Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Pakistan/india: The Partition

Rate this topic


Vito_Corleone

Recommended Posts

Both my Mother and Father's families are historically from India(UP) and migrated to Pakistan post partition. I have not done much research on the Partition but am very interested in learning about what happened and why they split. I hope there are people here

more knowledgeable on the subject.

 

Currently India has the third largest Muslim population behind Pakistan and Indonesia. It holds 10% of the worlds Muslim population. Hyderabad, Bihar, UP, Gujrat all have significant populations of Muslims. There does not seem to be much persecution of Muslims there and the Muslims there seem proud of there nationality. What were things like before and during the Partition? Was there conflict between Muslims and the Hindus there? Besides the split, how was the conflict resolved, considering India still has the third largest Muslim population?

 

In short, what happened between the two lol?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Why are laughing at the end?

 

BTW, you seem to have made up your mind that there is no persecution of Muslims in India. But in reality Muslims in general are the most backward groups in the country. 

 

 

I apologize if I offended you with that, it was not my intention.

 

No, there is persecution of Muslims. I said there does not seem to be much of it.

 

Backwards in what sense? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members

The partition of Hindustan was the British project, which was introduced, supported, and funded by the British Empire. At first, both Hindus and Muslims were against it but as freedom movements evolved Muslims reassessed their position because there were several Muslim/Hindu riots in 1920s and 30s. Also, Muslims League generated enough support among secularist Muslims like Jinnah and others to seek independence; however, majority of muslims still supported congress instead of Muslim League.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Just look at the voting patterns of Muslims (especially those in today's Pakistan) in the decade preceding the division. Most Muslims did not favour the idea of separation just as most Syrians or Iraqis or Afghans today. That despite having enormous internal problems the idea of separation is very unpatriotic and borderline treason. Call it a habit I guess. They have love for India just as you might have love for Pakistan.

This division served the British and the Hindus very well, while it divided the once powerful Muslim community into 3 weak entities. Pakistan goes on to serve as the hub of the Anglo-Saxon geopolitics in the region. India was made Hindu and Hindus united for the first time in close to a thousand years.


It was a disaster for Muslims...and inline with the contemporary tradition, the one who harms the Muslims most is a Muslim. In SA's case, it was Jinnah- a Muslim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I don't think Jinnah was all that interested in a separate Muslim homeland till he became increasingly frustrated with the politics and other nationalist leaders fighting for independence.  If I am not wrong, Jinnah was at first solely interested in independence from the British and stressed on unity, he was a member of the congress party after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I don't think Jinnah was all that interested in a separate Muslim homeland till he became increasingly frustrated with the politics and other nationalist leaders fighting for independence.  If I am not wrong, Jinnah was at first solely interested in independence from the British and stressed on unity, he was a member of the congress party after all.

 

Almost all League leaders were once Congress members that fought for independence from the British. That said, there were some very prominent and local (as opposed to Jinnah being a bit of Mr. Coconut and Angrez-washed) that had no problem staying with Congress to the very end. Why do you think they did not share Jinnah's view? I think Jinnah, like many puppet leaders in the Muslim world that came after him, were used & abused by the puppet master and then thrown in the dustbins of history once they were done with.

 

Furthermore, Jinnah's little Islam-project (Pakistan), not only divided the SA Muslim community but also served as a roadblock to the continuity of historic bond between Iran, Central Asia and South Asia and South Asian Muslim community. It is Pakistan, as per dictate of US, that is not letting Iran establish IPI with India. It is Pakistan that is standing in the way of Central Asia joining SA and instead CA's energy flows to Europe or factories in China that make consumer goods for Europe/West. So little Jinnah went to serve his puppeteers real well and well beyond his life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Almost all League leaders were once Congress members that fought for independence from the British. That said, there were some very prominent and local (as opposed to Jinnah being a bit of Mr. Coconut and Angrez-washed) that had no problem staying with Congress to the very end. Why do you think they did not share Jinnah's view? I think Jinnah, like many puppet leaders in the Muslim world that came after him, were used & abused by the puppet master and then thrown in the dustbins of history once they were done with.

 

Furthermore, Jinnah's little Islam-project (Pakistan), not only divided the SA Muslim community but also served as a roadblock to the continuity of historic bond between Iran, Central Asia and South Asia and South Asian Muslim community. It is Pakistan, as per dictate of US, that is not letting Iran establish IPI with India. It is Pakistan that is standing in the way of Central Asia joining SA and instead CA's energy flows to Europe or factories in China that make consumer goods for Europe/West. So little Jinnah went to serve his puppeteers real well and well beyond his life.

 

Yes, that is what I am saying, that it wasn't really his idea, he was influenced and to a greater extent almost forced into embracing the idea of an independent muslim homeland, the other congress leaders had a lot to do with this (especially Nehru who was hell bent on a centralized socialist arrangement), I don't think they were being very cooperative and fair when it came to muslim rights and autonomy in an independent India.  Initially as I said he had fought resolutely for an independent India and hindu-muslim unity.  Furthermore he was a self-made man who didn't come from an established family like other leaders in the SA, so he was a complex personality.

