Re: Why did the Partition of India take place?
we simply did something wrong, when two groups of people do not want to live together, they mutually decide and separate, provided that the majority demands it. But now Pakistanis accept their follies (their leaders who they lament a lot) and therefore we and Bangladesh have good relations. But you put the blame squarely on us and that is why things are still hanging. why does,nt India accept she did wrong and all goes well.
Re: Why did the Partition of India take place?
who so ever destroyed should be punished. very simple, place of worships are to be sanctified. but whta do you say about babri mosque, was'nt it a place of worship destroyed on some ficticious claims and now i see such claims coming up for Taj Mahal as well.
i dont believe in this rama being god and all(though earlier i did). i dont really care if a temple is built or not at that place.
[quote]
Never, if they had remained all life as hindus and just before death started believing in unity of Allah and Muhammad as the last prophet, they will be better than me, who stayed life long as a muslim but kept on commiting sins. don't you see it as a very good deal.
[/quote]
hindus may/do believe in unity of allah/God, but may not think about any prophet at all what so ever let alone muhammad. those who want others to accept their stand or belief, will find resistance from other side.
Re: Why did the Partition of India take place?
when did i put the blame squarely on you guys?..i did say nehru is resposible for partition and he surely is. loss of life was there on both sides. with regard to who lost more?...that nobody can clearly tell and it would be stupid to do it and count number of lives lost and proclaim superiority/ show holier than thou attitude.
Re: Why did the Partition of India take place?
by you means i mean Indians not you ssingh. They always lament Jinnah that he raised the issue of partition based on religion, however Indians forget that it was the congress leadership's hardliner and intolerant attitude that Hindu-Muslim Brotherhood champion Jinnah went against it. If you do not believe so it does not make you a majority in India.
Re: Why did the Partition of India take place?
wow nice discussion from 1st post uptill now
i really enjoyed it
Re: Why did the Partition of India take place?
What did Jinnah do to a hindu cause, atleast the congress did something during khilafat.
Whatever justification you give, it is Jinnah who raised the issue of religion to demand partition. The history of pakistan and india from its inception prooves the above point. Pakistan went on to become an islamic state and India remained secular. This proves that Indians (hindus) werent so much into religion or their group was well in minority while the hardcore religious muslim fanatics had the upper hand in pakistan. Jinnah being a highly ambitious political lawyer knows where to strike to hold on to his ground.
About the demand of money from pakistan, a country which can declare a war within a year of its inception, how can it be trusted to give the money to them to be used on india eventually.
Re: Why did the Partition of India take place?
Funny Vineshvk!!! I pity your thinking approach. If all Indians would have been like you, probably India would have been destroyed long before.
If India was not giving the money coz of the reason that it knew that they will have a war with Pakistan in one year, oops!!! malafide intentions since inceptions. Money as Pakistan's just share in partition.
Bogus Khilafat movement and remember Jinnah was staunchly against it. He never believed on these bogus movements.
What was wrong in Partition, India probably either in Times of Ashok or Aurangzeb has largely been under one control before British. Jinnah asked that the minority muslims are majority in some geographical areas and they need to be given a separate state so that because of huge size of India and overwhelming Hindu population will turn into a minority once british will leave. Before british India was never together so what's wrong in reverting to a multi state India.
he was trying to get a guarnetee that muslim dominated areas should be governed by Muslims either under confederation (which he accepted in cabinet mission plan) or separately.
Re: Why did the Partition of India take place?
If India was not giving the money coz of the reason that it knew that they will have a war with Pakistan in one year, oops!!! malafide intentions since inceptions. Money as Pakistan's just share in partition.
Bogus Khilafat movement and remember Jinnah was staunchly against it. He never believed on these bogus movements.
What was wrong in Partition, India probably either in Times of Ashok or Aurangzeb has largely been under one control before British. Jinnah asked that the minority muslims are majority in some geographical areas and they need to be given a separate state so that because of huge size of India and overwhelming Hindu population will turn into a minority once british will leave. Before british India was never together so what's wrong in reverting to a multi state India.
he was trying to get a guarnetee that muslim dominated areas should be governed by Muslims either under confederation (which he accepted in cabinet mission plan) or separately.
