The following welcoming news seems to give a glimpse of the new golden era dawning upon the subcontinent.
"JAIPUR: An Indian train would cross the international border on the western front to enter Pakistan after a gap of 41 years on Saturday. From now on, for the next six months, it is the turn of the Indian Railways to run the good old Thar Express, which links Munabao in Barmer district of Rajasthan with Khokhrapar in Sindh province of Pakistan. "
My definition of the golden era in the subcontinent is when people of both countries (India and Pakistan) enjoy the previlage of traveling without visa, the religious extrimist no more enjoy the popular support and Kashmir becomes a non issue. In fact this situation can be viewed as a virtual reunification of Kashmir and its people.
War and military will not achieve this. Only reconciliation from both side would step us to this golden era.
"sal35" You are right, but I thought there were flights to each country from the other, can't Indian Muslims avail those? I know the Sikhs do come to Panja Sahib.
I've always tried to figure it out whether the Muslims actually wanted a separate homeland in the 'early' part of the 20th century or were the British hell bent on breaking the country into pieces!
My parents visited Pakistan by PIA in 1985 and my grandfather and uncle too went in 1988. My Pakistani relatives visited us several times (at least half a dozen times) since 1979. But restricted movements and reporting to Police Station and harrassment at the airport and long que to the visa office make things bitter.
Good question - although if there had not been an ego clash between Jinnah & Nehru, and Jinnah had been the PM instead of Nehru the 'country' may still have been one.
Britain was opposed to partition - remember, Muslim had to demand it and spend decades building enough political power and pressure on Britain to achieve it.
If Jinnah had been the leader, things wouldn’t have turned differently. Remember, Jinnah only went from being anti-partition to pro-partition after he sensed the unwillingness of many Hindus to make major concessiosn to protect Muslims and Muslim identity. He feared that in time such view could be adopted by the majority of the leadership (what with India being mainly Hindu) and democratic majority used to repress Muslims.
In short, he feared on a national scale what we already have seen in Gujrat.
If Jinnah had been the leader, things wouldn't have turned differently. Remember, Jinnah only went from being anti-partition to pro-partition after he sensed the unwillingness of many Hindus to make major concessiosn to protect Muslims and Muslim identity. He feared that in time such view could be adopted by the majority of the leadership (what with India being mainly Hindu) and democratic majority used to repress Muslims.
In short, he feared on a national scale what we already have seen in Gujrat.
I believe it was more politically motivated than the fear of persecution along religious lines. The pro-partition lobby blamed the Congress and the nationalist Muslims for the defeat of the Muslim League in the Indian General Elections of 1937 in the Muslim majority provinces. Thats when they espoused the Two-Nation Theory and the reasons for the demand for separate Muslim homelands, and drafted the Lahore Resolution of 1940
There are around 150 million Muslims in Hindustan, 140 million in Bangladesh and about 165 million in Pakistan.
Don't you think, over 400 million Muslims today aginst Hindustan's around 800 million Hindus wouldn't had looked like some sort of tiny minortiy with no influence in politics at all as people think?
Don't you think, over 400 million Muslims today aginst Hindustan's around 800 million Hindus wouldn't had looked like some sort of tiny minortiy with no influence in politics at all as people think?
Exactly - which leads me to believe that the minority persecution fear was all hogwash. Its basically all about politicians' ambitions.
-You didn't need a visa to travel anywhere
-Religious extremists did not have popular support
-Kashmir was not an issue
There is a fundamental difference between the British Raj and today's situation. During British Raj there were classes and it was the era of land lords versus peasants. Modern day India has no such classes. The days of land lords is gone. Now the power lies with the people and not with few bunch of exploititionary royal kings and Jamindars who used to collect taxes from hard working people to feed their British masters.
Indian muslims don't visit Pakistan for site seeing. It has purely an emotional purpose: To reunite with the divided family for a brief period. Same is true for Sindhi Hindu immigrants to India. They too visit Pakistan for the same purpose. And same is true for Pakistani muslims and Pakistani Hindus. But this will fade away over time since next generation wouldn't be bothered.
If Jinnah had been the leader, things wouldn't have turned differently. Remember, Jinnah only went from being anti-partition to pro-partition after he sensed the unwillingness of many Hindus to make major concessiosn to protect Muslims and Muslim identity. He feared that in time such view could be adopted by the majority of the leadership (what with India being mainly Hindu) and democratic majority used to repress Muslims.
In short, he feared on a national scale what we already have seen in Gujrat.