 

I am not arguing that the partition was a positive development, but we can't lay all the blame on the muslim leadership and especially Jinnah in particular.  It made sense at the time given the circumstances.  There would most likely have been no partition had congress allowed a level of autonomy and self governance to the muslims within India.  This sort of thing works well in other parts of the world and some other prominent Indian leaders (including Gandhi) would have been okay with this but not Nehru.

Edited by King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members

@Wahdat

Thank you for the moral support.

 

@AnaAmmar1

You don't have to digg deep to find evidences that a large portion of (if not majority) Muslims were against the partition but the partition were imposed on them by a few secular Muslim intellectuals. Please refer to Iqbal's early poetry, it is filled with Hindu patriotic poems (i.e. Sare Jahan Se Acha Hindoistan hamara). In addition Mulana Abdula Kalam Azad, Asif Ali, Maulana Shaukat Ali, Dr Mokhtar Ahmad Ansari, Abdul Ghaffar Khan..etc were all against the partition.

 

The Muslim league was founded by upper British educated secular Muslims to motivate Muslims to abandon their classical education system for modern British curriculum, because of this majority of Muslims considered them "Agrizi Muslim". For example Muhammedan Anglo Oriental College (later changed its name to Aligarh Muslim University) stopped offering Arabic and Farsi classes (which was very normal in those days); they considered competence in English and Western Sciences instead of in Qur'an, Hadith, Fiqh, Arabic, and Farsi. Moreover, look at the leadership of Muslim League Sir Sayeed Ahmad Khan, Aga Khan III, and Mohammad Ali Jinnah all of them secular Muslims. 

 

The first partition project by the British Empire was in early 1900 that divided the government of Bengal (Partition of Bengal) into Muslim Majority State and Hindu Majority (Assam). Another step that British Empire took to make the transition (Partition Project) smooth they passed the "Indian Councils Act of 1909".

 

Recommended books on the subject  Muslim Zion and the Muslims of British India

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Yes, that is what I am saying, that it wasn't really his idea, he was influenced and to a greater extent almost forced into embracing the idea of an independent muslim homeland, the other congress leaders had a lot to do with this (especially Nehru who was hell bent on a centralized socialist arrangement), I don't think they were being very cooperative and fair when it came to muslim rights and autonomy in an independent India.  Initially as I said he had fought resolutely for an independent India and hindu-muslim unity.  Furthermore he was a self-made man who didn't come from an established family like other leaders in the SA, so he was a complex personality.

 

I am not arguing that the partition was a positive development, but we can't lay all the blame on the muslim leadership and especially Jinnah in particular.  It made sense at the time given the circumstances.  There would most likely have been no partition had congress allowed a level of autonomy and self governance to the muslims within India.  This sort of thing works well in other parts of the world and some other prominent Indian leaders (including Gandhi) would have been okay with this but not Nehru.

When the ocean recedes, every shrimp gets their own little puddle. When nations go through transformation there comes into existence as many ideas and views as there are people in those nations....some good and some bad, some truly wonderful and some outright horrible.  Wise leaders, their wisdom, and legacies are defined by their foresight and how skillfully they paddle their nation's boat through uncertain waters. Take Iraq as an example today- first you have Kurds and Arabs and you have shia and sunnis, you further have nationalists and separatists etc etc Just as they saying goes that even a broken clock is right twice a day, each one of those groups are right here and there when it comes to their views. But there is one view that will be proven right by history. Only one.

 

Not only I judge Jinnah or Nehru based on their actions then but by their legacies today. As a matter of fact their legacy today should determine who was right and who was wrong then. And judging by that Nehru takes the cake. All of Jinnah's fear of Hindus turns out to be misplaced judging by the levels of peace, security, and equality the Indian Muslims enjoy today....and all of his hopes about a fraternal Muslim nation is turned on its head in Pakistan today.  I think his love and hope to create an Islamic heaven in fact turned out to create a reality much opposite.

Academically speaking, Jinnah was the most brilliant mind of the Indian independence movement while Gandhi was a mere C student. I think the British education did much to trick his mind about realities back in his home. The whole concept of special status, equality etc...and this was his downfall. I think everyone would have been better off if he would have just let the events take their course and not interfered with issues far bigger than him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Not only I judge Jinnah or Nehru based on their actions then but by their legacies today. As a matter of fact their legacy today should determine who was right and who was wrong then. And judging by that Nehru takes the cake. All of Jinnah's fear of Hindus turns out to be misplaced judging by the levels of peace, security, and equality the Indian Muslims enjoy today....and all of his hopes about a fraternal Muslim nation is turned on its head in

Pakistan today.  I think his love and hope to create an Islamic heaven in fact turned out to create a reality much opposite.

