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

Partition of India - Good or Bad?

Rate this topic


Partition of India  

33 members have voted

  1. 1. Was the partition into India and West/East Pakistan Worth It?

    • Worth It
      14
    • Not Worth It
      19


Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member

Muslim population in  West + East (modern Bangladesh) Pakistan was greater than the remaining population in India. Statistically, there were more Muslims who chose to break away than those who wanted to remain together. 

Anyone who thinks a United India would've worked and stayed that way is majorly confused about the subcontinent to begin with. Fyi, India as of 2010 had around 30 active insurgencies. So much for a United South Asia. There's no way something like a United India could work in 1947.

Division was inevitable. Only how and on what basis would it have occurred is open to debate. If not religion than ethnic movements would have taken their toll.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators

I admit I'm not from the area, and have no connection to South Asia whatsoever. But it seems strange to me that Muslims and Hindus were living together for centuries, then suddenly a large mass migration on both sides occurred in such a short period of time.  Shouldn't it have happened more gradually and organically? Why was it so sudden? Why this rapid push to break off into nation states? Was the post-British vacuum that volatile?

The human toll alone, combining dead, displaced, and missing is in the millions I've heard. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
22 minutes ago, magma said:

I admit I'm not from the area, and have no connection to South Asia whatsoever. But it seems strange to me that Muslims and Hindus were living together for centuries, then suddenly a large mass migration on both sides occurred in such a short period of time.  Shouldn't it have happened more gradually and organically? Why was it so sudden? Why this rapid push to break off into nation states? Was the post-British vacuum that volatile?

The human toll alone, combining dead, displaced, and missing is in the millions I've heard. 

Muslims and Hindus were not distributed equally in South Asia. Often the idea of partition expressed in its initial stages was to separate Muslim majority areas from Hindu ones within British India, which would supposedly be carried into an United Indian Federation. Something like this would not have required migration of such historic proportions. The Hindu dominated Congress would have none of it. 

The partition was carried out in haste by the British, messed up majorly by that goofball Mountbatten, representative of the Queen. Properly carried out, yes, it could have been far less tragic. It was a total disaster in implementation. The British were tired of Indian politics, so they left in a characteristically British manner, with reckless planning but much brouhaha and high-headed calls for peace. 

Few anticipated the violence, fewer still understood the enormity of the idea of partition. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 8/20/2016 at 1:36 AM, Zendegi said:

India's secular founding founders never saw their own state as a "Hindu" nation and the fact there are more Muslims living in India than in Pakistan. The whole concept of creating Pakistan was pointless and a failure in some ways.

 There was no reason for Pakistan to exist at all, it divided a land historically and culturally connected for many centuries. Where unnecessarily divided the same people on the sole basis of being a Muslim or not. If the region of Pakistan had still been apart of India, it would have been better of militarily and economically. Pakistanis and Northern Indian are practically the same people ethnically and linguistically, if religion is not taken into account.

The more you read, the more you realise Pakistan is kind of a failed state, even the fact that Pakistan can't find unity and a national identity. Look at what happened when Bangladesh declared independence from Pakistan in the 70s where Muslims could not find unity with the differing ethnic and linguistic groups, even though Pakistan was created on the basis of being a Muslim country.

At the end of the day I see and understand an Indian the same way as a Pakistani. If you ask me I would have all of South Asia unite with extra small nations like Nepal and Sri Lanka. Would be pretty cool to have a stronger South Asian power countering China and other big nations but at the same time India is doing that job alright.

In my honest opinion Pakistan should be a part of Iran. Almost half of Pakistanis have Persian ancestry, and Persia ruled over what is now Pakistan through most of its history. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎21‎/‎08‎/‎2016 at 6:49 AM, MuhammadXII said:

In my honest opinion Pakistan should be a part of Iran. Almost half of Pakistanis have Persian ancestry, and Persia ruled over what is now Pakistan through most of its history. 

For a history student (useless degree anyway) that you are, whatever you mentioned is anything but rubbish and like how incompetent is you thinking? Plus Iran doesn't need more problems and neither does it prefer to have hostile population which will outnumber them. I even know your own countries history better than you do.