I hate people who justifies partition based on religion. A nation cannot be created based on religion. Any nation which has come up like that had to face infinite amount of difficulties and problems created by their own stupidities. pakistan and Isreal are prime example for that. I dont have respect for people who were advocates of such a nation.
Jinnah was an ambitious man, in khilafat he was against it because congress was for it. look at his each deeds and you will know how anti congress he was. If congress was for it he will be against it. He didnt have any muslims thing in mind he just was plain anti -congress. He used religion just as a tool to further his ambition. I am not saying Nehru was a great person too. But congress had a leadership which was not simply nehru only or nehru centric. He was dynamic but he had some leaders to content with like Mahatma Gandhi, sardar patel and Maulana Abukalam Azad.
The money thing
I just said a possible reason this may not be the actual reason but of course in the hindsight they are justified in not giving the money.
India was never under one controll, not the place I come from was ever part of kingdom of ashoka or aurangazeb. The southern india was mostly untouched by the northern kingdoms.
A division based on religion is the worst thing that can happen. If religion is the sole criteria then why are millions of muslims left behind in India. Why did bangladesh part away. India was united after british left, it was united because of the hatred of the britishers, not because we are hindus. Hinduism has nothing to do with India. The practices and rituals that we(keralites) follow are completely different from a northie.
Re: Why did the Partition of India take place?
The question should not be why the so called partition of India took place... it should be rather when, how, and why was India created?
There was NO such entity by name or size called "India" until its creation by British colonialists. It were the British imperialists who for the first time in history after invading/annexing the various kingdoms/nations of South Asia consolidated them into a single unit for their ease of administration and called it by the name of India.
The fact is the artificial entity of India has no unifying factors except for being former British colonies. To unite a country and justify its existence, at least one of the following aspect should have commonality amongst its people:
Language: There is no common language among Indians. Hindi/Urdu (formerly known as Hindustani) is the mother-tongue of only a portion of north Indians, particularly Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi, etc. This language is imposed on other nations that inhabit the so called India.
Linguistics: North India is linguistically Indo-European, North East India is linguistically Sino-Tibetan, South India is linguistically Dravidian, and pockets of Austro-Asiatics in Central/East India. These are distinct linguistic family of languages, therefore Indians have no linguistic commonality.
Race: North West Indians have more of the Caucasoid genes, North East Indians have more of the Mongoloid genes, South/East/Central Indians have more of the Dravidoid/Australoid/Sudroid genes. These are distinct races showing that Indians have no racial commonality.
Religion: Indian Punjab is mostly Sikh, Kashmir is mostly Muslim, Nagaland, Kerala, Goa, etc. are mostly Christian. Sikkim is mostly Buddhist. Mizoram, Tripura, Manipur, etc. are mostly Animist Tribals. Then Hinduism (a term invented by Muslims-British) itself in not a single religion. Shaivism is more dominant in South India, Vaishnuism is more dominant in north India, Kali-worship more dominant in Indian Bengal, Sauraism more dominant in Rajastan, etc. Dalits/Untouchables were never considered Hindu until Gandhi got the British approval of labeling them as such for "Hindu" voting/cesus vested interests. Hence Indians have no commonality in religion.
Culture: There are many different cultures in India. Gujaratis, Nagas, Tamils, Punjabis, Andhras, Bengalis, Mizos, Assamese, Kashmiris, and many others have their own distinct cultures. Hindi dominated Bollywood film industry and govt/media has been promoting Hindi culture on the various nations of India. Indians have no commonality in culture.
History: India is purely a British creation. Prior to the arrival of British there was never political unity among South Asians. Mauryans managed to conquer much of South Asia (excluding North East and South India) for barely a century. Guptas were limited to Central/North India. Mughals conquered much of India (excluding North East and South India) for more than a century. So Indians do not share much history.
Democracy: Democracy in India has been a sham ever since its creation in 1947. Kashmiris, Nagas, Sikhs, Goans, Sikkimese, Dalits, Muslims, Tamils, and others have been oppressed.... some denied plebiscite despite promises by its founders... ethnic cleansing and pogroms a state policy... The fact is democracy is just a mask India wears to continue the genocide of its various peoples by the Brahmanist-Hindian ruling elite.