 

That's all very good. It is easy to judge history from a distance of many decades; things that were once uncertain and murky become clear in retrospect and that's why today Nehru's legacy is far stronger than anything Jinnah left behind. Partition, let's agree, as the history has shown us, was never a good idea. And Jinnah knew that very well. Till the last moment he'd called it "a completely ridiculous thing but something we might have to go with if we're left with no option." as his party colleague quoted him.

 

That being said, I do not think it is possible to shred and simplify the narrative of Partition by laying blame at the door of one party. Here in our part of the world only ideological people with their own little theory to support do that. The only way to simplify is to ignore all the nuances, contradictions and failures that had beset every party and their leaders.

 

That Jinnah was responsible for breaking India and dividing Muslims across three countries is prima facie true and widely known. That Nehru acted to precipitate the partition is not so well known.

 

Take the year 1946 for instance, just a year before things exploded.

 

It sounds incredible but Jinnah had agreed to remain in the united India when Congress accepted guarantees for proportional Muslim representation. But this was anathema to Nehru because he, too, was the West-educated Mr. coconut despite his Gandhian attire who wanted a centralised socialist state run from the capital while not admitting the communal differences that made it very hard if not impossible to replicate a Western system without turning communities at each other's throats. Congress hawks persuaded Nehru to renege on the promise, reject the proposals, and let Jinnah have his Pakistan. They were convinced that within five years Jinnah would come begging to them to take back Pakistan. Without going into details, in their view, every economic and geopolitical indicator showed that the new toy state wouldn't survive. 

 

Now, to complete the puzzle, if you consider how the last British Viceroy was appointed you'd probably bite your fingers down to your elbow. As per documents declassified at the 50th anniversary of the independence, a book by the name of "Freedom at Midnight" came out. It was revealed for the first time that Nehru had used his influence in the London India Office to have Lord Mountbatten appointed as the last viceroy of India. They were fast friends from Mountbatten's Burma days. Nehru along with Congress luminary Sardar Patel had by that time made up their mind to let Jinnah go with Pakistan, and they needed a viceroy who'd favour India in the division of spoils. It was only Gandhi who rejected partition in principle, but by that time he wasn't on talking terms with Nehru-Patel duo. 

 

This doesn't look like it was Jinnah who was performing the British puppet role, if the purpose of British had been to divide India and Jinnah to facilitate it. It appears to me that the roles were reversed at the last moment when it mattered most. IF partition was a well thought-out British project, you could even say that to make it happen the Brits needed to win over Nehru's congress, which they did. Let's face it, Nehru let down his own vision at the last moment.

 

As they say, the devil is in the detail. To date I have not seen any academician or historian contradict these facts (if you know any, do let me know). Jaswant Singh, former Indian foreign minister and BJP member wrote a biography of Jinnah in which he claimed that Nehru-Patel duo were as much responsible for breaking the country as Jinnah and his Muslim League were. He was expelled from the party.

 

Freedom at Midnight: http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-at-Midnight-Dominique-Lapierre/dp/8125931864

 

Jinnah: India - Partition - Independence: http://www.amazon.com/Jinnah-India--Partition-Independence-Jaswant/dp/8129113783/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1443728676&sr=1-1&keywords=jinnah+jaswant+singh

 

To add another worthy account from a neutral American observer who saw Gandhi murdered. Stanley Wolpert's Shameful Flight: http://www.amazon.com/Shameful-Flight-Years-British-Empire/dp/0195151984/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1443729271&sr=1-1&keywords=wolpert+shameful+flight

 

 

@ OP here are your recommendations from me. Read those after you have got some perspective with Yasmin Khan's The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan : http://www.amazon.com/Great-Partition-Making-India-Pakistan/dp/0300143338/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1443729318&sr=1-1&keywords=yasmin+khan+great+partition

Edited by Marbles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking into account the fact that modern day Bangladesh too was part of pre-partition India which was also formerly East Pakistan, If one were to combine the populations of Pakistan, Bangladesh, and the Muslims living in India today, what would their total representation be versus the Hindu population? Would it be really so overwhelming that the Hindus would put the Muslims down and not give them any rights? What was the total Muslim population versus the Hindus before the partition? It should also be noted that there is also a Christian presence in southern India and a Sikh presence. Sikhs are different from Hindus. What position did they take during the conflict?

 

Lastly, how did representation work? There was a congress party, how were seats alloted? To my knowledge, the Muslim League was formed later. What was the government structure?

