Human nature is essentially same, man can fight or kill for anything and any idea whether based on ideology, nationalism or class, it can divide people of the same race, even the same religion and even of the same family. The ulterior motivation is always personal or class interest disguised in the garb of high sounding slogans I want to give certain concrete historical examples to prove this harmless assertion. Take Spain of 1930s. One race, one country, one religion, and one sect. The struggle is between the feudal-clergy-military junta and the republicans asking for more equitable distribution of resources No Two-Nation Theory but the Spaniards fight savagely for three years Mind you there were no fighting in the Indian Freedom Struggle, as we like to call it, although the transfer of power was more the result of war exhaustion brought upon the British Empire as a result of two world wars The result of the fighting between the Republicans and Monarchists under Franco1, 600,000 Spaniards were killed In the Russians Civil War fought from 1917 to 1922 the casualties; killed only, were 1 crore or ten million 2 Russian killed Russians simply because one was from Denikin Kolchak or Yudenich's White Army and another from Trotsky or Lenin's Red Army Even a Menshevik Communist killed another Russian simply because the other man was a Bolshevik Communist The Chinese Civil War lasting from 1911 with uneven intervals till 1949 was equally brutal with Chinese killing Chinese in the name of an ideology conceived by a German of Jewish ancestry to liberate the workers of the world The Britishers were horrified with the brutal pillage and destruction of Muslim Rohailkhand3 following conquest of Hindustani Pathan Muslim Rohailkhand by Shia Muslim of Oudh through hiring a British-Indian Brigade of the Honourable English East India Company What is the lesson That man can fight for anything, not because two nations are different or war is inevitable between them or because Pakistan or India was inevitable; but simply because "Aggression" is ingrained in the human character It is justified in the name of class war, war between two nations, a football riot or wars of successions between real brothers The issue is never ideology but a piece of land that was lost by folly of one king or a flawed constitutional arrangement or a broken treaty concluded 100 years before. In the background is either class interest or ego of a leader or intrigue by a third party for its own interest It's a subtle combination of "Ideology" "Ethnicity" "Opportunism" and "Substance" that this scribe in his humble capacity has discussed in some detail in a small book written a year ago. Journalists make their living or channel their urges for aggression by writing militaristic and jingoistic sabre rattling articles about such issues, as is the case in Indo-Pak or any conflict dominated region Leaders talk about these issues frequently as Indian and Pakistani leaders do to galvanise their electorate, so that their mind remains distracted from the core issues of class exploitation economic disparity and exploitation Take the Indo Pak Subcontinent. The two states of Pakistan and India were created because a third party i.e. the Britishers who were neither Muslim nor Hindu conquered India. Communalism based on religion emerged as a factor, emerged only after 1857 when the Hindu middle classes and business classes saw in introduction of Western Democracy and Competitive examinations, an opportunity to grab power without fighting a battle.