India is overall more well run than Pakistan in a lot of ways. Pakistan has supported terrorists in the past whereas India hasn't. Pakistan is trying to destabilize neighbouring countries like Afghanistan but India has been giving a lot of aid to Afghanistan and even built their brand new Parliament. Pakistan spreads and supports terrorism outside of its border like what happened in India in 2008. As an Iranian I love India more than Pakistan

Even though I don't believe and you don't have any source to prove what you are saying, I don't care about whether Pakistanis have Persian ancestry or even Chinese or Kenyan ancestry for that matter. Its not relevant in anyway,

You are wrong Persia did not rule over Pakistan through most of its history. India and Pakistan were one country for many centuries until 1947. You surely haven't heard of the Indus River Civilisation which it was based in both India and Pakistan?  Or even the Maruyan Empire under Ashoka the Great or the Gupta Empire? Which Pakistan was clearly and evidently apart of with India.

Have you ever looked at linguistic map of your own Punjabi and Urdu that you speak at home? Their part of the same language family as most of the languages in India. At the same time a clear majority of the Pakistani population speak Urdu, Punjabi and Sindhi and are mostly concentrated in those particular blue regions on the map.

{{{mapalt}}}

Edited by Zendegi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
16 hours ago, Zendegi said:

For a history student (useless degree anyway) that you are, whatever you mentioned is anything but rubbish and like how incompetent is you thinking? Plus Iran doesn't need more problems and neither does it prefer to have hostile population which will outnumber them. I even know your own countries history better than you do.

India is overall more well run than Pakistan in a lot of ways. Pakistan has supported terrorists in the past whereas India hasn't. Pakistan is trying to destabilize neighbouring countries like Afghanistan but India has been giving a lot of aid to Afghanistan and even built their brand new Parliament. Pakistan spreads and supports terrorism outside of its border like what happened in India in 2008. As an Iranian I love India more than Pakistan

Even though I don't believe and you don't have any source to prove what you are saying, I don't care about whether Pakistanis have Persian ancestry or even Chinese or Kenyan ancestry for that matter. Its not relevant in anyway,

You are wrong Persia did not rule over Pakistan through most of its history. India and Pakistan were one country for many centuries until 1947. You surely haven't heard of the Indus River Civilisation which it was based in both India and Pakistan?  Or even the Maruyan Empire under Ashoka the Great or the Gupta Empire? Which Pakistan was clearly and evidently apart of with India.

Have you ever looked at linguistic map of your own Punjabi and Urdu that you speak at home? Their part of the same language family as most of the languages in India. At the same time a clear majority of the Pakistani population speak Urdu, Punjabi and Sindhi and are mostly concentrated in those particular blue regions on the map.

{{{mapalt}}}

Cool story bro, I don't have time to refute you. Have a good day mate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 8/21/2016 at 9:11 PM, Zendegi said:

For a history student (useless degree anyway) that you are, whatever you mentioned is anything but rubbish and like how incompetent is you thinking? Plus Iran doesn't need more problems and neither does it prefer to have hostile population which will outnumber them. I even know your own countries history better than you do.

India is overall more well run than Pakistan in a lot of ways. Pakistan has supported terrorists in the past whereas India hasn't. Pakistan is trying to destabilize neighbouring countries like Afghanistan but India has been giving a lot of aid to Afghanistan and even built their brand new Parliament. Pakistan spreads and supports terrorism outside of its border like what happened in India in 2008. As an Iranian I love India more than Pakistan

Even though I don't believe and you don't have any source to prove what you are saying, I don't care about whether Pakistanis have Persian ancestry or even Chinese or Kenyan ancestry for that matter. Its not relevant in anyway,

You are wrong Persia did not rule over Pakistan through most of its history. India and Pakistan were one country for many centuries until 1947. You surely haven't heard of the Indus River Civilisation which it was based in both India and Pakistan?  Or even the Maruyan Empire under Ashoka the Great or the Gupta Empire? Which Pakistan was clearly and evidently apart of with India.

Have you ever looked at linguistic map of your own Punjabi and Urdu that you speak at home? Their part of the same language family as most of the languages in India. At the same time a clear majority of the Pakistani population speak Urdu, Punjabi and Sindhi and are mostly concentrated in those particular blue regions on the map.

The Indian state isn't all that innocent and nothing to admire, it actively supports militants inside Pakistan and works overtime to destabilize it.

As to why Pakistan was formed in the first place, you can pretty much blame Nehru for that.  Jinnah wasn't all that interested in an independent muslim homeland, he even campaigned for the Indian congress party.  Muslims in India were left with no choice as Nehru was pushing for a heavily centralized Indian state where muslims would have little autonomy over their own affairs, no self respecting people would accept such conditions.  Especially considering that the Mughals accorded a lot of autonomy to different regions of the subcontinent during their rule.