 

Looking at modern day Pakistan, it can be said that Partition was a mistake. India today is a safer place to be. At the same time, Pakistan is a Muslim majority country with a strong army. It is a Nuclear power. If there was no partition, for all intents and purposes the Muslims would likely be a minority. There would not be as many achievements(I cannot believe I am using the term in regards to Pakistan). Globally, the situation in the Middle East with the Israelis and Palestinians, the argument can be made that it is because of Pakistan being a nuclear power and it's assistance to neighboring Muslim Nations, the dream of a Palestinian state is still alive today. It can go both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

When the ocean recedes, every shrimp gets their own little puddle. When nations go through transformation there comes into existence as many ideas and views as there are people in those nations....some good and some bad, some truly wonderful and some outright horrible.  Wise leaders, their wisdom, and legacies are defined by their foresight and how skillfully they paddle their nation's boat through uncertain waters. Take Iraq as an example today- first you have Kurds and Arabs and you have shia and sunnis, you further have nationalists and separatists etc etc Just as they saying goes that even a broken clock is right twice a day, each one of those groups are right here and there when it comes to their views. But there is one view that will be proven right by history. Only one.

 

Not only I judge Jinnah or Nehru based on their actions then but by their legacies today. As a matter of fact their legacy today should determine who was right and who was wrong then. And judging by that Nehru takes the cake. All of Jinnah's fear of Hindus turns out to be misplaced judging by the levels of peace, security, and equality the Indian Muslims enjoy today....and all of his hopes about a fraternal Muslim nation is turned on its head in Pakistan today.  I think his love and hope to create an Islamic heaven in fact turned out to create a reality much opposite.

Academically speaking, Jinnah was the most brilliant mind of the Indian independence movement while Gandhi was a mere C student. I think the British education did much to trick his mind about realities back in his home. The whole concept of special status, equality etc...and this was his downfall. I think everyone would have been better off if he would have just let the events take their course and not interfered with issues far bigger than him.

 

Nehru went onto implement a lot of crucial and successful reforms in India but we cannot ignore decisive role he played in breaking up the Subcontinent, it will remain part of his legacy.  Those muslims were part of India, and he abandoned his own people in order to satisfy his blind ideological view, so he is as much if not more to blame for the negative consequences you seem to be blaming Jinnah for.  Their legacies in mainstream literature and media are in large part a result of nationalistic propaganda on either side.  A serious critical examination of the matter reveals a very different picture.  

 

I don't think Jinnah was all that fearful of hindus, he was very serious about muslim-hindu unity, he came to despise the congress party and in particular the alienating and inconsiderate approach of people like Nehru.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

That's all very good. It is easy to judge history from a distance of many decades; things that were once uncertain and murky become clear in retrospect and that's why today Nehru's legacy is far stronger than anything Jinnah left behind. Partition, let's agree, as the history has shown us, was never a good idea. And Jinnah knew that very well. Till the last moment he'd called it "a completely ridiculous thing but something we might have to go with if we're left with no option." as his party colleague quoted him.

 

Here is part of Jinnah's first speech as a Pakistani

' A division had to take place. On both sides, in Hindustan and Pakistan, there are sections of people who may not agree with it, who may not like it, but in my judgement there was no other solution and I am sure future history will record is verdict in favour of it."

http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/legislation/constituent_address_11aug1947.html

 

I am just pointing out that history did not go as Jinnah thought it would and that Jinnah was wrong in all his calculations. 

 

The more things change the more they stay the same. What was happening in India during the final days of its struggle has been happening in other places in the world since and it is happening today. Take Iraq as an example- the minority Sunnis loose power and cannot fathom the thought of being ruled by the Shia majority.  Jinnah too could not fathom the notion of being ruled by the majority Hindus and had this fear of Muslims being turned into a 5th caste. He wanted everything to be divided equally. Nehru, rightly so, did not want as it very much ran counter to democratic ideals of one man one vote. Jinnah wanted a federal type of a system with a weak center, Nehru wanted a centralized one....so in all their differences, Nehru's positions were much more sound. And Jinnah, judging by his language, was very much fearful of a Hindu domination like the Sunni Iraqis are of a Shia or Persian domination. And they both are very much in the wrong. no?

I don't think Jinnah was all that fearful of hindus, he was very serious about muslim-hindu unity, he came to despise the congress party and in particular the alienating and inconsiderate approach of people like Nehru.

 

Can you please elaborate on the main differences between Jinnah and Nehru?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Can you please elaborate on the main differences between Jinnah and Nehru?

 

As mentioned before they had to do with Nehru's insistence on a heavily centralized state and the muslim demand for more autonomy and control over their own economic/social destiny, some sort of a federated arrangement where power wasn't so centralized.  These demands were sensible as it is highly unfair to ignore historical/linguistic/religious/cultural realities of a people and harshly force a stern national identity on them.  Empires in the past functioned quite well when they accorded a degree of autonomy to different regions, the Ottoman and the Mughal Empire come to mind. Taking Iraq as an example you used, it was carved out in the interest of the British, essentially forcing people together that had nothing to do with each other, while drawing arbitrary borders dividing people that did.  The same can be said of the borders through the Pushtun region, Kurds, and the list goes on from one modern nation state to the next.  It is a European construct that has yielded nothing but violence.  

