re: #327 Naso Tang

I understand that one can micro analyse any political issue and bring it down to acts by this or that individual or external group. I was simply saying that the driving force behind all of it was the cultural/religious differences that did not allow peaceful coexistence.

The situation is more complex; it wasn’t inevitable that it would end that way. I don’t know what else i can say to you. There were definite paths to amity and peace, that were made impossible by the specific actions of some, and the general policy the British had of playing racial and religious groups off of one another. It’s not that their differences didn’t allow it, it’s that in this historical case, it didn’t work out that way, because of many, many factors.

You’ve now moved from saying it was a free choice to making what is to me the trivial statement that the partition of India was driven by cultural and religious differences. Of course it was— but that doesn’t equate to it being a ‘free choice’, in any way, shape, or form. That’s still an incredibly weird, and very incorrect, way of looking at it. Or to put it another way: if that’s your definition of a free choice, what isn’t a free choice?