAA Requirements for Sickle Cell Testing - York College Athletics

Breh, even if that's true (and I don't trust anything you say), that would make the UK survival rates WORSE, not better. When you don't test for something, then you pick up a highest % of the worst cases and a lower % of the easier cases, so your survival rates and life expectancies end up lower. You're killing yourself here.

* You claimed that UK caps social care costs at $75k and then forces the patient to pay everything after that, when it was the complete opposite - they actually cover everything for the patient after $75k in lifetime costs.New NCAA Requirements for Sickle Cell Testing - York College Athletics

Not true

I already linked the proof breh. You made up your claim.

* That Indian health care expenditure figures didn't include private hospitalsNew NCAA Requirements for Sickle Cell Testing - York College Athletics

Never said this. Post it. A made up lie

You said:

And $58 number is stupid low bc you’re lazy in your analysis

Nha numbers are like Medicaid numbers. It’s less than 25% of all ppl receiving healthcare services.

Who were the imaginary 75% of people not included in that figure? The figures I cited were for TOTAL healthcare expenditures for everyone, you lied in claiming it was for less than 25%.

Your claim was completely fabricated.

 

[Imback]

Well, I've helped hundred of poor Indians access hospital services. And not a single one had "government healthcare" that could pay for them to go to a private hospital. Every single one either went to a government hospital or paid out of pocket. So stop talking out of your ass on a subject you know nothing about.

Good for you. How’d you do that?

Breh, that's the basis of your ENTIRE deflection about Indian healthcare expenditure supposedly not counting as much as American healthcare expenditure (a claim you STILL have not linked anyone with legit authority actually saying). If you agree that they're incomparable, then why the fukk did you start the conversation by comparing them?

If Indian healthcare spending isn't comparable to American healthcare spending, then problems in the Indian system have no relation to problems with the American system. Which EVERYONE with a functioning brain already knows.

I disagree everyone doesn’t know that. I disagree that hospitals should be government owned. They’ve already failed and that’s why private hospitals exists.

You’re advocating for m4all. Which is hospital ownership.

Are you saying you don’t want the government to run hospitals too?

No we don't.


Pharma exports are PROFITS for the country, not expenditures, so even if we did count them (which we don't), it would have the opposite effect.

Interesting so pharma development costs and export costs aren’t included in our healthcare expenditures.

You hate our healthcare system while simultaneously defending that they wouldn’t include their costs to be compensated for their costs from the government

This is America.


Were you under the impression pharma companies export life saving drugs to third world countries out of the goodness of their hearts

Let me help you fill in the blanks: United States to Provide $2 Billion in Humanitarian Assistance for the People of Africa | Press Release | U.S. Agency for International Development

Most of the United States humanitarian efforts in Africa and other third world countries healthcare based and us government pays for


United States to Provide $2 Billion in Humanitarian Assistance for the People of Africa | Press Release | U.S. Agency for International Development


This nikka realy said pharma exports aren’t captured In US healthcare expenditures

It’s a multi billion dollar industry that we pay for.

Well you're the one that made the claim, and it was a blatant lie:



You just straight made that up








You're wildly moving the goalposts now. Let me repeat, by the sources I already cited for you, sickle cell patients in the UK have a far better chance of reaching adulthood than patients in the UK, and a longer life expectancy. They DO treat sickle cell, and they apparently treat it better than Americans do.

And stem cell treatment is rarely done in the USA either. Less than 1% of sickle cell suffers have undergone a transplant.

Stem cell transplantation in sickle cell disease: therapeutic potential and challenges faced

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is the most common inherited hemoglobinopathy worldwide, and is a life limiting disease with limited therapeutic options to reduce disease severity. Despite being a monogenic disorder, the clinical phenotypes of SCD are variable, ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Bc they don’t test for it for the entire black population if symptoms are presented

It’s easy to report low numbers if you refuse to test for it.

Donald trump Covid logic on full display


I’m damn proud we forced our government to require doctors to test for it.

Our “outcomes” our lower but way way way more ppl are being treated for it bc we actually test for it

 

[Professor Emeritus]

* That Indian health care expenditures only include what they pay doctors

I showed you. Were you under the impressions the pharmacy and medical imaging services aren’t apart of doctors compensation?

No, they're not, you're full of shyt. Pharmacies are NOT part of a doctor's compensation in India. Medical and Diagnostic laboratories are NOT part of doctor's compensation. Neither is therapeutic appliances and medical goods. Neither are patient transport and emergency rescue. Neither are Health system administration and financing.