Now people can look at the Pakistani state today and make an argument that muslims in some ways are better off in India, but back then you couldn't have with any certainty predicted Pakistan's fate.  For all we know it could have turned out quite differently, and India for muslims or for most of it's inhabitants is no fairy tale land, it still ranks bottom of the table on most human development measurements.

 

Edited by King
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, King said:

1. The Indian state isn't all that innocent and nothing to admire, it actively supports militants inside Pakistan and works overtime to destabilize it.

2. As to why Pakistan was formed in the first place, you can pretty much blame Nehru for that.  Jinnah wasn't all that interested in an independent muslim homeland, he even campaigned for the Indian congress party.  

3. Muslims in India were left with no choice as Nehru was pushing for a heavily centralized Indian state where muslims would have little autonomy over their own affairs, no self respecting people would accept such conditions.  Especially considering that the Mughals accorded a lot of autonomy to different regions of the subcontinent during their rule.

4. Now people can look at the Pakistani state today and make an argument that muslims in some ways are better off in India, but back then you couldn't have with any certainty predicted Pakistan's fate.  For all we know it could have turned out quite differently, and India for muslims or for most of it's inhabitants is no fairy tale land, it still ranks bottom of the table on most human development measurements.

 

1. If you have any good source or evidence to prove that India is supporting militancy in Pakistan, than I welcome you to share it.

2. I agree with your point from what I have read that Nehru was partly to blame for the division of the country. But at the end of the day both Jinnah and Nehru were in a power struggle to lead the country and none of them could reach an acceptable agreement without dividing the country into two.

3. This is an interesting point, which I haven't thought a lot about. In the end giving too much autonomy to certain groups over one another would have not worked out that well. Every single sect, religion and ethnic group in the country would have asked for autonomy. In the end the country wouldn't have been easy to control from the central government based in Delhi and might have not been as united. Laws and legislation would have been hard to implement nationwide due to autonomous states having their very own laws.

I will be honest with you here, I am simply assuming why Nehru was against such a system and am not aware of the actual reasons.

4. This is true. At least if there wasn't a Pakistan there wouldn't have been any of those wars over Kashmir and Bangladesh and to the top that up with the displacement of millions of people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, Zendegi said:

1. If you have any good source or evidence to prove that India is supporting militancy in Pakistan, than I welcome you to share it.

2. I agree with your point from what I have read that Nehru was partly to blame for the division of the country. But at the end of the day both Jinnah and Nehru were in a power struggle to lead the country and none of them could reach an acceptable agreement without dividing the country into two.

3. This is an interesting point, which I haven't thought a lot about. In the end giving too much autonomy to certain groups over one another would have not worked out that well. Every single sect, religion and ethnic group in the country would have asked for autonomy. In the end the country wouldn't have been easy to control from the central government based in Delhi and might have not been as united. Laws and legislation would have been hard to implement nationwide due to autonomous states having their very own laws.

I will be honest with you here, I am simply assuming why Nehru was against such a system and am not aware of the actual reasons.

4. This is true. At least if there wasn't a Pakistan there wouldn't have been any of those wars over Kashmir and Bangladesh and to the top that up with the displacement of millions of people.

You should be ashamed of yourself. Pakistan, well Balochistan and Kpk as well as FATA belong to Iran as the people living there speak Iranian languages. You should advocate the establishment of greater Iran! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Here we are! What a joke this thread is!

Discissing this matter after almost 69 years of partition.

Thanks God I am not living in India, although my parents are from India.

I bet 90% Indian muslims will prefer to migrate to Pakistan, if they are given this option. 

No need to discuss already exposed Hindu extremism. The worst country ever seen where half of its population defecate besides the railway lines in 21st century. Ohhh noooo

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
  • Advanced Member

Assalam-O-Allaiykum to all Brothers and Sisters,

First of all to answer the question of this topic is simply “YES” it was worth it.

I am a proud Pakistani Shia Muslim and my grand parents migrated from Alwar State of India which is now a part of Rajhastan state.

My elders believed in the ideology of Pakistan so they like millions others opted for Pakistan after partition and left India.

There is a divided and never ending opinion on the partition since decades from different groups.

Some claim it was needed and there was no other choice at the time ,others claiming it was a mistake and should never have taken place.

All these divided opinions are mostly made in light of 3 major arguments

1“Should the partition have taken place”  

2. “What should/could have been done in partition and its followup”.

3.”What if partition never took place”.

So let me first present my opinion on facts on the argument on “Should the partition have taken place”

First of all the argument given by those against partition that the two major religious groups Muslims and Hindus living in the Sub-continent were living together in peace for centuries is flawed.

