What would have been it like? 
Re: If Pakistan was never independent and was part of India
Its a hypothetical question hence not easy to answer. We could have been better in a sense that there would have been less talebanization and bad in a sense that we could have been at the bottom of the social ring.
Re: If Pakistan was never independent and was part of India
Ah Hem! correction Bhai Sahib/ Behan Ji…
even before the so called India was formed there existed Pakistan in the form of the Mughal Sultanate of Hindustan run by Muslim Rulers, starting in year 1000 by Pathan Kings and consolidated by Mughals til the East India Company broke it apart in the Late 1700’s…
The Point I am trying to make is that Muslim rule in the sub-continent now being called India predates this new entity by 700 years!
Re: If Pakistan was never independent and was part of India
Muslims would have been stronger and they would have a bigger share in the Government…we would also have NOT so much Hindu-Muslim enmity.
Re: If Pakistan was never independent and was part of India
Afghanistan would have been blamed for all problems in India.
Re: If Pakistan was never independent and was part of India
It would be impoverished. Just like a majority of India.
Poverty in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Oh yes the communal violence just north of Delhi that happened last week and between 20 and 50 people were killed based on Hindu-Muslim violence would be a lot more common.
Re: If Pakistan was never independent and was part of India
If there was a Pakindia or Industan (using the Indus river)
I think speculation points that if things worked well it could have been very good or it could have been very bad. There was an Indian Tv show which discussed partition some suggested it was for the best as political elements and society was becoming divisive, few small events would turn communal, and political power struggle was bound to occur. There could have been even further division later on with more than 3 countries formed. On the other hand some suggested if the right leaders were chosen there would be less spent on defence, less wars, less conflict and maybe more money diverted towards poverty, education, promotion of tourism and infrastructure. Maybe having more diverse populations in either country would have made them more tolerant and maybe there would be more understanding.
Communal events have the power to affect the subcontinent as we are an emotional people. It can be easy to unite or divide just with words. The events in UP last week were started due to an event of a boy teasing a girl, the girl’s family attacked the boy and the boy’s family responded. During this time some political elements did mischief and misused photos of mob violence from Pakistan to spur on violence. People were killed but mob violence still occurs in India and Pakistan despite being separate countries. In India there are examples of riots not just against Muslims but also Sikhs. These usually occur for political reasons. Then in Pakistan there is the example of Rimsha Masih and the associated violence in Christian neighbourhoods which followed or targeting of Shias, Ahmadiyas in Pakistan. Why do you think having 15% more Muslims in India would lead to more mob violence? There are already states in India where there are 40-60 to 90% (eg. Lakshwadeep) of Muslims. No mob violence has occurred in all of those places.
In countries like India and Pakistan there will always be mob violence, no matter who the minority, unless politics is less corrupt and people are educated in unbiased way about others. Uneducated people take frustrations out on people they think are responsible. There are lot of examples of harmony between communities in Pakistan and in India. In Pakistan, in Sindh i have heard Muslims and Hindus got on and in India, in educated places such as Kerala and in South/North India, or even villages where there is community atmosphere there is less mob violence. Before British colonialism i think the GDP of the subcontinent was 27% of world gdp and then after it got reduced to 5% which meant there was going to be poverty. In the 19th C pre-partition subcontinent was largest producer of cotton textiles to UK and Europe but by the 20th C it began to stagnate. Also policies during colonialism helped to divide people by favouring people of majority religion in different places which was going to later breed resent and be cause for discrimination.
The Mughal empire definitely united a lot of the country but before that it was united by King Ashok and King Chandragupta Maurya who ruled the subcontinent from Bengal and Assam in east to Afghanistan and Balochistan to eastern and south east Iran in West.
I mean if the Brits had left in the beginning of the 20th C when there was less communalism it could have worked out. There was unity between different religions during 1857 mutiny. Not all places had partition violence. In Agra, where my grandparents are from, my grandmother said people left if they could afford it but there was not any violence. In our neigbourhood there were 2 brothers who were family friends. One was rich and he went to Pakistan and the other stayed behind.
If the 2 nation theory was completely true there wouldn’t be any minorities living in Pakistan and there wouldn’t be Muslims in India. They would all go to safer place and migrate across with time but they haven’t. Or there wouldn’t be overseas Indians and Pakistanis who get along. You might say its because they are minority but what about places where there is majority of asians eg. places in Birmingham, Bradford, Southall how much mob violence between Indians-Pakistanis do you see? In fact during mob violence in UK in 2011 you may have heard Indians and Pakistanis helped each other out. What makes overseas Indians and Pakistanis who get along different to the ones who do not get along in India and Pakistan? Maybe it is education, exposure to diversity, better political system, better law enforcement and equal opportunities.