I've literally paid for this shyt for patients before. You're talking straight out of your ass.

* That Indian health care expenditures don't include mental health services, pallative care, rehab, admin, etc....

It’s your lack of understanding

They don’t. Show me where they do.

All that shyt is taken care of INSIDE the exact same government hospitals. India doesn't have separate facilities for mental health, rehab, palliative care, etc. Those are just considered regular divisions of the medical system and included with everything else. When they do start a separate program (such as community-based mental health care), it is still administered by the same healthcare body and included in the same national numbers. You claiming "no it's not" without a single cited source is pure cap, just like all the other lies you've been caught in.

And the list I gave you at the beginning explicitly said admin was included.

You’re advocating for m4all. Which is hospital ownership.

Are you saying you don’t want the government to run hospitals too?

Indecipherable babble. I don't even like Medicare For All, I've just said that it would be better than the status quo. It's not hospital ownership. And I have no idea what your second sentence is supposed to mean.

Were you under the impression pharma companies export life saving drugs to third world countries out of the goodness of their hearts

Let me help you fill in the blanks: United States to Provide $2 Billion in Humanitarian Assistance for the People of Africa | Press Release | U.S. Agency for International Development

Most of the United States humanitarian efforts in Africa and other third world countries healthcare based and us government pays for


United States to Provide $2 Billion in Humanitarian Assistance for the People of Africa | Press Release | U.S. Agency for International Development


This nikka realy said pharma exports aren’t captured In US healthcare expenditures

What an incredible, lying deflection.

First off, you were citing India's leading pharma production, which is a FOR PROFIT enterprise. Donations are a tiny fraction of their work, so moving the goalposts from profitable exports to donated medicines is some bullshyt.

Second, international donations in the USA are counted as INTERNATIONAL AID, they're not counted as domestic healthcare expenditures. Once again, this is so dumb I can't tell if you're lying or just ignorant.

Bc they don’t test for it for the entire black population if symptoms are presented

It’s easy to report low numbers if you refuse to test for it.

But I didn't say they had low numbers, I said they had high survival rates. If you don't test for it, then you have LOWER survival rates, because only the sickest people end up in the system.

How the fukk do they have 99% of sickle cell patients surviving into adulthood if they're not even testing for it and, according to you, not even treating it? Where are those 99% coming from then? And why aren't the "few" relatively healthy people who get tested swamped out by the extremely sick, supposedly untreated people you claim exist, who would be dying at high rates in the UK if your narrative was remotely accurate?

You really have no fukking clue what you're talking about.

I’m damn proud we forced our government to require doctors to test for it.

Our “outcomes” our lower but way way way more ppl are being treated for it bc we actually test for it

Breh, the fact that our doctors are testing at birth should give us HIGHER survival rates, not lower. We're getting everyone, even the people who aren't showing symptoms, while (according to you), the UK system is only going to get the people who show obvious symptoms. If that were really true, then our system would look even worse, because we're producing much lower survival rates despite early detection and a healthier patient pool.

Of course, I don't really believe you, because everything else you claimed turned out to be false too.




Okay, I'm an idiot for even entertaining you this far. No one who has read to this point in the discussion will believe anything you have to say.

Anything you say without a link demonstrating EXACTLY what you are claiming, in clear quotes, and not just some wild reinterpretation, will almost certainly be a lie. Your track record is abysmal.

Good bye for real this time.

 

[Imback]

No, they're not, you're full of shyt. Pharmacies are NOT part of a doctor's compensation in India. Medical and Diagnostic laboratories are NOT part of doctor's compensation. Neither is therapeutic appliances and medical goods. Neither are patient transport and emergency rescue. Neither are Health system administration and financing.

I've literally paid for this shyt for patients before. You're talking straight out of your ass.

got it. It’s crazy how you’ll play the naive lil boy role when it suits you.

Doctors don’t take a cut of any of the services you just stated.

In America doctors didn’t get comped during the opioid epidemic. They have zero say in medical imaging process as a buyer or seller.

They also have zero financial interest in Laboratories.

In fact being the only individuals legally allowed to start these services, somehow someway they’re not compensated.


What’s it genuinely like for you to make up stats for one the most regulated industries in the world? Did you have any clue that none of these processes can work without doctors? Why are you presenting a fantasy world where they don’t run shyt for everything you presented?