Fact is if both Muslims and Hindus were really living together for centuries than why was it that the areas comprising present day Pakistan in the west and now Bangladesh in the East were so heavily Muslim majority and why central states were overwhelemingly Hindu majority even centuries before the partition???????????/

If there was true Religious harmony then there should have been an equally distributed population throughout the sub-continent rather than the Muslims making up heavy majority in some parts and Hindus in other parts.

The fact that there was unequal distribution of population where in present day Pakistan and Bangladesh Muslims made up 70-80% of the total population while in present day India the Hindus made up 70-80% of the total population.

So this was a major factor that automatically lead the Muslims to start a movement for a separate homeland.

The other major factors that lead to the partition was ofcourse the rigidness shown by Nehrus Congress.

Founder of Pakistan Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah was initially not in favour of partition into two different coutries and states but rather willing to have great provincial/state autonomy in Muslim majority areas within a United India.

 But when talks between Muhammad Ali Jinnahs All India Muslim League and Nehrus Congress failed he was left with no option as he feared Muslims being oppressed of rights.

Gandhi tried his level best to get an inbetween solution and was in favour of Muhammad Ali Jinnahs proposal but Nehru who had Hindu Extremist ideology never gave in.

Therefore it was absolutely correct for Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah to demand partition and creation of new state named Pakistan and it should have taken place.

Now let me present my opinon on “What should/could have been done in partition and its follow up”.

The partition was unjust by the British which favoured India more than Pakistan obviously due to the relationship of Lord Mount Battens wife with Nehru.

First of all they let they let princely states decide for themselves who they want to be a part of.

That lead to disputes non bigger than the Kashmir dispute which was a Muslim majority state and still remains unresolved as both sides took hold of half of the lands through force.

Then there was Junagadh state dispute where the Deewan of Junagadh opted for Pakistan but India got hold of it forcefully.

Partition of Punjab and Bengal was also unjust which lead to a huge migration of Millions of people from both sides.And which unfortunately lead to a massacre on Religious base on both sides where thousands if not Millions lost their lives.

That was the unjust British role.

Then there were some mistakes by the newly formed Pakistan state which did not give provincial autonomy to East Pakistan which lead to a civil war and India got involved to break up Pakistan which recently PM of India Moodi accepted publicy infront of the whole world the role India played in the creation of Bangladesh.

All of the above events could have and most definitely should have been handled better and justly by the British,Pakistan and India.

Those events unfortunately lead to a complete never ending messup in relations between Pakistan and India which exists to date.

Now my opinion of “what if Partition never took place”.

The events in last 70 years in both countries suggest that had the partition did not take place it would have lead to complete political unrest in India.

Religious and ethnic riots in India have been taking place time to time

Such as the killings of Sikhs in 80’s after murder of Indira Gandhi.

Burning of the Babri Mosque in 90’s.

Killings of Christians in BJP 1st govt under Bajpayee in late 90’s.

Massacre of Muslims in Gujrat 2002 by then CM Moodi.

So lets suppose the today Pakistan and Bangladesh was a part of India.If any such Religious or ethnic riots occurred in present day Pakistan or Bangladesh,would India have been able to sustain and get control over it in view that these parts make up atleast 350 Million people with approx 80% Muslim majority?

If Muslims were massacred in Central India how would the majority Muslims states in present day Pakistan and Bangladesh would have reacted to it bearing in mind there would have been only approx 20% Hindus living in these areas????????

It would most definitely had lead to a complete blood bath.

Then another argument that in present day India,Muslims rights are looked after and kept on check only because of Pakistan because Indias majority Hindu secular state knows whenever they show discrimination, Pakistan Islamic state is very vocal on the issue which tarnishes Indias secular reputation in the world.

Like Pakistan has always been most vocal of discrimination against Kashmiri Muslims since 1947.

Recent examples of Pakistan being very vocal is of Moodis discrimination towards Muslims of India since hes come in power.

Likewise in riots against Sikhs in 84,Babri Mosque shahadat in 92 ,Killings of Christians in late 90’s,Gujarat Massacre of Muslims in 2002 etc Pakistan has been very vocal which has kept India on check.

Otherwise who knows what more could have occurred against minorities in India if not for Pakistan.

Therefore whether Indians or others in this forum who support India like it or not, it’s a reality that Indias secularism and giving rights to minorities is forced in fear of Pakistan.

Therefore the existence of Pakistan is very important for India.

