Last of the Dino, I dont want to read your anti-pakistani rubbish, the fact of the matter is, Jinnah was the most instrumental person in getting us indpendence, without him there would have been no independence, and lastly I dont think the opinion of a person who is always talking about afghanistan joining with NWFP is credible, you can continue to live in your fantasy world, but it will always hurt you, the fact that Jinnah led us to the creation of Pakistan.....mod-edit
The partition of India took place because hindus and muslims do not get along and are in fact two seperate nations.
[QUOTE]
ooooooooooo hindus just saved their skinny butts by leaving us alone.
Now they can kill kashmiris/indian muslims.
If we had to live with them we would have kicked their a$$es all the way to indian ocean.
[/QUOTE]
Well said, well said.
[QUOTE]
Sub continent or simply United India was called Soney Ki Chidya but today its just a group of so called independent countries India Pak n Bungladesh which contributes to humanity in the form of poverty war n fundamentalism.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe you are referring to hindusthan, definitely not pakistan and bangladesh!
Making of Pakistan was never an incident . it can never be . Hindus tried their best to make Muslims their slaves and in this persuit killed many only at that time . it was said that only if it would have been known that Jinnah had tuberclosis and would not live for long , the hindus would have not let him win Pakistan as an Islamic Independent State.
Jinnah not only used his wits , but his decisive nature made Pakistan a reality .
this was not a gamble - not a game .. it was well worked on for years by the unrest soldier of wisdom (Jinnah)
I think that this argument although technically correct, is not indicative that Congress is responsible for partition and Muslim League was not.
The Cabinet Mission Plan was a last minute or eleventh hour co-incident change of stand of both sides. Prior to that since many years, Congress fought tooth and nail against partition, whereas Pakistan's creation was the cornerstone of Muslim-League politics.
ML had won all elections in Western provinces and areas on the basis that the voters will get Pakistan. The muslim electorate had given a referendum for partition. Also, there was lot of Hindu-Muslim riots and killings because of Direct ACtion Day and in general also.
Thats why the Congress said, "OK so if a civil-war is erupting and if the Muslim electorate desparately wants Pakistan, then go ahead with partition".
Now what was the reason for ML doing a simultaneous U-turn on partition is best known to Pakistanis.
The Congress always asked for a united electorate regardless of religion. What can be wrong in that ?
Vande Mataram is a non-issue. Muslims have been singing Vande mataram in India since 1947; only this year some maulvi or mullah raked up a storm over it, and the matter was resolved very very peacefully--Those who wanted to sing it, sang it and those who did not want to sing did not sing.
I don't think that a 4 para song is reason enough to ask for partition.
See India has also been very flexible. India has traditionally claimed all of AJK and NA also, but since past few years India has offered to make LoC as the international border. That is giving up on a huge amount of territory. But Pakistan has not given up its claim on Indian Kashmir and even Jammu and Ladakh---until now.
What general Musharraf has said is not new. India has also said that without redrawing the map, make the borders irrelevant .
I remember Mush giving interview to a TV reporter of an Indian Channel way back in mid 2004. It was in Malaysia I guess.
What he stated was 'Yeh trade or economic cooperation ki baat chchodo..Pehle Kashmir ki baat karo...Pakistan main agar kisi ko survive karna hai to bina Kashmir ka mudda uthaye mushkil hai."
True but you people fail to realize the reason behind the change of heart. In 1937 ML has no majority, it failed but the resulting congress governments were so horrible that the two years rule simply was unbearable for Muslims, it was congress which was the reason for change of hearts, not ML
Thats why the Congress said, "OK so if a civil-war is erupting and if the Muslim electorate desparately wants Pakistan, then go ahead with partition". .
Well the civil war was started by Hindus in India, if you have ever read about the bihar riots, they were a carnage just like gujrat, if the partition was accepted, why would the Muslim create riots, they were getting their way, simple logic Abhiman if you see it not from Indian propagated history but independents.
Now what was the reason for ML doing a simultaneous U-turn on partition is best known to Pakistanis. The Congress always asked for a united electorate regardless of religion. What can be wrong in that ?.