All that shyt is taken care of INSIDE the exact same government hospitals. India doesn't have separate facilities for mental health, rehab, palliative care, etc. Those are just considered regular divisions of the medical system and included with everything else. When they do start a separate program (such as community-based mental health care), it is still administered by the same healthcare body and included in the same national numbers. You claiming "no it's not" without a single cited source is pure cap,

Like you making up how Europe treats the most common black concetrated health condition.

You made it up, then googled their analysis and then refused to respond to blatant support of white supremacy practices.


Are you going to respond now?

just like all the other lies you've been caught in.

And the list I gave you at the beginning explicitly said admin was included.

I read the admin and I added the clear differentiation from what you copy/pasted and what America spends money on.

They’re not the same. Idk why you don’t understand that.

Okay, I'm an idiot for even entertaining you this far. No one who has read to this point in the discussion will believe anything you have to say.

Anything you say without a link demonstrating EXACTLY what you are claiming, in clear quotes, and not just some wild reinterpretation, will almost certainly be a lie. Your track record is abysmal.

Good bye for real this time.

Cool.

So the guy who commits his life to Indian healthcare practices doesn’t want to speak to the guy who’s family dedicated their lives to black healthcare efforts.

I 100% expect that from you. You’re so white adjacent you shot talked the 2nd drug black ppl in Europe received in 40 years.

Insanity

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Nice trolling. You got me.

 

[mitter]

In reality, Indian Muslims have been one of the least violent oppressed populations on Earth. In India specifically the Naxalites, Sikhs, separatist movements, and high-caste Hindus have all committed far more terrorist attacks (especially in proportion to their #'s) than Indian Muslims have. If it weren't for Pakistani agents doing attacks on Indian soil, there would hardly even be an Islamic terrorism in the country at all.

What terrorist attacks have Sikhs committed?

Also, I definitely do not support right-wing Hindu nationalism. But it is worth noting that when India was divided along religious lines, Muslims virtually "cleansed" their territory of non-Muslims. The Muslim population of South Asia is not exactly known for being very tolerant either.

 

[mitter]

India is not naturally a nation. It is really more like a continent, like Europe. Since 1947, India has made various attempts at forging a national identity. People like Modi using Hindu nationalism as unifying force vs. the Muslim "other" is the latest attempt. Is it strong enough to conceal the very real problems in Indian society that cut across religious lines? I don't think so.

It is not dissimilar to what is going on in American politics, with politicians trying to use identity to cover up more fundamental issues.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Also, I definitely do not support right-wing Hindu nationalism. But it is worth noting that when India was divided along religious lines, Muslims virtually "cleansed" their territory of non-Muslims. The Muslim population of South Asia is not exactly known for being very tolerant either.

The old "whataboutism" tactic, where the oppression of disempowered people in one country is justified due to the oppression committed by completely different people in a different country. It should go without saying that Muslims who chose to go to Pakistan were a completely different group with different motivations than Muslims who chose to stay in India. If the Muslims who stayed in India wanted an ethnically cleansed country, wouldn't they have gone to one, rather than staying in a place where they were a 15% minority?

Also worth pointing out that Muslims had governed India for 600 years before the British arrived without ethnically cleansing Hindus.

Also worth pointing out that the desire for a seperate Muslim state was spurred by multiple incidents in the late 1800s and early 1900s that gave Muslims the impression they would be an oppressed class. The rise of Hindutva only increased their fears. Until the late 1930s, most Muslims backed Gandhi's Congress party and didn't even want a seperate Muslim state - it was only the lack of sensitivity to Muslims in the new independently governed districts and the rise in power of Hindu communalists that increased support of Jinnah's Muslim league. Also worth pointing out that Jinnah himself was a very Westernized, secular Muslim who didn't even begin pushing for a very religious vision for a Muslim homeland until well into the fight.

And finally, of course, it's worth pointing out that more Muslims (1.3 million) were killed or disappeared during Partition than Hindus (~0.8 million), playing no small part in the events afterwards. Since the Muslim population was already far smaller than the Hindu population, the % of Muslims directly impacted by partition violence was several times greater than the % of Hindus directly affected. And yet, the tens of millions of Muslims who stayed in India are the ones who chose to remain in their homes DESPITE such intense violence.

So yeah, I really don't see the justification of using "but Pakistan!" to minimize anti-Muslim oppression without all the other context and complexities too.

Partition of India - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Professor Emeritus]

What terrorist attacks have Sikhs committed?

lol, is this a serious question? Well, you know, besides assassinating one of the most famous Prime Ministers in Indian history, and then suicide bombing the Chief Minister of Punjab, they've compiled this list:

List of terrorist incidents in Punjab, India - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

(I tried to copy-paste the list, but it was so long that it would have taken too many comments to fit the entire thing.)