Had there been no Pakistan,Indias fate would have ended like USSR/Russia.

Edited by Syed Hasan Raza Shah
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 8/26/2016 at 4:45 PM, Zendegi said:

1. If you have any good source or evidence to prove that India is supporting militancy in Pakistan, than I welcome you to share it.

2. I agree with your point from what I have read that Nehru was partly to blame for the division of the country. But at the end of the day both Jinnah and Nehru were in a power struggle to lead the country and none of them could reach an acceptable agreement without dividing the country into two.

3. This is an interesting point, which I haven't thought a lot about. In the end giving too much autonomy to certain groups over one another would have not worked out that well. Every single sect, religion and ethnic group in the country would have asked for autonomy. In the end the country wouldn't have been easy to control from the central government based in Delhi and might have not been as united. Laws and legislation would have been hard to implement nationwide due to autonomous states having their very own laws.

I will be honest with you here, I am simply assuming why Nehru was against such a system and am not aware of the actual reasons.

4. This is true. At least if there wasn't a Pakistan there wouldn't have been any of those wars over Kashmir and Bangladesh and to the top that up with the displacement of millions of people.

Assalam-O-Allaiykum,

Either your living in a fools world or your trying to deceive people who dont know about Pakistan and India

Indias premier intelligence agency RAW's "OFFICER"/I repeat not agent "OFFICER" Khulbhushan Yadev was caught red handed in Baluchistan area of Pakistan and confessed he was planted there to carry out and facilitate terrorist activities inside Pakistan.

He was caught by our premier intelligence agency ISI and was accepted by India.

Since then India has been begging Pakistan to hand him over to India.

Pakistan raised this issue on different World Forums and also UN.

As a reality bite following are some news links and videos related to Khulbushan Yadev.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1248786

 

 

 

Edited by Syed Hasan Raza Shah
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
53 minutes ago, Syed Hasan Raza Shah said:

First of all to answer the question of this topic is simply “YES” it was worth it.

That will always remain a moot point. Unbiased historians may come up with a more rational answer some time in the future.

The entire sub-continent is at the moment a disaster zone. In the ME, the tragedy has been inflicted by others, while in the sub-continent, we are ourselves to blame. Mostly anyway! 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 20/03/2017 at 4:03 AM, Shia Venezuelan said:

it was partition of India or a big civil war in all British India like in Palestine 1947-1948.

No brother, no war like Palestine.

Indians tried to obtain independence but there was no war. 

However, when independence was close, there was a lot of bloodshed between Hindus and Muslims. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Veteran Member

Whats the harm in a partitioning, really? The best democratic systems make tiny divisions of the total area for the sake of better representation, good governance and influence for maximum efficiency. With that in mind, India should be further divided into more countries for the benefits to reach everyone. Denying this would be hypocritical.

I know a lot of people have this cool fashion trend in their mind to criticize the partition of the subcontinent. I know this debate from A-Z. But look at Kashmir RIGHT NOW. In fact look at it yesterday, last years, last decade(s) and there lies the answer.

Edited by Darth Vader
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Veteran Member

Worth it for my family 

Even though my grandpa lost all his lands , my parents worked hard and his 3 grandchildren got great education in Pakistan and were able to migrate And work and prosper in their respective fields 

Impossible to get that kinda education in smart Hindu dominated India 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member

nice to hear bro panzer and congrats for getting good education in pakistan  ....but just curious to know whether u know any thing about indian education system ....

 

bro i live in UAE  just wondering why many pakistani parent sending there kids to indian school....reference 

Indian international school ajman ...google it 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

As a person of Pakistani origin who has never lived in Pakistan, I am definitely an avid supporter of Pakistan and was very pro division. Much like brother @Panzerwaffe. ,y family lost a lot during the migration.

I met an Indian colleague a few years ago to really opened my eyes to a simple fact. He said, "The British were #$@%, always were and always will be". If they supported the partition then it was the duty of every single Indian to oppose it because their policy has always been to divide and rule. So if the enemy wants you to break, why would you play into his hands and BREAK UP????

Then he went on to a simple example of combining Indian Batsmen and Pakistani bowlers - we would never lose a single match. Apply that to all areas of life and imagine the success WE would have. But instead they left us fighting over a small piece of land that has no real value.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@shiaman14

Exactly that is why anybody that supports this Pakstan/India split is stupid. Think about it if all that land and number of people were under a single authority than their power would be greater. Pakistan is filled with wahabism and extremist groups, honestly hindus are better than those groups and would be more likey to cooperate and work with muslims towards peace and stability.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, Yama Nemati said:

@shiaman14

Exactly that is why anybody that supports this Pakstan/India split is stupid. Think about it if all that land and number of people were under a single authority than their power would be greater. Pakistan is filled with wahabism and extremist groups, honestly hindus are better than those groups and would be more likey to cooperate and work with muslims towards peace and stability.