The problem was that Pakistan was a half dream and the cabinet plan was guarenteeing that Muslims would get what they want in their majority areas and still be a part of India where the minority muslims would be taken care of. That was the best solution which congress was not ready to concieve to muslims. this was exactly according to Jinnah's fourteen points of 1929 which was his last effort for avoiding partition and rejected by Congress.
Vande Mataram is a non-issue. Muslims have been singing Vande mataram in India since 1947; only this year some maulvi or mullah raked up a storm over it, and the matter was resolved very very peacefully--Those who wanted to sing it, sang it and those who did not want to sing did not sing. .
Exactly, but making it compulsory makes it an issue, so many children were expelled from schools in 1937-39 period for refusing to sing vande matram. I will write more about these congressional governments if Indian Government has not made it a part of the official history.
I don't think that a 4 para song is reason enough to ask for partition. See India has also been very flexible. India has traditionally claimed all of AJK and NA also, but since past few years India has offered to make LoC as the international border. That is giving up on a huge amount of territory. But Pakistan has not given up its claim on Indian Kashmir and even Jammu and Ladakh---until now. .
Giving up a huge amount of territoty which was never yours, abhiman come on!! Kashmir neither belongs to us nor you, its status is to be decided as per plebiscite and India has accepted that in UN. Now India says that it is its "Atoot Ung" who has given legitimacy to Indian occupation of Kashmir. If you talk about instrument of accession, you must know that Maharaja has signed an agreement of standstill with both the countries and according to that agreement he was not authorized to unilaterally sign accession to any one country and precisely the reason Nehru had to admit about disputed nature of territory in UN.
What general Musharraf has said is not new. India has also said that without redrawing the map, make the borders irrelevant .
Well to me, he seems to be in much of a hurry and i think he will suffer, i think Pakistan need not to give up its claim that Kashmir is a disputed territory but of course i am opposed to anything but an indigenous freedom struggle. Only moral, political and may be financial support to the parties who agree to the disputed nature of the territory
Why do you say that Kashmir is a disputed territory. Kashmiris are not Muslims alone, there had been Kashmiri Pundits, Rajputs, Jews in this region who have been living here for hundreds of years.
See Mohammad Iqbal had already proposed a separate state of Pakistan in 19*3*0. His ideas were expressed in the round table conference also.
ML had also been working towards separate Muslim electorates and reservations since 1927 (refer to 14 points of Jinnah presented to the Muslim league in 1929).
So idea of Pakistan was set in motion way back in 1920s and 1930s.
In 1940, ML had won the elections in Bengal and Punjab and other Muslim majority states. Hence, the call for Pakistan in 1940 by Jinnah had anything to do with congress ruled states.
Besides the Deoband school of thought and Muslim leaders like Maududi, Saifuddin Kitchlu, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, and Maulana Azad opposed partition.
Well I'm afraid but as far as known to me, Direct Action Day was called by ML, and the massacres in Calcutta were started by Muslims.
ML ruled the Bengal province at that time and had an ML Chief Minister in Calcutta. Jinnah is recorded to have said : "We shall have India divided or we shall have India destroyed".
Noakhali massacres were against Hindus in which tens of thousands of Hindus were killed. In Calcutta and Punjab, both communities suffered equally, but the fact remains that the day was declared by ML and Calcutta riots were instigated by it.
Congress wanted no Hindu electorates and no Muslim electorates. A Hndu could win an election in NWFP and a Muslim could win in Tamil Nadu or Maharashtra. Muslim Congress leaders like Maulana Azad, Saifuddin Kitchlu, Asaf Ali (who defeated an ML candidate) and others like Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, were prominent Muslims in the INC and opposed separate electorates and later opposed partition.
The 14 point plan clearly advocated separate electorates and communal electorates in general.
Well if children were expelled at that time, it was wrong. Rabindranath Tagore himself wrote to Subhas Chandra Bose asking to delete 2 stanzas in which Hindu goddesses are invoked so that Muslims are not hurt. That has since been done.