I'm not anti-Sikh at all, only a small % of Sikhs are responsible for all those terrorist attacks. But in terms of sheer numbers, numbers compared to their % of the population, and impact on India, the Sikh terrorism was much greater than any homegrown Muslim terrorism, which you virtually never hear about.


That's why I think it's so disingenuous to paint Muslims as terrorists or a threat to India, as the Hindutva supporters do. Muslims are by far India's largest minority group. But when you look at the actual headlines for who commits violence and terrorism, even right now today, it's almost always someone else. It's the still ongoing separatist movement in Punjab. It's ethnic violence / separatist movements in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Manipur, and Nagaland. It's Marxist insurgencies in Chhattisgarh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Odisha, and Andhra Pradesh. It's high-caste terrorism against untouchables throughout India, especially in the largest state of Uttar Pradesh, or "cow lynchings" or "anti Love Jihad" violence. When it is Muslims involved, most of the time it's Pakistani agents fighting in the ongoing hot/cold war between the countries, not even native Indian Muslims.

India has lost three major leaders to assassination in its history - Mohatma Gandhi, who was killed by a Hindu Nationalist, Indira Gandhi, who was killed by Sikhs, and Rajiv Gandhi, who was killed by the Hindu Tamil Tigers. None by a Muslim.


Hell, the current BJP government has terrorists in major positions. MP Pragya Thakur was responsible for the 2008 Malegaon bombings, and would be in prison right now if her BJP connections weren't protecting her. MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh has been accused of association with multiple terrorist acts, including being the main accused in the demolition of Babri Masjid. CM Yogi Adityanath, who was an extremist Hindu monk before becoming a politician, has been associated with numerous calls for violence including the demolition of Babri Masjid, the burning of the Mumbai-Gorakhpur Godan Express, and calls for the mass killing of Muslims and full-scale replacement of mosques with Hindu temples. And, of course, the current Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, was the leader of Gujarat during the massive anti-Muslim pogroms there and by all accounts allowed the violence, tacitly encouraged it, and protected the perpetrators (including many BJP politicians) after the fact.

 

[mitter]

lol, is this a serious question? Well, you know, besides assassinating one of the most famous Prime Ministers in Indian history, and then suicide bombing the Chief Minister of Punjab, they've compiled this list:

List of terrorist incidents in Punjab, India - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

(I tried to copy-paste the list, but it was so long that it would have taken too many comments to fit the entire thing.)

I'm not anti-Sikh at all, only a small % of Sikhs are responsible for all those terrorist attacks. But in terms of sheer numbers, numbers compared to their % of the population, and impact on India, the Sikh terrorism was much greater than any homegrown Muslim terrorism, which you virtually never hear about.


That's why I think it's so disingenuous to paint Muslims as terrorists or a threat to India, as the Hindutva supporters do. Muslims are by far India's largest minority group. But when you look at the actual headlines for who commits violence and terrorism, even right now today, it's almost always someone else. It's the still ongoing separatist movement in Punjab. It's ethnic violence / separatist movements in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Manipur, and Nagaland. It's Marxist insurgencies in Chhattisgarh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Odisha, and Andhra Pradesh. It's high-caste terrorism against untouchables throughout India, especially in the largest state of Uttar Pradesh, or "cow lynchings" or "anti Love Jihad" violence. When it is Muslims involved, most of the time it's Pakistani agents fighting in the ongoing hot/cold war between the countries, not even native Indian Muslims.

India has lost three major leaders to assassination in its history - Mohatma Gandhi, who was killed by a Hindu Nationalist, Indira Gandhi, who was killed by Sikhs, and Rajiv Gandhi, who was killed by the Hindu Tamil Tigers. None by a Muslim.



Pragya Thakur

Ironic that on the one hand you decry Hindu nationalism, and then you supply a list of alleged Sikh terrorist acts that is extremely distorted and is basically in line with the revisionist narrative of Hindu nationalists who control the press and history books in India.

Also, I wonder what your criteria is for classifying the assassination of a politician as a terrorist act.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Ironic that on the one hand you decry Hindu nationalism, and then you supply a list of alleged Sikh terrorist acts that is extremely distorted and is basically in line with the revisionist narrative of Hindu nationalists who control the press and history books in India.

Also, I wonder what your criteria is for classifying the assassination of a politician as a terrorist act.

The acts are largely cited, I'm not going to parse every one. But do you deny that there has been widespread violence associated with the Sikh separatist movement?