 

As far as the results are concerned, Pakistan very well could have gone onto become a prosperous nation had things turned out differently after partition, but this is irrelevant as the partition was an incredibly violent and an avoidable chapter to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

As mentioned before they had to do with Nehru's insistence on a heavily centralized state and the muslim demand for more autonomy and control over their own economic/social destiny, some sort of a federated arrangement where power wasn't so centralized.  These demands were sensible as it is highly unfair to ignore historical/linguistic/religious/cultural realities of a people and harshly force a stern national identity on them.  Empires in the past functioned quite well when they accorded a degree of autonomy to different regions, the Ottoman and the Mughal Empire come to mind. Taking Iraq as an example you used, it was carved out in the interest of the British, essentially forcing people together that had nothing to do with each other, while drawing arbitrary borders dividing people that did.  The same can be said of the borders through the Pushtun region, Kurds, and the list goes on from one modern nation state to the next.  It is a European construct that has yielded nothing but violence. 

 

You are right about Empires and its loose system. But that does not apply to nation states. Look at what became of the Ottoman Empire when it met a world defined by nation states...almost 100 years later along with countless wars and sufferings and we cant gather the pieces. This is the case with a people who share one language (Arabic), have one history, and follow one religion. Now imagine what would have happened to countries like India or China if they did not have strong centralized systems. Hell what do you think would have become of Iran after revolution if it had a weak central body? You would have seen Ahwaz joining GCC or Sistan joining Balochistan or Kurds would have formed their own country along with other Kurds in Iraq or Turkey .....The reason why ME is the way it is today is exactly because it did not produce someone like Mao, Nehru, or Khomenei. And the reason why Pakistan failed is exactly because Jinnah could not see what those leaders saw.

If Nehru would have yielded to Jinnah then, today India would have been worse than ME and Africa combined- wars and famines and division would have plagued the subcontinent where India would have long been broken into dozens of little countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Hindues point of view is that Ghandi agreed to the establishment of Pakistan so it can be a Muslim country, and India stays for Hindus, but what they dont understand is that since the agreement is to split Pakistan to be for Muslims, why are there still many Muslims in India?

 

Im not an expert on any of this areas subject, as I am not even interested. But this is what I heard from Hindus.

 

And frankly, I understand why Hindus dont like Muslims. As I have seen Indian/Pakistani Muslims, I cant even stand them. (Not all, but to be fair, I can say most) So I cant blame Hindus for not standing them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Here is part of Jinnah's first speech as a Pakistani

' A division had to take place. On both sides, in Hindustan and Pakistan, there are sections of people who may not agree with it, who may not like it, but in my judgement there was no other solution and I am sure future history will record is verdict in favour of it."

http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/legislation/constituent_address_11aug1947.html

 

I am just pointing out that history did not go as Jinnah thought it would and that Jinnah was wrong in all his calculations. 

 

The more things change the more they stay the same. What was happening in India during the final days of its struggle has been happening in other places in the world since and it is happening today. Take Iraq as an example- the minority Sunnis loose power and cannot fathom the thought of being ruled by the Shia majority.  Jinnah too could not fathom the notion of being ruled by the majority Hindus and had this fear of Muslims being turned into a 5th caste. He wanted everything to be divided equally. Nehru, rightly so, did not want as it very much ran counter to democratic ideals of one man one vote. Jinnah wanted a federal type of a system with a weak center, Nehru wanted a centralized one....so in all their differences, Nehru's positions were much more sound. And Jinnah, judging by his language, was very much fearful of a Hindu domination like the Sunni Iraqis are of a Shia or Persian domination. And they both are very much in the wrong. no?

 

Can you please elaborate on the main differences between Jinnah and Nehru?

 

The fear of Hindu domination was misplaced but I don't think it was entirely unfounded. Consider 1937 provincial elections. Congress won a landslide. Muslim league didn't win enough seats to form government in any Muslim majority province. What followed sowed the seeds of what came a decade later. The attitude of new Congress governments towards their Muslim minorities was very nasty to say the least. Muslim identity, its culture and religion were questioned by hardliners such as Hindu Mahasabha, who had it in their charter to "convert" Muslims "back" into their old religion, and other things. It looked as though Hindus were set to change places with British as far as Muslims were concerned. It's ten years before independence remember, and the name of Pakistan wasn't even coined by that time. It all happened very quickly in the heat of moment, and we to this day are feeling the heat.

