Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
sigh.. if there was no partition, I would have proposed Katrina by now.. 
Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
If there had been no Partition in 1947 then gupshup would just be a figment of our imagination.
mods aur co. kisee brahmin ke bartun doh rahey hotey
Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
It is not true because an undivided India would still not have a Muslim majority. Democratically or through sheer numbers, Muslims would not be able to do much.
I said one or more step closer to becoming an islamic state. May not a islamic state now, but after few more decades, it would have....
Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
and ofcourse, cricket wouldn't have been more interesting than this, there would have been constant bickering (fact is hindu and muslim beliefs are diametrically opposite to each other), there would have been more zakir naiks :), 'dawah' of hindus and also perhaps of others to islam would have been even more etc...
Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
If there had been no partition, then india would have been one or more steps closer to becoming an islamic state.
One step closer? Are you implying that India has already taken steps in that direction?
Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
Its all speculation... The bleeding hearts among us would think that we would all just embrace anf make love. But the fact remains that tensions between Muslims and Hindus existed long before the partion. Even if partions hadnt occured, there is no guarantee that the two communities would have gotten along..
Just look at India today... Only about 130 million Muslims and yet they still have probs... Imagine a country with almost 400 million Muslims or more!
Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
One step closer? Are you implying that India has already taken steps in that direction?
and how did u imply that?....Fact is a faction of your jamaat opposed partition, coz village after village were getting converted!!!..wait.. yes...steps had already taken in that direction nearly 600 years ago. Afterall india was a islamic state(atleast partially)
Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
I am in no way advocating joining back only a bit of fun analysis as to what could have been the state of South east Asia? (Good & bad)
- It would have been a very very big country, with the largest population in the world, povery, hunger with racial & religious problems.
- To appease the minority's to stay with India - Jinnah would have been the first Prime Minister (& Governor General).
- Ofcourse if there was not partition, there would have been no mass killings or refugees.
- If there was no mass killings or refugees - the hate factor would have been minimal, say pre - partition level.
- Urdu (or Hindustani) would have been the Official language.
Hyderabad, Kashmir problem would have never arisen. What do you think...........
Jinnah could not have been both the first Prime Minister AND Governor-General, since that would have violated the separation of Head of Government and Head of State.
3-4. Mass killings may not have occured initially.... but to pretend there was no hatred pre-partition is short sighted. There were always tensions that were always kept in check by force, forst by the Mughals, then by their successor states, then by the British. Without partition, eventual problems like the Babri Masjid would have unleashed a cycle of violence as actions by one community against each other on one part of India would be responded to in other parts where that community was minority, unleashing more violence elsewhere...There is no way that urdu would be the official language, not with its connection to previous Muslim rule. As a compromise English might have been picked; but most likely India still would have had multiple official languages.
Hyderabad issue still would have occured as the Nizam wanted to keep Hyderabad independent - that was the constant cornerstone of Hyderabad's policies for 2 centuries.
Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
Hindus have not ruled india for the past 1000 years....moguls...then the british!
Of course if there was no partition...hindus would be intimitadating muslims for killing cows!!
Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
I agree about cricket & hockey being boring, if there had been no partition.
I also tend to agree that the clashes between Hindu's & Muslims could have occured, but perhaps without the entense hatred after partition.
If there had been no partition, the money saved on the military spending would have been spent on the masses.
Pur Jo hota hain, ache ke liyey hota hain
Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
I agree about cricket & hockey being boring, if there had been no partition.
I also tend to agree that the clashes between Hindu's & Muslims could have occured, but perhaps without the entense hatred after partition.
If there had been no partition, the money saved on the military spending would have been spent on the masses.
Military spending would still be high; nationalism would ensure the stupid drive to try and be a superpower would have continued, together with rivalry with China.
Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
^^ not to mention full blown insurgencies in all of India's frontiers
and the radicalization of hinuds due to the large growth of the muslim population
India today would have been on the brink of civil war
Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
If there had been no Partition in 1947 then gupshup would just be a figment of our imagination.
mods aur co. kisee brahmin ke bartun doh rahey hotey
exactly...we would have no opportunitis ..if we had not divided....
anyways ..nice to see you after a long time...:)
Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
Nehru & patel weren’t willing to share power [period] and you say this would happen? 
Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
duplicate
Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
You hae enough mosques in India to raze, enough muslims to kill or burn alive like in Gujrat&Bombay.
You are still not satisfied, you want to feast on us?
Why you people always discuss Gujrat riots, in Hyderabad wheneven riots happen its the reverse most of the people killed are hindus because muslims are majority there, see there are bad and good people everywhere
Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
Only good thing in united india,
We could have ask altaf husain to move down south in india.
Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
and whom you want to replace him with ??
or ask him to join any of these parties
MIM All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen - Wikipedia
or MBT Majlis Bachao Tehreek - Wikipedia
MIM is ruling Hyderebad from 84 but did nothing for development of old city
and the leaders live in posh localities of New city
Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
......
Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
[EMAIL="Mer@K"]Mer2K - You could be right about a 'civil war' within India, if there had been no partition.
Hindus would have wanted to rule based on majority, and the muslims would have resisted. The percieved past atrocities on Hindus would have ultimately lead to civil war & partition anyway.