I consider assassination to be a terrorist attack when it is designed to intimidate a community or impact political behavior. The suicide bombing of the Punjab CM by Sikh militants, the assassination of Indira Gandhi by her own Sikh bodyguards, the suicide bombing of Rajiv Gandhi by Tamil extremists, and the shooting of Mohatma Gandhi by a Hindutva foot soldier were all attempts to impact India's larger political situation. They were all meant to send a clear, specific message to the rest of the country.

I don't consider assassination to be a terrorist act when it's the result of mental illness unconnected to political aims, personal beef, or other individual motivations.

 

[Imback]

The acts are largely cited, I'm not going to parse every one. But do you deny that there has been widespread violence associated with the Sikh separatist movement?

I consider assassination to be a terrorist attack when it is designed to intimidate a community or impact political behavior. The suicide bombing of the Punjab CM by Sikh militants, the assassination of Indira Gandhi by her own Sikh bodyguards, the suicide bombing of Rajiv Gandhi by Tamil extremists, and the shooting of Mohatma Gandhi by a Hindutva foot soldier were all attempts to impact India's larger political situation. They were all meant to send a clear, specific message to the rest of the country.

I don't consider assassination to be a terrorist act when it's the result of mental illness unconnected to political aims, personal beef, or other individual motivations.

You openly supported racist medical practices and downplayed the 2nd ever black centric treatment process in the uk.

Are you black

 

[mitter]

The old "whataboutism" tactic, where the oppression of disempowered people in one country is justified due to the oppression committed by completely different people in a different country. It should go without saying that Muslims who chose to go to Pakistan were a completely different group with different motivations than Muslims who chose to stay in India. If the Muslims who stayed in India wanted an ethnically cleansed country, wouldn't they have gone to one, rather than staying in a place where they were a 15% minority?

Also worth pointing out that Muslims had governed India for 600 years before the British arrived without ethnically cleansing Hindus.

Also worth pointing out that the desire for a seperate Muslim state was spurred by multiple incidents in the late 1800s and early 1900s that gave Muslims the impression they would be an oppressed class. The rise of Hindutva only increased their fears. Until the late 1930s, most Muslims backed Gandhi's Congress party and didn't even want a seperate Muslim state - it was only the lack of sensitivity to Muslims in the new independently governed districts and the rise in power of Hindu communalists that increased support of Jinnah's Muslim league. Also worth pointing out that Jinnah himself was a very Westernized, secular Muslim who didn't even begin pushing for a very religious vision for a Muslim homeland until well into the fight.

And finally, of course, it's worth pointing out that more Muslims (1.3 million) were killed or disappeared during Partition than Hindus (~0.8 million), playing no small part in the events afterwards. Since the Muslim population was already far smaller than the Hindu population, the % of Muslims directly impacted by partition violence was several times greater than the % of Hindus directly affected. And yet, the tens of millions of Muslims who stayed in India are the ones who chose to remain in their homes DESPITE such intense violence.

So yeah, I really don't see the justification of using "but Pakistan!" to minimize anti-Muslim oppression without all the other context and complexities too.

Partition of India - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Partition violence was mostly limited to areas where Muslims were already a sizable majority, so in terms of percentage of the population displaced/killed, non-Muslims were actually disproportionately affected.

Muslims were killed and/or displaced in the provinces that were partitioned: Punjab and Bengal. In the rest of India, Muslims were unaffected. Meanwhile, how did non-Muslims who attempted to stay behind in Pakistan (aside from Punjab and Bengal) fare?

By the way, you may want to examine the timeline of partition violence. It doesn't say much about Muslim tolerance of minorities.

Finally, for the most part, people didn't choose which country to live in based on whether or not they wanted to live in an ethnically cleansed country. The country that people ended up in mostly had to do with 1) which sides of the borders they were already living in, and 2) whether or not they were forced to leave by communal violence.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Partition violence was mostly limited to areas where Muslims were already a sizable majority, so in terms of percentage of the population displaced/killed, non-Muslims were actually disproportionately affected.

So a small minority of Hindus in Muslim-dominated regions killed/disappeared nearly twice as many Muslims as they lost themselves? That seems unlikely.

Muslims were killed and/or displaced in the provinces that were partitioned: Punjab and Bengal. In the rest of India, Muslims were unaffected. Meanwhile, how did non-Muslims who attempted to stay behind in Pakistan (aside from Punjab and Bengal) fare?

By the way, you may want to examine the timeline of partition violence. It doesn't say much about Muslim tolerance of minorities.