 

Jinnah gave many contradictory statements about the time of independence. I think he wasn't very clear what he was doing. At one point he pandered to the sentimental public by proclaiming an Islamic system in Pakistan; yet a few days later he declared it a politically secular state like India where everyone was equal citizen regardless of religion etc. During independence when he was asked what about those Muslims who remained in India. He said they should remain there. What??? But wasn't Pakistan created for ALL Muslims of India? He was not in favour of migration, didn't wan't his Hindus and Sikhs to move to Nehru's India. Pakistan's first law minister was a Hindu called Jogendra Nath Mandal. Another funny thing: Jinnah said in a speech around independence that Pak and India were brothers with shared destiny, that they would protect each other from foreign imperial threats, that interests of one are aligned with interests of the other (naivety?). He had property in Bombay he wanted to keep. He tried to appoint a caretaker. One colleague who knew better told him, 'but sir, you left it back in India." Jinnah didn't think it was a problem. He thought of retiring to Bombay after things in Pakistan had been settled, as Bombay was a city he loved and made his life in. (I'm unable to fish out exact references but you will find them in Stanley Wolpert's well-regarded bio of Jinnah).

 

So I agree that things didn't go as Jinnah had thought. Jinnah grossly miscalculated the impact of partition and future relations between the two states. Secondly, some room should be given to the man. He died a year after independence and didn't get a chance to lay out his plan for what Pak should be. Whereas Nehru got two crucial decades in power to sort of basic problems of India. What followed in Pakistan after Jinnah simply destroyed any nascent hope for an amicable settlement and normalisation of relationship with India. In India, Congress had a full cast of able leaders to lead the country as it was a solid seven-decades old party with a lot of experience in its ranks. Muslim League, in effect, came into being in 1940 with Pakistan demand and it had no trained statesmen but timeservers and opportunists esp the landlord mafia that sided with Muslim League only because they knew in Nehru's country their landholdings would be taken away. Those people ended up taking power in Pakistan. The early crisis of leadership failed Pakistan, failed democracy, failed its people.

 

Jinnah too could not fathom the notion of being ruled by the majority Hindus and had this fear of Muslims being turned into a 5th caste..

 

Good point. This goes for the whole Indian Muslim community as many intellectual lights said the same thing in different words. Collectively speaking, Muslims did indeed find it hard to accept that they weren't going to be the sole rulers of India for the first time in history. But like I said with regards 1937, it's part of the story. These fears were engendered by increasing Hindu belligerence and however Congress' open-minded leaders would promise otherwise, things went downhill from then on.

 

I believe that while Jinnah was mistaken in the solution he offered to India's communal problem, Nehru's refusal to acknowledge these differences and his insistence on dissolving them into a new secular polity didn't give out a positive message. Congress didn't ask for an opportunity to demonstrate their goodwill. Their hawks (aka Patel subgroup who were RSS members too) just wanted Jinnah and his Muslims to go to hell. If you ask me, Jinnnah and Nehru both were heavily West-influenced from their opposite positions (special status vs majoritarianim) and neither showed enough vision to hold the country together. If Partition had to happen, like Gandhi had suggested, we could do that gracefully after the British had gone. But by ceding the matter to British both parties made sure the divorce was complete and violent.

And frankly, I understand why Hindus dont like Muslims. As I have seen Indian/Pakistani Muslims, I cant even stand them. (Not all, but to be fair, I can say most) So I cant blame Hindus for not standing them.

 

Your signature, sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

All the mullah were against partition, no doubt, and the mullah are always wrong. Hindus have always backstabbed Muslims. Look what they have done in Kashmir and Gujrat and with Babri mosque and just recently they attacked those who ate beef. Beef is outlawed in their so-called secular country. Always we find them complaining, bombing the border villages and killing innocent. Or raiding fishermen and imprisoning them by the dozens. Or accusing pigeons of spying for Pakistan. The Muslims their live under oppression and are mind slaves who have made very little achievements or renown understandably. The reality of Hindu is in his act of having elected a mass murdering bigoted extremist as their PM. Some things never change.

 

End of story.

Edited by Darth Vader
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

You are right about Empires and its loose system. But that does not apply to nation states. Look at what became of the Ottoman Empire when it met a world defined by nation states...almost 100 years later along with countless wars and sufferings and we cant gather the pieces. This is the case with a people who share one language (Arabic), have one history, and follow one religion. Now imagine what would have happened to countries like India or China if they did not have strong centralized systems. Hell what do you think would have become of Iran after revolution if it had a weak central body? You would have seen Ahwaz joining GCC or Sistan joining Balochistan or Kurds would have formed their own country along with other Kurds in Iraq or Turkey .....The reason why ME is the way it is today is exactly because it did not produce someone like Mao, Nehru, or Khomenei. And the reason why Pakistan failed is exactly because Jinnah could not see what those leaders saw.

If Nehru would have yielded to Jinnah then, today India would have been worse than ME and Africa combined- wars and famines and division would have plagued the subcontinent where India would have long been broken into dozens of little countries.