If politicians were better and the political system was better or if there was more funding for unbiased education, erasing poverty, increasing economic opportunities and better law enforcement rather than now with need for defence/conflict people may be less likely to do mob violence. We cannot say definitely that there would be more violence if diverse populations were present in both countries. There may have also been less ghettoisation. 20-50 people out of 1.2 billion people? even in Pakistan number of minorities targeted is probably miniscule compared to the few millions present. Both places have lot of potential for tourism but this conflict and internal struggles deter tourists affecting the economy.
Now there is too much history, political differences in thought, so the best situation would be for India-Pakistan to be peaceful neighbours like US-Canada, resolve their issues and have more people to people interaction. I completely respect that Pakistanis believe they have differences in culture etc and your soverignty. So this is all speculation.
India and Pakistan are both awesome places but they could have become a tourist’s paradise (either together or separate) and been like Europe/developed countries in Asia as we have similar natural and human made beauty but due to corruption in politics/law enforcement, education, war, lack of development/infrastructure it will sadly takes ages before we’re like that. So many tourism site potential that no one knows about, so much development could have occurred with creating architectural wonders like in Dubai and better transport (like bullet trains in Japan connecting places).
Re: If Pakistan was never independent and was part of India
Interesting question would be what would India Pakistan be like today if we were still under British rule (but maybe more independence and nicer rule)? Would we be less or more developed? Would we be like the UK?
Or what would India-Pakistan be like if partition occurred on the basis of ethnicity rather than religion? Like if it was divided into a number of smaller countries like the soviet union was. So Punjabis would be together, Kashmiris, Sindhis, UP of India+Karachi would be a different country. They might be like the EU so it would be easier to travel between different regions and maybe there might be different traditions/customs in each separate place.
Re: If Pakistan was never independent and was part of India
The danger of Balkanization with a death count far higher than partition would be perpetually over the country’s head. The benefit that India got from partition is that the Muslim population was reduced from 1/3 to 1/10. This meant that communal violence could not get too out of hand.
Imagine if in the 1990s, Muslim-dominated Sindh, West Punjab, Balochistan and the NWFP as well as East Bengal saw Muslim revenge attacks on the local hindu communities after attacks on Muslims elsewhere in India… it would have led to a massively escalating cycle of violence.
The past peace before British rule was because the idea of religious nationalism, both on the Hindu and Muslim sides, did not exist. Hindu and Muslim and Sikh rulers generally oppressed those under them with relatively little differentiation for faith, so in a political sense it did not matter.
Re: If Pakistan was never independent and was part of India
There were Muslim rulers so it can be muslim ruled afterwards right.
Re: If Pakistan was never independent and was part of India
I don’t agree with agree, it’s just one side of picture.
Re: If Pakistan was never independent and was part of India
Yeah that’s right.
Re: If Pakistan was never independent and was part of India
app foreign born pakis ki confusion door ho jati…
khud ko aasani sy indian keh lety… rather then coming up with terms like… desi and stuff.
Re: If Pakistan was never independent and was part of India
Aur app to jaisay Pakistan Bethay hain
Re: If Pakistan was never independent and was part of India
Desi to purana term hai aur sirf indians, pakistanis ke liye nahi its for bangladeshis, nepalis and sri lankans. so not just a special term for indians and pakistanis. Other terms are south asian, subcontinental. And yaar in case you don’t know many foreign born pakistanis are even more pakistani than some pakistanis living in pakistan.
Aur jab kuch discrimination ho jata hai West mein against pakistanis, indians then all these people come together and say “hum sab ek hain” goray log ka plan hai divide and rule karne ka. its because there is power in numbers. we know discrimination/racism to hota hai
Re: If Pakistan was never independent and was part of India
What i beleive is pakistanis and indians are one nation .. They should be called themselves as south asians and there should not be any discrimination . For those who dont like indians , let me tell u all that Our forefathers are from india .
Re: If Pakistan was never independent and was part of India
the bottom…socially, economically
Re: If Pakistan was never independent and was part of India
All those khans would be a collective guilt for unleashing them on the world.
Re: If Pakistan was never independent and was part of India
We would never be able to sing ‘Ae Watan Pak watan’. It would have been Bande Mataram… We should be thankful of what we got and move on with the approach to make our country a better place to live.