Well "Kashmir banega Pakistan" is also an indication that the Pakistani public claims all of Kashmir. Besides, I have stated about 20 times on this forum earlier, that Pakistan has written the AJK constituion and according to which, AJK citizens cannot take part in any activity that is detrimental to AJK's accession to Pakistan.
So in effect Pakistan does claim all of Kashmir. Also, past wars like Kargil intrusuions (not by Mujahideen, but by NLI) and Operation Gibralter also prove that Pakistan claims Kashmir.
I don't think he ever signed any such agreement. He sent the instrument of accession to Mountbatten and Mountbatten in his reply suggested him to ascertain the wishes of the people, while even accepting the instrument simultaneously.
Why do you say that Kashmir is a disputed territory. Kashmiris are not Muslims alone, there had been Kashmiri Pundits, Rajputs, Jews in this region who have been living here for hundreds of years.
Extremely interesting, all of us know how biased can wikipedia be once the topic is debatable.
See Mohammad Iqbal had already proposed a separate state of Pakistan in 19*3*0. His ideas were expressed in the round table conference also.
Despite his crediblity, it did not gain widespread popularity, why? The reason was precisely what i have told you, the horrible congressional governments.
ML had also been working towards separate Muslim electorates and reservations since 1927 (refer to 14 points of Jinnah presented to the Muslim league in 1929).
What was wrong in that, that was a way of securing fundamental rights of Muslims, who were not an brushable minority.
So idea of Pakistan was set in motion way back in 1920s and 1930s. In 1940, ML had won the elections in Bengal and Punjab and other Muslim majority states. Hence, the call for Pakistan in 1940 by Jinnah had anything to do with congress ruled states.
Here is the catch in which wikipedia falls, there were no elections in 1940, They were held in 1937 & from 1937 -1939 Congressional governments were there in India in most of provinces and they took full vengeance from Muslims, books after books are written by scholars how badly Musalmaan's of India were treated by those governments, how jobs were denied to them, education were systematicaly denied to children, Sudhi & shington type of movements were launched by fundamentalist Hindus.
Besides the Deoband school of thought and Muslim leaders like Maududi, Saifuddin Kitchlu, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, and Maulana Azad opposed partition.
They had their view point but majority of Muslims even in areas where Muslims knew that they will never be a part of Pakistan turned against unification after these giovernments
Well I'm afraid but as far as known to me, Direct Action Day was called by ML, and the massacres in Calcutta were started by Muslims.
Sorry, Wikipedia is wrong, i suggest that you open up Civil & Military Gazette of the times and also try to find Report sent to British Government by Viceroy Lord Wavell and you will realize that Muslims were massacred in those riots and hindus were solely responsible for them (like the train incident where they said that Muslims had burnt the train, now every one knows the fire came from Inside). It was ethnic cleansing and carnage nothing else.
Can you please quote from any authentic and neutral book, this is convoluted history.
Noakhali massacres were against Hindus in which tens of thousands of Hindus were killed. In Calcutta and Punjab, both communities suffered equally, but the fact remains that the day was declared by ML and Calcutta riots were instigated by it.
Direct action day never meant that you had to have massacres, that was only to have processions and marching slogans. It was not like Ghandi Jee's "Hindustan Chor Do" . But simple civil disobedience but no destroying of properties. Honly the "Mahasabhai Mercenaries had other plans"
That was their view point , but you know they were left in minority, majority Muslims wanted separate electorates.
yes they were, what was so wrong in them, they were to ensure rights of such a large minority.
Well if children were expelled at that time, it was wrong. Rabindranath Tagore himself wrote to Subhas Chandra Bose asking to delete 2 stanzas in which Hindu goddesses are invoked so that Muslims are not hurt. That has since been done.
A good job done indeed.
Well "Kashmir banega Pakistan" is also an indication that the Pakistani public claims all of Kashmir. Besides, I have stated about 20 times on this forum earlier, that Pakistan has written the AJK constituion and according to which, AJK citizens cannot take part in any activity that is detrimental to AJK's accession to Pakistan.
This phrase means that Kashmir will be a part of Pakistan in future after settlement of dispute, positive thinking i may say, but you say Kashmir is India's "Atoot Ung" in present tense before the dispute is settled and deny existence of any dispute while you accepted yourself in UN floor.
