Migration was not the part of Pakistan's demand. Pakistan was name of majority Muslim areas.
I disagree. Migration may not have been part of Pakistan's demand but it was an obvious eventuality. To think and assume that migration would not occur is at best naive. Muslim League was first founded and headquartered not in Sindh, Balochisthan, KP or even Kashmir but in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. Intellectuals from Aligarh Muslim Uni supported it. This area had a large muslim population but they were by no means the majority here. So it was basically the UP wallahs who started the hullabaloo for Pakistan. So what was their motive? I believe that Pakistan was initially supposed to be created for the muslims of North West India and not for the wellbeing of all the muslims of the Indian Subcontinent.
I disagree. Migration may not have been part of Pakistan's demand but it was an obvious eventuality. To think and assume that migration would not occur is at best naive. Muslim League was first founded and headquartered not in Sindh, Balochisthan, KP or even Kashmir but in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. Intellectuals from Aligarh Muslim Uni supported it. This area had a large muslim population but they were by no means the majority here. So it was basically the UP wallahs who started the hullabaloo for Pakistan. So what was their motive? I believe that Pakistan was initially supposed to be created for the muslims of North West India and not for the wellbeing of all the muslims of the Indian Subcontinent.
How come we believe that migration was an obvious eventuality, when the stakeholders didn't know which country they would belong to until the eleventh hour. Migration happened due to communal riots, which gave a reason to the parties who claimed that Hindu-Muslims can't live together.
When people say that the part of present day pakistan was "never a part of India", we can say neither were many of the south Indian Kingdoms. They have mostly been independent of Mughal influence and have little in common culturally with North India. The only uniting factor is a common religion which is not a reliable uniting factor else Pakistan with the same religion would not have broken up into Pak and BD. Yet here we are a vibrant and more economically benificial part of India.
I may be wrong, but I am just trying to reason that the logic and causes IMO that ML gave forth that made it unable to live with the rest of India is not very viable. Having said that, I would like to say that I am by no means a proponent of Akhand Bharath and would rather the status Quo be maintained with the 3 seperate countries that emerged from British India.:)
When people say that the part of present day pakistan was "never a part of India", we can say neither were many of the south Indian Kingdoms. They have mostly been independent of Mughal influence and have little in common culturally with North India. The only uniting factor is a common religion which is not a reliable uniting factor else Pakistan with the same religion would not have broken up into Pak and BD. Yet here we are a vibrant and more economically benificial part of India.
I may be wrong, but I am just trying to reason that the logic and causes IMO that ML gave forth that made it unable to live with the rest of India is not very viable. Having said that, I would like to say that I am by no means a proponent of Akhand Bharath and would rather the status Quo be maintained with the 3 seperate countries that emerged from British India.:)
Very true as far as the existence of separate independent states is concerned. Even Mughals didn't have complete control over the areas forming part of todays Pakistan. Rulers of Sindh were not that attached with Mughals as other Northern India rulers.
Muslim League exploited the reasons which affected Muslims of India. Its another discussion whether it represented all the Muslims of India or not.
How come we believe that migration was an obvious eventuality, when the stakeholders didn't know which country they would belong to until the eleventh hour. Migration happened due to communal riots, which gave a reason to the parties who claimed that Hindu-Muslims can't live together.
Did the people of Sindh, Balochistan and KP rise up and demand a separate country initially ? It was the muslim League which initially originated from Uttar Pradesh which was never in contention for the seperate state since it was not a muslim majority area. Why were they interested in forming a seperate muslim country faraway from their native villages if they had not entertained the idea of migrating (may be peacefully) at some point. Punjab was different since it straddled the border of the new state . What was the religious demographics of Pre independent Punjab ? As far as I know, 60% of Punjab went to Pakistan.
When people say that the part of present day pakistan was "never a part of India", we can say neither were many of the south Indian Kingdoms. They have mostly been independent of Mughal influence and have little in common culturally with North India. The only uniting factor is a common religion which is not a reliable uniting factor else Pakistan with the same religion would not have broken up into Pak and BD. Yet here we are a vibrant and more economically benificial part of India.
I may be wrong, but I am just trying to reason that the logic and causes IMO that ML gave forth that made it unable to live with the rest of India is not very viable. Having said that, I would like to say that I am by no means a proponent of Akhand Bharath and would rather the status Quo be maintained with the 3 seperate countries that emerged from British India.:)
Congress proved tht they are in sensitive o Muslims, thts y Muslims wanted separate homeland to protect their rights n to have equal values, yes Bangladesh got separated but after many years tht time the main issue was security of muslims
Did the people of Sindh, Balochistan and KP rise up and demand a separate country initially ? It was the muslim League which initially originated from Uttar Pradesh which was never in contention for the seperate state since it was not a muslim majority area. Why were they interested in forming a seperate muslim country faraway from their native villages if they had not entertained the idea of migrating (may be peacefully) at some point. Punjab was different since it straddled the border of the new state . What was the religious demographics of Pre independent Punjab ? As far as I know, 60% of Punjab went to Pakistan.
UP people may have initiated the idea of Pakistan, but again its far fetched that we consider that they wanted to leave their land. They were compelled to leave their homes because of riots. As far as Sindh is concerned, it was dominated by Congress till 1930's, but then it was Sindh Assembly which first passed the Pakistan resolution, which shows that people of Sindh were somehow not happy with Congress.
