Many people believe that demand of Pakistan was a reaction to unfriendly policies of Congress towards Muslims. Those policies made people like Mr Jinah (who were called ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity) to demand for separate state.
Do you agree with this? What were the major instances of such policies of Congress that lead to partition?
Re: Congress and Pakistan
i think partition of bengal proved tht congress is looking into hindus interest only
Re: Congress and Pakistan
i think partition of bengal proved tht congress is looking into hindus interest only
How Partition of Bengal Muslim rights? What role did played by Congress in partition of Bengal? In other words, was Congress in position to stop such partition?
Re: Congress and Pakistan
i think the conflicts bw muslims n hindus began with this, because muslims of bengal wanted a separate bengal, while congress insisted on partition
Re: Congress and Pakistan
the main issue was tht muslims always thought tht they are not given equal rights like hindus in congress
Re: Congress and Pakistan
i think the conflicts bw muslims n hindus began with this, because muslims of bengal wanted a separate bengal, while congress insisted on partition
Right... Eastern Bengal (in divided shape) was in favour of Muslim Majority, but that was opposed by Hindu leadership and the partition was reversed just after 6 years in 1911, which created a sense of deprivation in Muslims. But again when we say Hindu leadership, does that include official stance of Congress? I mean was congress involved in agitation for United Bengal?
Re: Congress and Pakistan
^^ I don't think congrees was involved. Curzon's divide and rule saw the rise of hindu nationalistic leaders but I don't think Congree was involved.
Re: Congress and Pakistan
^^ I don't think congrees was involved. Curzon's divide and rule saw the rise of hindu nationalistic leaders but I don't think Congree was involved.
But how division of Bengal to give representation backward Muslims (which were in majority in East Bengal) conflicted with Hindu nationalism?
Re: Congress and Pakistan
... Mr Jinah (who were called ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity) to demand for separate state.
Do you agree with this? What were the major instances of such policies of Congress that lead to partition?
I humbly believe that when we stood on the cusp of nationhood and freedom, what was important was equality of all communities . If a person was really an ambassador of Unity, nothing should have made him compromise that position and led to a situation where he tried to work for the betterment of one community while abandoning the other. The Congress and Gandhi had their faults (I believe Gandhi were too passive and non-violent for my taste. While it is an admirable quality, it would not have got us any independence if Britain was not bankrupted by WW2.This is my personal opinion only.) Why were political leaders fighting for the betterment of one community over the other instead of focusing on the society as a whole?
Let me play the Devil's advocate here. Which part of Congress policies were anti society as a whole ? Which policies favoured Hindus over Muslims ? At the same time , I was reading about the 14 points of Jinnah which was a counter to Nehru report and I was unable to understand the logic of some of the points. I had raised that question in the other thread. Can someone care to explain how it was reasonable/unreasonable?
Re: Congress and Pakistan
But how division of Bengal to give representation backward Muslims (which were in majority in East Bengal) conflicted with Hindu nationalism?
Sorry, I stand corrected. I checked my facts. The division of Bengal led to Swadeshi movement by the Congress.
Curzon divided Bengal on religious grounds. It was not a popular move though even among the british , for example Sir Henry Cotton, the chief commissioner of Assam vehemently opposed it. RabindraNath Tagore wrote "Amar Shonar Bangla" which became a rallying cry for unity. It is now the National anthem of Bangladesh:) .
Due to the division, Hindus who were pushing for more involvement in governance were weakened because of loss of West part and Muslims had hoped for better governance and were happy with the division initially, but were rather disillusioned when their circumstances did not change for the better.
So they joined back together. A new partition which divided the province on linguistic, rather than religious, grounds followed, with the Hindi, Oriya and Assamese areas separated to form separate administrative units. That was when the capital was moved from Kolkata to Delhi.
What did devolve was community harmony. In 1919, separate elections were established for Muslims and Hindus. Before this, many members of both communities had advocated national solidarity of all Bengalis. Now, distinctive communities developed, with their own political agendas. Muslims, too, dominated the Legislature, due to their overall numerical strength of roughly twenty eight to twenty two million. Nationally, Hindus and Muslims began to demand the creation of two independent states, one to be formed in majority Hindu and one in majority Muslim areas with most Bengali Hindus now supporting partitioning Bengal on this basis.
Re: Congress and Pakistan
I humbly believe that when we stood on the cusp of nationhood and freedom, what was important was equality of all communities . If a person was really an ambassador of Unity, nothing should have made him compromise that position and led to a situation where he tried to work for the betterment of one community while abandoning the other. The Congress and Gandhi had their faults (I believe Gandhi were too passive and non-violent for my taste. While it is an admirable quality, it would not have got us any independence if Britain was not bankrupted by WW2.This is my personal opinion only.) Why were political leaders fighting for the betterment of one community over the other instead of focusing on the society as a whole?
Let me play the Devil's advocate here. Which part of Congress policies were anti society as a whole ? Which policies favoured Hindus over Muslims ? At the same time , I was reading about the 14 points of Jinnah which was a counter to Nehru report and I was unable to understand the logic of some of the points. I had raised that question in the other thread. Can someone care to explain how it was reasonable/unreasonable?