There are actually more Muslims in India than in Pakistan but they have nowhere near the violence that breeds in Pakistan.

Simply because India hasn't sold out to wahabis whereas Pakistan has.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
4 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

Then he went on to a simple example of combining Indian Batsmen and Pakistani bowlers - we would never lose a single match. 

Guess you are unaware of the marginalisation of muslims in India which has been steadily on the rise with the hindu right wing ideologies workking further to sharpening the divide. 

So, if there was a cricket team of undivided india it would largely consist of hindu players with muslims getting very little, if any, representation. There would have been no Javed minadad or Waseem Akram. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
12 hours ago, zafa said:

nice to hear bro panzer and congrats for getting good education in pakistan  ....but just curious to know whether u know any thing about indian education system ....

 

bro i live in UAE  just wondering why many pakistani parent sending there kids to indian school....reference 

Indian international school ajman ...google it 

 

I dont honestly  but judging from how smart indian  kids are im glad i competed with a much smaller group of kids in pakistan than in india thats just my guess 

But overall i agree that their  should be great relations between india and pak but dont feel partition was bad for everyone   

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
5 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

I met an Indian colleague a few years ago to really opened my eyes to a simple fact. He said, "The British were #$@%, always were and always will be". If they supported the partition then it was the duty of every single Indian to oppose it because their policy has always been to divide and rule. So if the enemy wants you to break, why would you play into his hands and BREAK UP????

It is easier to lay all the blame on British. Of course, they played a big role in dividing people and pitting them against each other, but the hatreds that had developed between the two communities in the decades preceding 1947 were intractable and not merely a British invention. It is impossible to know the nature and magnitude of these issues unless one has read up on the period history closely. For a long time I held the opinion that partition was a mistake and should not have happened. But I've learned that there is no easy answer to the question whether the partition, on the whole, was a better idea than staying in a united India. There were big questions either way, unsettled disputes, communal distrust etc, for there to be a simple answer. 

Now that it has happened, we can say with hindsight that it hasn't been a success for the Muslims of the whole subcontinent. No one anticipated the Sunni meltdown and the rise of Wahhabism back then. But things could have been much worse in an undivided India. Muslims and Hindus would have fought a decades-long civil war over questions of governance and religion/culture, as they did prior to '47. India would fail to become a centralised state as Nehru had envisioned, and there might have been secession after secession of states and provinces. In fact, the republic of India as we know it might not have existed had there been no partition.

 

Edited by Marbles
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
53 minutes ago, starlight said:

Guess you are unaware of the marginalisation of muslims in India which has been steadily on the rise with the hindu right wing ideologies workking further to sharpening the divide. 

So, if there was a cricket team of undivided india it would largely consist of hindu players with muslims getting very little, if any, representation. There would have been no Javed minadad or Waseem Akram. 

Mohd Azharuddin, Irfan Pathan, Zaheer Khan and a bunch of other Indian, Muslim cricketers would disagree sister.

27 minutes ago, Marbles said:

It is easier to lay all the blame on British. Of course, they played a big role in dividing people and pitting them against each other, but the hatreds that had developed between the two communities in the decades preceding 1947 were intractable and not merely a British invention. It is impossible to know the nature and magnitude of these issues unless one has read up on the period history closely. For a long time I held the opinion that partition was a mistake and should not have happened. But I've learned that there is no easy answer to the question whether the partition, on the whole, was a better idea than staying in a united India. There were big questions either way, unsettled disputes, communal distrust etc, for there to be a simple answer. 

Now that it has happened, we can say with hindsight that it hasn't been a success for the Muslims of the whole subcontinent. No one anticipated the Sunni meltdown and the rise of Wahhabism back then. But things could have been much worse in an undivided India. Muslims and Hindus would have fought a decades-long civil war over questions of governance and religion/culture, as they did prior to '47. India would fail to become a centralised state as Nehru had envisioned, and there might have been secession after secession of states and provinces. In fact, the republic of India as we know it might not have existed had there been no partition.

 

Sure enough, this is all hindsight. 

I think India is about 15% Muslim so with the addition of another 200million, the Muslims would be some force to contend with inside of India and externally as well.

Link to post
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...