UP people may have initiated the idea of Pakistan, but again its far fetched that we consider that they wanted to leave their land. They were compelled to leave their homes because of riots.** As far as Sindh is concerned, it was dominated by Congress till 1930's, but then it was Sindh Assembly which first passed the Pakistan resolution, which shows that people of Sindh were somehow not happy with Congress**.
good point muqa bhai.
and Minto Park jalsa of 23rd March 1940 was another effort of punjab and showed willingness of new country.
Sorry Muqawwee, I just dont understand why it was initially any of UP wallah’s business when people of Sindh and Balochistan etc did not initiate the demand. Just imagine that if I am an Indian live in some place like Denver and Southern California has become an Indian Majority area for example god forbid , I don’t see how it is any of my business to initiate a movement for separate homeland for the Indians of California when they have not initiated the movement themselves or are satisfied with the status quo. Do u get my point ? Religion was just a crutch used initially and was just used as a bargaining/threatening chip and it eventually became a deciding factor. I am just trying to understand how wholesome the support for a separate homeland was from all the muslims of British India and if it was just a political ideology among a small % which was used to whip up communal fervor till there was no option but to seperate. And also if ML can claim to be the mouth piece of **all muslims **of British India.
I agree with your point that religion was used as tool in creation of Pakistan and probably it didn’t prove as a binding force later on. But if we see at the events then Muslim League’s first demand was not a separate country. Its a long journey that started with the demand for separate electoral of Muslims and ended on separate state for Muslims considering the events that comes on its way.
Mr Jinnah was called Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity by Sarojni Naidu. How a person of such repute changed his stance and demanded for a separate country says all about the circumstances that Muslims of India were going through under the leadership of Congress.
.... As far as Sindh is concerned, it was dominated by Congress till 1930's, but then it was Sindh Assembly which first passed the Pakistan resolution, which shows that people of Sindh were somehow not happy with Congress.
I understand Sindh , KP areas, Balochistan wanting to be a separate country. Pakistan resolution was passed in the Sindh Assembly in 1938 after influential Sindhi activists under supervision of G.M. Syed and other important leaders at the forefront of the provincial autonomy movement, joined the Muslim League. Why did they not do so earlier but only with the help of UP origin Muslim League ? Unlike other places in North India ,note that Sindh did not witness massive rioting, and migration of Hindus from Sindh was fractional as a large number stayed back. So Muslim League whipped up religious fervor in other parts of India and they always had some thought of migration.
I understand Sindh , KP areas, Balochistan wanting to be a separate country. Pakistan resolution was passed in the Sindh Assembly in 1938 after influential Sindhi activists under supervision of G.M. Syed and other important leaders at the forefront of the provincial autonomy movement, joined the Muslim League. Why did they not do so earlier but only with the help of UP origin Muslim League ? Unlike other places in North India ,note that Sindh did not witness massive rioting, and migration of Hindus from Sindh was fractional as a large number stayed back. So Muslim League whipped up religious fervor in other parts of India and they always had some thought of migration.
We can't blame Muslim League for communal riots that took place in 1947. If Sindh didn't witness communal riots, it was due to nature of the people living here, whose roots were and are in Sufism. There might be some chances of migration, but migration on that scale was beyond anyone's thoughts and that was only attributable to communal riots, for which we can't blame a single party.
I... Its a long journey that started with the demand for separate electoral of Muslims and ended on separate state for Muslims considering the events that comes on its way.
Mr Jinnah was called Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity by Sarojni Naidu. How a person of such repute changed his stance and demanded for a separate country says all about the circumstances that Muslims of India were going through under the leadership of Congress.
Thank you for your patient answer :) How would separate electorate based on religion benefit the community ? I think U have some similar set up in Pak. How has it been beneficial ? In India, many pockets with muslim majority field representatives from their religion as far as I have observed. This is the norm though it does not have to be so. The representatives have to work to the benefit of their constituency at least on paper.Unfortunately most of our politicians are not fit to be described in polite conversations.
There might be some chances of migration, but migration on that scale was beyond anyone's thoughts and that was only attributable to communal riots, for which we can't blame a single party.
I agree and it was not my intention to completely blame a single party for the riots, it takes 2 to tango. But everybody involved has to shoulder the blame.
Thank you for your patient answer :) How would separate electorate based on religion benefit the community ? I think U have some similar set up in Pak. How has it been beneficial ? In India, many pockets with muslim majority field representatives from their religion as far as I have observed. This is the norm though it does not have to be so. The representatives have to work to the benefit of their constituency at least on paper.Unfortunately most of our politicians are not fit to be described in polite conversations.
I think we can't compare the current electorial system in Pakistan with the electorial system prevalent before partition. It is believed that issues like separation of Bengal in 1905 (which lead to forming of Muslim League) and annexation of Sindh with Mumbai were some of the instances where Muslims felt that Congress Leadership is not representing issues affecting Muslims properly.
... annexation of Sindh with Mumbai were some of the instances where Muslims felt that Congress Leadership is not representing issues affecting Muslims properly.
The decision was reversed I think and Sindh became a separate province in 1935 before the Pakistan Resolution was passed in 1938
, I don’t see how it is any of my business to initiate a movement for separate homeland for the Indians of California when they have not initiated the movement themselves or are satisfied with the status quo. Do u get my point ?
Religion was just a crutch used initially and was just used as a bargaining/threatening chip and it eventually became a deciding factor. I am just trying to understand how wholesome the support for a separate homeland was from all the muslims of British India and if it was just a political ideology among a small % which was used to whip up communal fervor till there was no option but to seperate. And also if ML can claim to be the mouth piece of **all muslims **of British India.