So in effect Pakistan does claim all of Kashmir. Also, past wars like Kargil intrusuions (not by Mujahideen, but by NLI) and Operation Gibralter also prove that Pakistan claims Kashmir.
Yes we claim that it should be solved and we are sure that in any plebiscite Kashmiris will over whelmingly vote for Pakistan, you test it. Why not?
I don't think he ever signed any such agreement. He sent the instrument of accession to Mountbatten and Mountbatten in his reply suggested him to ascertain the wishes of the people, while even accepting the instrument simultaneously.
Again Wikipedia probably Abhiman, please check some authentic source and let us know otherwise i will look for some neutral source and paste here. i wonder such a big thing is not known to such a well read Indian like you. Itr seems that Indian Government's official history is extremely patchy & full of lies and half truths.
I agree that I was mistaken previously and that elections were held in 1937. Well this is from a Pakistani site :
*
Congress, as the oldest, richest and best-organized political party, emerged as the single largest representative in the Legislative Assembles. Yet it failed to secure even 40 percent of the total number of seats. Out of the 1,771 total seats in the 11 provinces, Congress was only able to win slightly more then 750. Thus the results clearly disapproved Gandhi’s claim that his party represented 95 percent of the population of India. Its success, moreover, was mainly confined to the Hindu constituencies.
The Indian National Congress had a clear majority in Madras, U. P., C. P., Bihar and Orrisa. It was also able to form a coalition government in Bombay and N. W. F. P. Congress was also able to secure political importance in Sindh and Assam, where they joined the ruling coalition. Thus directly or indirectly, Congress was in power in nine out of eleven provinces
The Unionist Party of Sir Fazl-i-Hussain and Praja Krishak Party of Maulvi Fazl-i-Haq were able to form governments in Punjab and Bengal respectively, without the interference of Congress.
* http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A042
So from this, Congress won in Hindu-majority provinces only and in Bengal and Punjab, there were fully Muslim coalition governments which did not include the ML.
Again, in the Hindu majority provinces like UP, ML won all the Muslim seats :
*The first elections held under the Government of India act 1935 saw Congress emerging as the majority party. It won 711 out of total of 1585 seats, and could form government in 5/11 provinces without the support of any party. Out of these 711 seats only 26 seats were Muslim seats, thereby increasing Congress`s reliance on local Hindu leaders, which allowed for their agenda to be imposed on the Congress.
Muslim League on the other hand did well on the Muslim seats in the Hindu Majority provinces winning 29 out of 35 seats in the UP. The league however couldn`t do well against the regional parties in Muslim Majority areas.*
Hence Muslim parties (though not ML) ruled Bengal and Punjab, and captured the muslim seats in UP.
So I don’t think there is any question of Hindu torture. Anyway, in his speeches, Jinnah did not mention about Muslim ill-treatment by Hindus; he simply re-iterated what Allama Iqbal said 10 years in 1930 that Hindus and Muslims are separate nations, they have separate ideologies, etc. and so forth. However now, he demanded a separate country called Pakistan and resolved to work towards it.
This won the ML almost all Muslim seats in the 1946 elections.
Well any neutral source on the Noakhali massacres (now in Bangladesh) will tell that Hindus were ethnically cleansed from there.
About Calcutta, there were equal massacres, however, it was ruled by the ML and its Chief Minister was Suhrawardy.
Troubles started on the morning of the 16th August when League volunteers forced Hindu shopkeepers in North Calcutta to close their shops and Hindus retaliated by obstructing the passage of League’s processions. The League’s rally at Ochterloney Monument on that day was considered as the ‘largest ever Muslim assembly’. The Muslim League Chief Minister in his address reportedly assured the audience that the military and police had been ‘restrained’. This was interpreted by the gathering as an open invitation to commit violence on its rival community. The region most affected by the violence was the densely populated sector of the metropolis bounded by Bowbazar Street on the south, Upper Circular Road on the east, Vivekananda Road on the north and Strand Road on the west. Official estimate put the casualties at 4,000 dead and 100,000 injured in the riot. Only on the 22nd Calcutta became quiet except for some isolated killings.
