Educate me (and maybe my dad): India and Pakistan

[Kwesi]

My dad is saying that they are the same people, I say they aren't. I am, by no means, a history buff but I am positive that they are two very distinct cultures despite having only been separate countries since 1947 (according to wiki anyway). I could understand them being similar and he kept insisting that they were the same which really irked me. Outside of comedy I'm not the biggest fan of huge sweeping generalizations.

The funny part? This argument was start in the midst of deciding on a place to eat in New York .

So could anyone here drop some knowledge on Indian and Pakistani history, lifestyles, and food?

[Relic]

Not the same.
As I understand it, neither nations are homogeneous cultures. They're actually made up of several ethnicities, with their separate subcultures, languages and religions. Between both nations as a whole though - there is certainly a genetic relation from the past, but with the differences in religion and language each have developed their own distinct cultures.
At least this is how I understand it...

[bassrique]

Different religions.

[kesslari]

"India" and "Pakistan", like "Palestine" and "Israel" are a by-product of division and "granting independence" from British Colonialism. All had been conquered and "owned" by England, and were granted independence as the British Empire disintegrated.

Pakistan is primarily Muslim, and India is primarily Hindu (though there are large numbers of Muslims, as well as Sikhs, Buddhists, and Catholics in India).

When the subcontinent was granted independence, there was a lot of internal sabre-rattling between Hindus and Muslims, a lot of ethnic/religious violence, and Muslims politicians pressed for the establishment of a Muslim state - actually one country in two geographically separate halves (East Pakistan and West Pakistan). Many Muslims fled north to Pakistan, fearing that there would be "ethnic cleansing" in India by the Hindu majority. In the 1970's East Pakistan became Bangladesh.

The movie "Ghandi" is a pretty accessible way to get a better understanding of the history that led to the current situation.

[guitar ed]

Hi Kwesi,

There are significant religious, tribal, and cultural differences between the 2.

India is a majority Hindu country, with over 1 billion people. Pakistan is majority Muslim country.

But that hides the details. India does have a sizable Muslim population, not too radicalized thus far. But there is a radical "Hindu first" political party, the BJP. Pakistan's non-Muslim population is shrinking as the country is becoming more radicalized.

In terms of history, what are now Pakistan and India were one "country", under the British Empire. It was with the end of the empire that they became separate countries. And the British drew a line through the Kashmir territory, and said one side Pakistan, one side India.

And what is now Bangladesh was at one point part of Pakistan, known as East Pakistan.

The current borders of the two countries, like so many others, were chosen by Europeans to fit European needs, not local realities. This is a major source of trouble between the two, in Kashmir.

More than this is veering into a political discussion. Actually, I think that I am pushing it already. If you have any other questions, PM me and I will see what I can do for you.

edg

[kesslari]

Oh, and for your dad - they're the same people in the way that Jews and Arabs are the same people, and that Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants are the same people, and that Hutus and Tutsis are the same people. And that, at some point, Africans and Asians and Europeans are the same people.
The biggest conflicts often happen between pretty closely related, but different, cultures.

[L-A]

Tell a die-hard Hong-Kong resident he's Chinese, just to see

[colcifer]

Tom Lehrer - National Brotherhood Week - now on DVD - YouTube

[ehque]

Originally Posted by guitar ed

In terms of history, what are now Pakistan and India were one "country", under the British Empire.

Correct. However, don't let this "one country" business fool you, as Relic correctly points out:

Originally Posted by Relic

neither nations are homogeneous cultures. They're actually made up of several ethnicities, with their separate subcultures, languages and religions

Colonial empires tended to steamroll over cultural and even "national" differences when establishing colonies. Usually, colonial empires would lump a few cultures together into one administrative region, which later becomes a state. This caused many problems, some of which are only surfacing today.

That being said there's also no reason a larger state comprising many different cultures can't work.

Originally Posted by kesslari

The movie "Ghandi" is a pretty accessible way to get a better understanding of the history that led to the current situation.

+1.

[StoutFellow]

I lived in Islamabad, Pakistan for almost four years until mid-2010. I agree with much of what has already been posted in this thread. I cannot really talk about India, but rather think that it is more similar to Pakistan than either Indians or Pakistanis would care to admit. Certainly, the colonial legacies of badly-drawn borders and sluggish bureaucracies (to name but two) appear to be common to both countries.
But remember that both countries are HUGE and are as diverse as the USA or Europe. Pakistan has several very distinct ethnicities and many languages that survive attempts to "impose" Urdu as a common language after independence.
I will say this - the vast majority of Pakistanis are peace-loving people, interested primarily in putting food on the table, a roof over their heads and in educating their children. They share this with good folk the world over. Their effort is subject to interruption and manipulation by political and religious interests. This is not unique to Pakistan, India or, for that matter, Iowa. But we must not get into politics!!
Any one of Pakistan or India could take up every free moment you have for the rest of your life. But let me recommend three books:
Owen Bennett Jones' "Pakistan: Eye of the Storm"
Kim Barker's "The Taliban Shuffle: Strange Days in Afghanistan and Pakistan"
Nazneen Sheikh's "Tea and Pomegranates"
The last one has nothing do to with politics or current affairs or history - and that's why I recommend it. Great recipes too, if you like south asian food!

[hrodbert696]

They both (along with Bangladesh) belong to the Indian subcontinent. The subcontinent is a huge patchwork of different ethnicities - from the Khyber Pass down to the mouth of the Ganges is the same as the distance from the Rocky Mountains to Boston, or from the Atlantic to the mouth of the Danube in Europe. For most of India's history, there were dozens of different kingdoms and languages spread across the entire region, and only a few episodes where one empire or another managed to temporarily unite them. The British were the last of these empires.

Muslims started to arrive in the area in force around 1000, coming across Afghanistan. They became a power with the Sultans of Delhi around 1200 and they were in turn succeeded by the Mughals around 1500 (the Brits took over from the Mughals). So Islam spread in the north-west of the subcontinent, where there was the greatest concentration of Muslim settlement and main centers of Muslim power. When the Brits left, religious differences led the Muslim northwest to break away from the rest of India and become Pakistan.

So how you classify them depends on how you want to define your classifications. The main differences are religion and, of course, now government and territory. I don't think there's any particular significant difference in gene pools. But each country, India and Pakistan, is also multi-ethnic and multi-linguistic within itself, it's not as though there are two big monolithic ethnic groups called "Pakistanis" and "Indians."