In conclusion.... say NO to confederacy with India! There was no "partition" rather "independence" from the British legacy. But the independence is not yet complete. As long as Urdu (aka Hindi) language and culture is imposed in Pakistan we will not be independent. As long as the federation is not based on a equitable/just system we will not be independent. As long as the former British colonial mentality/setup is not eradicated we will not be independent. As long as feudalism, the mililtary, and business monopolies/elite are not controlled we will not be independent. As long as religious extremism is not weakened and masses educated with secular education we will not be independent.
Re: Why did the Partition of India take place?
Jinnah was an ambitious man, in khilafat he was against it because congress was for it. look at his each deeds and you will know how anti congress he was. If congress was for it he will be against it. He didnt have any muslims thing in mind he just was plain anti -congress.
Anyway my arguments are complete and no tit for tat business i am in. for your information Jinnah was member of congress once Khilafat Movement was on and left congress almost 7 years later i thin (some one to correct me if i am wrong). he used to be called a champion of Hindu-Muslim Unity.
Re: Why did the Partition of India take place?
Because Muslims of India wanted to preserve/continue their "power" to rule in subcontinent...If Indian Congress was ruled and governed by Muslims rather then Gandhi then there would not have been a division.
Re: Why did the Partition of India take place?
^^very important point:D
Re: Why did the Partition of India take place?
I agree too. Redeeming past glory and retaining power was the main motive of the Muslim League. According to a legend, as a last attempt to avoid partition, Gandhi offered Jinnah Prime Ministership of India, but he refused. He became the leader of Pakistan instead.
Re: Why did the Partition of India take place?
Legend and a false allegation according to our and neutral historians like stanley wolpert. If he was so power hungry he would have accepted this offer. Being leader of United India would yeild greater power than partitioned Pakistan which was simply an impoversihed state.
Also i strongly deny this dominance thesis of Indians. Now it has even been realized by Indians that they have suppressed the Muslims more than any other community. This was the fate expected by all Muslims of India and therefore they went for a separate state where at least their problems would be partially solved. Had Congress accepted a confedration like cabinet plan then and there, things would have gone on a different track. That was clearly a missed opportunity by proponents of unity.
Re: Why did the Partition of India take place?
How can he be a leader when Muslim league itself could not rule any of the provinces where muslims were in majority. Ur argument doesnt seem logical.
Re: Why did the Partition of India take place?
Muslim League won elections only on the political warcry of "Pakistan banega". They'd not gained much in the 1937 elections as many other local Muslim Parties won.
So in the '46 elections, they further germinated what Sir Syed, Iqbal et al had been proposing since the past century to sweep the 1946 elections. At least I see it in this way.
MKF, the claim that Muslims were very badly opressed in Congess ruled states is not true because firstly Congress won only states having overwhelming Hindu majority---Muslim majority states were won by Muslim political parties (ML included). I have shown this in earlier posts.
Anyway, on the same lines vineshvk and I can also make the claim that ML and Muslim parties badly oppressed the Hindus in Bengal and Punjab, because they were anti-Hindu, they wanted Pakistan. Look what they did in Bengal at Direct Action Day, Noakhali massacres, etc. etc.
Muslim League in its direct lineage is alive as a party in India only today. In Pakistan, after Jinnah's death it disintegrated very quickly and disappeared in East Pakistan.
It is unfortunate that such an important and illustrious party met such an end soon after independence. But it proves that the party and its cadre wanted power.
Jinnah wanted a secular Pakistan and he wanted all minorities to be united. Nothing of that sort has happened in Pakistan or Bangladesh. Both are not secular and their HR record against Hindus is not good. In India be it cricket (5 Muslims in the team, 2 Muslim captains earlier), tennis (Sania Mirza), Films (4 Khans, past heroines et al), Music (Zakir Hussain, Rafi, Amjad Ali, late Bismillah Khan etc.), Politics (3rd Muslim President, scores of present and past Muslim MPs, MLAs, Governors), police and Army (estimated 3%) do show that Muslims have a chance to be meritorious in India despite the Gujarat riots and Babri masjid demolition.