Harun-or Rashid, The Foreshadowing of Bangladesh: Bengal Muslim League and Muslim Politics, 1936-1947, Dhaka, 1987; Suranjan Das, Communal Riots in Bengal 1905 - 1947, Delhi, 1991 & 1993.
That’s from P.N. Benjamin, “Prelude to Partition”, Deccan Herald. I got to know from this site (reference no. 4) :
Again, I don’t think Gandhiji ever said “Hindustan Chor do”, because he was against partition. He was assasinated just before he was about to leave for Pakistan to stop Hindu-Muslim riots.
If he did say that, you may cite a reference.
OK, it may well mean that. But Pakistan’s drafting of the AJK constitution does not imply that.
India too has offiially asked Pakistan on a number of times to consider the LoC as an international border. That was a deviation from the Atoot ang principle.
Actually that was not from wikipedia. I had a debate with another Pakistani member (I think it was roadrunner, but I’m not sure)on this very topic a few months ago. He produced 2 letters : One by the Dogra King Harisingh that was addressed to Mountbatten, and the second, which was Mountbatten’s reply. Harisingh had attached the Instrument of accession in his letter to Mountbatten. Then some 2 days later Mountbatten replied.
Thanx for a patient response, i appreciate your posts. They were informative to me as well.
This shows what happened, Muslims in Hindu Majority areas knew what it is like to be under “mahasabhai’s”. By hindu i mean this RSS types, not all, do not take it that way but understand that present day india is much different than that times. Now it is more liberal and tolerant than pre-partition. so if still RSS exists than you can think of those times.
Well If you search you will find that Muslim league celebrated a deliverance day after these governments resigned.
Actually Muslim eyes were opened in those governments, they knew that they have to do something otherwise they will be crushed by these “fundamental Hindu dominated congress”. That is why a party which was down and out and whose prominent leaderJinnah left league and settled in England came back in mainstream as it was only party opposing congress, rest all unionists, khudai khidmatgar etc were collaborating with congress and stood like triators to muslim cause. Have you understood the rationale behind so sudden U-turn in muslim mindset. No one cared for Pakistan Idea even Iqbal dreamt and few people proposed.
I will definietly try to have a look at it. If it was like it is written than it is a failure of administartion.
I will have a look at it but i assume that Muslims were much poorer in Bengal and Hindus were traditional elites. It seems not really appealing to me.
I am not sure if he can be dependable or neutral, may be we see stanley wolpert for such debatable argument.
This was a famous Movement of Congress called “quit India” or " hindustan Chor do". It was civil disobedience and lawlessness. Breaking railway lines, telegraph poles destruction. destroying government property etc etc. I wonder if you never linked to it or you never heard of it, it was probably in 1942.
Can you quote coz i really do not know about this constitution. If it does than i assume that you must be right in pointing out.
Look to us an issue under debate should be solved the way it was decided to be solved. so 60 years of India’s rule on Kashmir cannot make its claim of Atoot Ung legitimate. This means that if i have force and i occupy some one less powerful’s land and keep it under me for 60 years than i will be its legitimate owner. So you cannot claim IHK as yours and offer us to convert LOC into border.
Please serach your independence history books you will find this agreement called “Standstill Agreement”. That agreement was to take time and ensured both the parties that he will not take unilateral decision. probably he wanted to be independent and was looking for oppurtunities. He bound himself into this agreement to take time. so the instrument if signed in time or even maharajs itself is not valid. There are even doubts that Maharaja signed it afterwards and Army was deployed earlier.
It would be wrong to say that Hindus killed Muslims during partition. Whosoever got an opportunity settled scores. People from both religions lost their lives. But there were many who rose above religious beliefs to save lives.
I am quite distantly related (Maternal Side) to the Royal family of Maharaja Hari Singh. Maharaja Hari Singh had submitted the Instrument of accession to India..there is no doubt about it.
I have several Kashmiri friends (Hindus as well as muslims). Before 1989 there was no disturbance in the valley. It was all instigated by you know who it is..corrupt administration like any other state in India provided a ground fertile for it.