 

Highly centralized states have their advantages, but I don't think they are enough to justify their existence. Even in the world of nation states you can have regions with relatively more autonomy, I am sure you realize there are quite a few examples of this across the globe among prosperous nations.  There were a lot of factors which lead to the collapse of those empires, and they lasted for centuries while the Indian state is a few decades old.  Most of India's young history leaves little to write home about, it has ranked at the bottom of most development indexes for a greater part of its existence as a nation state.  About Nehru yielding to Jinnah, you can easily sit here and make a strong argument that had Nehru been a bit more flexible on this matter, the Subcontinent as a whole could well have been better off today.  The muslim population of India was diverse and not just all stuck in one province, they had a real stake in it's potential as a nation, all they wanted was a degree of autonomy given legitimate fears of Hindu dominance and not to be completely shunned off.

 

As Marbles points out, Pakistan was deprived of good leadership because Jinnah passed away so quickly after partition, how can you keep blaming him for lack of vision when he hardly had a moment in the sun? This is one of inherent shortcomings of relying on personalities, they can be disposed off or pass away and then ensues chaos as the public has no feasible mechanism to control proceedings in their interest.  The pact with the landlords perhaps remains to this day the most damaging aspect of Pakistan's reality.  Nehru was able to implement land reforms which were difficult in Pakistan.  In any case, anyone would come up trumps when using Pakistan as a relative measuring stick, so a lot went wrong with an independent India.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I'm no fancy big city lawyer... but what's with calling India a sweeping success? I mean even setting aside religious preferences (i.e. I prefer to be around Muslims than around Hindjews), would anyone actually prefer living in India to living in Pakistan? India has to be the worst country in the world for poor people. Case in point: I heard stories from guys who helped zawar and students in Najaf. He would ask a group of Indian brothers how is everything, etc. And they would say: it's fine... but where do we cook? (there were stoves in their rooms; they just couldn't recognize them. they had only ever cooked over fires). Sure India is great for soosoolis and elites but for most people it's a terrible place to live. Just because their c.rappy movie industry is so popular don't make them a successful country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Hindues point of view is that Ghandi agreed to the establishment of Pakistan so it can be a Muslim country, and India stays for Hindus, but what they dont understand is that since the agreement is to split Pakistan to be for Muslims, why are there still many Muslims in India?

 

Im not an expert on any of this areas subject, as I am not even interested. But this is what I heard from Hindus.

 

And frankly, I understand why Hindus dont like Muslims. As I have seen Indian/Pakistani Muslims, I cant even stand them. (Not all, but to be fair, I can say most) So I cant blame Hindus for not standing them.

Would you like to appologize for this? Or elaborate?

I'm no fancy big city lawyer... but what's with calling India a sweeping success? I mean even setting aside religious preferences (i.e. I prefer to be around Muslims than around Hindjews), would anyone actually prefer living in India to living in Pakistan? India has to be the worst country in the world for poor people. Case in point: I heard stories from guys who helped zawar and students in Najaf. He would ask a group of Indian brothers how is everything, etc. And they would say: it's fine... but where do we cook? (there were stoves in their rooms; they just couldn't recognize them. they had only ever cooked over fires). Sure India is great for soosoolis and elites but for most people it's a terrible place to live. Just because their c.rappy movie industry is so popular don't make them a successful country.

I've been to India and Pakistan. Bith were work related ao i can only judge from what i've seen. India was horrible in terms of pollution and infrastructure. And by horrible i mean poo everywere, lack of bathrooms, clean bathrooms, some places they just put corpses in the holy river to rot in the son, dogs everywhere. Pakistan was generally cleaner and more prone to being hygenic.

I would choose pakistan over India if i was to live anywhere. But then again, it's based on what ive seen and that might not be the entire reality of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I'm no fancy big city lawyer... but what's with calling India a sweeping success? I mean even setting aside religious preferences (i.e. I prefer to be around Muslims than around Hindjews), would anyone actually prefer living in India to living in Pakistan? India has to be the worst country in the world for poor people. Case in point: I heard stories from guys who helped zawar and students in Najaf. He would ask a group of Indian brothers how is everything, etc. And they would say: it's fine... but where do we cook? (there were stoves in their rooms; they just couldn't recognize them. they had only ever cooked over fires). Sure India is great for soosoolis and elites but for most people it's a terrible place to live. Just because their c.rappy movie industry is so popular don't make them a successful country.

 

so if cooking on fire or cooking on stove is your measuring stick for the discussion we have...then Gulf Countries should be miles miles ahead of Iran, Turkey, or even Europe and America...no?

I dont know whether you should get the proverbial cookie or John guy with that brilliant post of his..? :thinking:

Would you like to appologize for this? Or elaborate?

I've been to India and Pakistan. Bith were work related ao i can only judge from what i've seen. India was horrible in terms of pollution and infrastructure. And by horrible i mean poo everywere, lack of bathrooms, clean bathrooms, some places they just put corpses in the holy river to rot in the son, dogs everywhere. Pakistan was generally cleaner and more prone to being hygenic.

I would choose pakistan over India if i was to live anywhere. But then again, it's based on what ive seen and that might not be the entire reality of it.