Finally, for the most part, people didn't choose which country to live in based on whether or not they wanted to live in an ethnically cleansed country. The country that people ended up in mostly had to do with 1) which sides of the borders they were already living in, and 2) whether or not they were forced to leave by communal violence.

"The bloody partition of India resulted in Old Delhi losing over two-thirds of its Muslim population. Laurent Gayer says that Delhi’s Muslim population shrank from 33.22 percent in 1941 to 5.71 percent in 1951 as many Muslim families migrated to Pakistan (2012, 217)."

"An estimated 642,000 [Gujarat] Muslims migrated to Pakistan, of which 75% went to Karachi largely due to business interests. The 1951 Census registered a drop of the Muslim population in the state from 13% in 1941 to 7% in 1951.[127]"

"With the exceptions of Jind and Kapurthala, the violence was well organised in the Sikh states, with logistics provided by the durbar.[136] In Patiala and Faridkot, the Maharajas responded to the call of Master Tara Singh to cleanse India of Muslims. The Maharaja of Patiala was offered the headship of a future united Sikh state that would rise from the "ashes of a Punjab civil war."[137] The Maharaja of Faridkot, Harinder Singh, is reported to have listened to stories of the massacres with great interest going so far as to ask for "juicy details" of the carnage.[138] The Maharaja of Bharatpur State personally witnessed the cleansing of Muslim Meos at Khumbar and Deeg. When reproached by Muslims for his actions, Brijendra Singh retorted by saying: "Why come to me? Go to Jinnah."[139]"

"Even after the 1951 Census, many Muslim families from India continued migrating to Pakistan throughout the 1950s and the early 1960s. According to historian Omar Khalidi, the Indian Muslim migration to West Pakistan between December 1947 and December 1971 was from Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala."

"Lawrence James observed that "Sir Francis Mudie, the governor of West Punjab, estimated that 500,000 Muslims died trying to enter his province, while the British High Commissioner in Karachi put the full total at 800,000. This makes nonsense of the claim by Mountbatten and his partisans that only 200,000 were killed": [James 1998: 636].[112]"

"During this period, many alleged that Sikh leader Tara Singh was endorsing the killing of Muslims. On 3 March 1947, at Lahore, Singh, along with about 500 Sikhs, declared from a dais "Death to Pakistan."[113] According to political scientist Ishtiaq Ahmed: 'On March 3, radical Sikh leader Master Tara Singh famously flashed his kirpan (sword) outside the Punjab Assembly, calling for the destruction of the Pakistan idea prompting violent response by the Muslims mainly against Sikhs but also Hindus, in the Muslim-majority districts of northern Punjab. Yet, at the end of that year, more Muslims had been killed in East Punjab than Hindus and Sikhs together in West Punjab.'[114][115][116][117]

"Nehru wrote to Gandhi on 22 August that, up to that point, twice as many Muslims had been killed in East Punjab than Hindus and Sikhs in West Punjab.[118]"



A LOT more Muslims left India outside of just Punjab and Bengal, and it was often due to quite organized, explicit violence.

 

[mitter]

The acts are largely cited, I'm not going to parse every one. But do you deny that there has been widespread violence associated with the Sikh separatist movement?

I consider assassination to be a terrorist attack when it is designed to intimidate a community or impact political behavior. The suicide bombing of the Punjab CM by Sikh militants, the assassination of Indira Gandhi by her own Sikh bodyguards, the suicide bombing of Rajiv Gandhi by Tamil extremists, and the shooting of Mohatma Gandhi by a Hindutva foot soldier were all attempts to impact India's larger political situation. They were all meant to send a clear, specific message to the rest of the country.

I don't consider assassination to be a terrorist act when it's the result of mental illness unconnected to political aims, personal beef, or other individual motivations.

You are completely ignoring all of the violence that was perpetrated against Sikhs and you are also ignoring the many black cat operations orchestrated by the Indian government to discredit any organizations who were critical of the state.

The list you cited is so one-sided and distorted, it is laughable. It basically only mentions non-Sikhs and Sikhs who worked for the state. It makes no mention of the tens of thousands of Sikh youth who were "disappeared" by the Indian state. These "disappearances" in one district of Punjab were carefully documented by a Sikh who then himself somehow "disappeared."

By the way, which community was the assassination of Gandhi designed to intimidate? Which political behavior was it designed to impact? It was not the work of a terrorist organization or group, but two lone assassins who could not bear what Gandhi had done months earlier and decided to act out of revenge.