The all the struggle of Muslim League revolved around the point that Muslims in minority will not get equal rights against the Hindu majority. As far as Mr Jinah's attitude is concerned he remained advocate of Hindu-Muslim unity till end. His speeches after partition emphasise on rights of minorities of Pakistan (including Hindus).
Before considering the Nehru Report and subsequent 14 points by Mr Jinnah, one should look at Lucknow Pact of 1916. Some points already agrred upon between Congress and Muslim League were ignored in Nehru Report, which made Mr Jinnah to present 14 points. Can you please reiterate the confusing points that need further explanation.
Re: Congress and Pakistan
Ok let us start with Lucknow pact and then move on to Nehru report and others. The only clause I found that pertained to muslims in the summarized report was:
The number of Muslims in the provincial legislatures would be laid down province by province.
In Nehru report:
1.There shall be no state religion; men and women shall have equal rights as citizens.
2.It did not provide for separate electorates for any community or weightage for minorities. Both of these were liberally provided in the eventual Government of India Act 1935. However, it did allow for the reservation of minority seats in provinces having a minorities of at least ten percent, but this was to be in strict proportion to the size of the community.
How were these points of Nehru report negative for development of country. It looks like it was trying to equalize all communities irrespective of religion to me. Can you please explain your view points ?
Re: Congress and Pakistan
The all the struggle of Muslim League revolved around the point that Muslims in minority will not get equal rights against the Hindu majority. As far as Mr Jinah's attitude is concerned he remained advocate of Hindu-Muslim unity till end. His speeches after partition emphasise on rights of minorities of Pakistan (including Hindus).
Before considering the Nehru Report and subsequent 14 points by Mr Jinnah, one should look at Lucknow Pact of 1916. Some points already agrred upon between Congress and Muslim League were ignored in Nehru Report, which made Mr Jinnah to present 14 points. Can you please reiterate the confusing points that need further explanation.
exactly as i stated above the main reason was this tht muslims were not given equal rights, n jinnah left congress because he realized tht congress is only thinking about hindus welfare, they were giving priorities to hindus, this leaad to formation of muslim league tht will represent muslims of sub continent n ultiamtely pakistan
Re: Congress and Pakistan
exactly as i stated above the main reason was this tht muslims were not given equal rights, n jinnah left congress because he realized tht congress is only thinking about hindus welfare, they were giving priorities to hindus, this leaad to formation of muslim league tht will represent muslims of sub continent n ultiamtely pakistan
When U say equal rights, can you elaborate point wise please so that we can all understand exactly what rights were denied to muslims and what rights hindus gained at the expense of muslims ?
Re: Congress and Pakistan
When U say equal rights, can you elaborate point wise please so that we can all understand exactly what rights were denied to muslims and what rights hindus gained at the expense of muslims ?
congress was hindu majority, most of the rights n authorities were with with hindus, muslims didnt have equal say in the party
Re: Congress and Pakistan
Ok let us start with Lucknow pact and then move on to Nehru report and others. The only clause I found that pertained to muslims in the summarized report was: The number of Muslims in the provincial legislatures would be laid down province by province.
In Nehru report: 1.There shall be no state religion; men and women shall have equal rights as citizens. 2.It did not provide for separate electorates for any community or weightage for minorities. Both of these were liberally provided in the eventual Government of India Act 1935. However, it did allow for the reservation of minority seats in provinces having a minorities of at least ten percent, but this was to be in strict proportion to the size of the community.
How were these points of Nehru report negative for development of country. It looks like it was trying to equalize all communities irrespective of religion to me. Can you please explain your view points ?
On the face of it, nothing wrong with the points you mentioned from Nehru Report. But there might be some deficiencies that were exploited by Muslim League by demanding separate electorate for Muslims. I'll search for those instances before commenting further.
Re: Congress and Pakistan
congress was hindu majority, most of the rights n authorities were with with hindus, muslims didnt have equal say in the party
Congress was not a party that had closed its membership to muslims. Infact there were muslims congress leaders too. Nobody opposed muslims from joining congress. What membership rights and authorities did hindu congress members have that muslim congress leaders did not have ?
Re: Congress and Pakistan
Congress was not a party that had closed its membership to muslims. Infact there were muslims congress leaders too. Nobody opposed muslims from joining congress. What membership rights and authorities did hindu congress members have that muslim congress leaders did not have ?
Good point. That raises another question? Did Muslim League accommodated non-Muslim Members?
Re: Congress and Pakistan
Congress was not a party that had closed its membership to muslims. Infact there were muslims congress leaders too. Nobody opposed muslims from joining congress. What membership rights and authorities did hindu congress members have that muslim congress leaders did not have ?
agreed but The Congress made no conscious efforts to enlist the Muslim community in its struggle for Indian independence. Although some Muslims were active in the Congress, majority of Muslim leaders did not trust the Hindu predominance and most of the Muslims remained reluctant to join the Congress Party.
Re: Congress and Pakistan
agreed but The Congress made no conscious efforts to enlist the Muslim community in its struggle for Indian independence. Although some Muslims were active in the Congress, majority of Muslim leaders did not trust the Hindu predominance and most of the Muslims remained reluctant to join the Congress Party.
DA what do you mean by enlisting Muslims in struggle of Indian Independence?