 

Wasnt there a hadith from Prophet (saw) where he was more concerned about poverty of mind over material poverty? India might be poor or dirty or....but when it comes to coexistence where all sorts of people from all sorts of religions speaking all sorts of languages live in peace and security and like human beings then us Muslims could learn a great deal from them. You'll never hear an Indian Sunni behead or blow up an Indian Shia..Can we say that about Pakistan or Arab countries?

 

 the facepalm pic is dedicated to baradar's post btw.

post-84695-0-47468700-1443888772_thumb.j

Edited by Wahdat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

so if cooking on fire or cooking on stove is your measuring stick for the discussion we have...then Gulf Countries should be miles miles ahead of Iran, Turkey, or even Europe and America...no?

I dont know whether you should get the proverbial cookie or John guy with that brilliant post of his..? :thinking:

 

Wasnt there a hadith from Prophet (saw) where he was more concerned about poverty of mind over material poverty? India might be poor or dirty or....but when it comes to coexistence where all sorts of people from all sorts of religions speaking all sorts of languages live in peace and security and like human beings then us Muslims could learn a great deal from them. You'll never hear an Indian Sunni behead or blow up an Indian Shia..Can we say that about Pakistan or Arab countries?

 

 the facepalm pic is dedicated to baradar's post btw.

 

Wouldn't you agree that a lot of the tolerance you are talking about can in large part be attributed to centuries of rather tolerant muslim rule?  It didn't just happen overnight, harmony and conflict between different groups, especially muslim and hindus goes way back.  If anything things got a lot worse leading up to and after independence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Wouldn't you agree that a lot of the tolerance you are talking about can in large part be attributed to centuries of rather tolerant muslim rule?  It didn't just happen overnight, harmony and conflict between different groups, especially muslim and hindus goes way back.  If anything things got a lot worse leading up to and after independence. 

 

Yes things got real bad during the uncertain times leading to the independence where every idiot had a say. But the diversity and coexistence in India today is the fruit of Nehru's vision back then where he, contrary to Jinnah's wish, did not want to divide India along communal lines and instead wanted to build an inclusive, secular, and democratic country.  Thats my point. I will post a reply to your other post and Marble's a bit later. 

Any state that is built on religious or nationality is bound to be a discriminative state that would persecute those from minority sect, religion, or nationality. Pals in Israel, or Kurds in Turkey or Shias in Pakistan .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Wahdat:

 

I only mentioned that point to illustrate the poverty of that country.

 

1) They can't recognize a stove

2) Life in Iraq is luxurious for them

 

 

 

These all point to severe poverty. I am sure anyone else with greater experience being in India can bring up a million more examples.

 

It is true that you cannot dismiss a country simply because of this. For example: the people of Yemen are poor but they are proving themselves to be among the most proud, honorable people in the world today.

 

Re: Iran and Disneyland Arabia

Iran is standing up to imperialist hegemony. Does India do that, or anything close to that?

 

As far as I can tell, India is a political, economic, and cultural lackey. As a nation, it has no qualities which one can point to and say: they are poor, but at least thye have [such-and-such].

 

 

The reason why I even alluded to the poverty is because people seem to think that just because India is a world power, that makes their country good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I have to admit that in some instances the Indian government corporation deserves due praise for caring for her people. Take the agriculture sector as an instance and then compare it to the ruined and sad state of agriculture in Pakistan which our politicians wish to destroy in a very sharp contrast. Ask any Pakistani farmer or agriculture related person about it. Any of us and they will tell you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I have to admit that in some instances the Indian government corporation deserves due praise for caring for her people. Take the agriculture sector as an instance and then compare it to the ruined and sad state of agriculture in Pakistan which our politicians wish to destroy in a very sharp contrast. Ask any Pakistani farmer or agriculture related person about it. Any of us and they will tell you.

 

Pakistan, for the first 10 years of its existence, was nursed by Pentagon as it was the second biggest recipient of USAid... second only to the other state that was formed on the basis of religion- Israel. What does this mean? All American aid was focused on the military establishment. This tilted the balance of Pakistani institutions highly in favour of the military and at the cost of every other one- education, public health, administration etc. No wonder the Pakistani military says the last word in Pakistan's affairs and the source of all that has gone wrong with Pakistan and the region.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

No need to put words in my mouth. You are wrong about our military. And we can play violin for Afghanistan of the 60s elsewhere in the right thread and discuss how it came down and how much, if any, Pakistan had a role in it. Right now and since 14 years it is Afghanistan sitting in the lap of America, growing trainloads of Morphine for CIA and licking the Zionist and Indian boots, impregnated with terrorists, herding them around.


The terrorists who attacked our airbase recently also came from Afghanistan. We have neutralized countless barns of Uzbek filth which makes its way from Afghanistan. It is no secret it helps India in a big way. There is a discussion underway in Pakistan to operate Afghanistan, since it won't clean itself. America is also proven again to grow and use terrorists. Its pretty clear. Personally I think that malignant country can be safely removed from the world with the help of nuclear technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...