Finally I think that Partition was needed otherwise a civil war would have erupted between Hindus and Muslims. Within one nation, ghettos of Hindu-majority provinces and Muslim majority-provinces would not have looked good. That's why INC rejected the Cabinet Mission Plan. I'm glad they did.
My arguments must not be viewed as anti-Jinnah. History records him as being a champion of Muslim-Hindu unity, and the lawyer who defended Bhagat Singh. But somewhere along he and the INC (or rather he and Nehru-Gandhi) fell-out with each other.
Re: Why did the Partition of India take place?
Well, a Pakistani gentleman from USA has aired the exact same opinion about the Muslim League as I had in my previous post. Here is his letter to Dawn newspaper :
A ceremonial centenary
APROPOS of Tahir Mirza’s article under the above caption ( Dec 22), I support all his points and would request him to spare Mr Shaukat Aziz, the Prime Minister of Pakistan.
The chronic problem with administrators who rely on speech writers is that they easily fall prey to catchy slogans designed by their paid personnel. No doubt Pakistan came into being due to the dauntless efforts of Mr Jinnah, but the Muslim League was an autocratic party. After the death of Mr Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan, there was panic the party was being dominated by bureaucrats like Ghulam Mohammad, Mohammad Ali and Iskandar Mirza. When Governor General Ghulam Mohammad dismissed Prime Minister Khawaja Nazimuddin and his entire cabinet, none of the Muslim Leaguers uttered a word of protest.
This reflects that Muslim League as a political party was nothing but a paper tiger which collapsed like a house of cards.The League was always divided, and its members who happened to be time-servers and opportunists joined the League of their own choice. Hence it had mushroom growth and was largely headed by the feudal class.
When Iskandar Mirza created a political party named Republican Party, most of the Muslim Leaguers joined him and when they could not get a slot in the Ministry, they resigned from Republican Party and joined Daulatana’s Muslim League.
This clearly demonstrated that they were all hungry for power. So in terms of democratic evolution, Pakistan today is right where it was in 1953 and tin pot dictators continue to rule with the help of sycophantic faithful as lack of democracy brings weaknesses.
PML(Q) cannot claim to have legitimacy or the support of their own people, so they want to keep a president in uniform. It is unfortunate that weak and incompetent rulers keep manipulating the masses.
ABDUL HADI SAQI Missouri, USA
http://www.dawn.com/2006/12/31/letted.htm#6
However, this article in the same edition of Dawn is scathing on the League.
From massacre to massacre
By Amar Jaleel
Before we go ahead with our analysis of the separation of East Pakistan in December 1971, allow me to explain briefly to some of my readers who claim that it was the British who masterminded the division of India.
It is an old theory, almost as old as Pakistan. When the massive massacre of the Muslims, Hindus and the Sikhs shook the entire world after the creation of Pakistan the theory of British plan for the partition of India was floated to protect the leaders of the All India Muslim League who slipped away from the raging flames of communal riots in India, and safely landed in Karachi. Whenever and whoever reopens the probe into the soul shattering human massacre in India, the All India Muslim League, now extinct, would top the list for prosecution.
Granted, the British had masterminded the partition plan for India; but who did they exploit for the execution of the plan? How one could believe that the stalwarts within the All India Muslim League where so naive to have played in the hands of the British? Look at this abstract from history. On Friday, December 13, 1946, the Constituent Assembly of India met in the Constitution Hall, New Delhi. Dr Rajendra Prasad was in the Chair. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru moved his Resolution for the Independence of India. One of the eight clauses read:
“Wherein (independent India) shall be guaranteed and secured to all the people of India justice, social, economic and political, equality of status, of opportunity and before the law, freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship, vocation, association and action, subject to law and public morality.”
Instead of taking part in the debate, the Assembly members belonging to the All India Muslim League abstained from the Session. At whose behest? The British? However, the theory of the British plan for the partition of India has not totally eroded. It is dormant only to become active for the deliverance of the All India Muslim League from the proven allegation of instigating the Muslims for the partition of India, resultantly the massive massacres and indescribable crimes against humanity.
The younger generations can hardly feel the heat of the soul-shattering gory events of 1947-48; for them it is history
To avoid the wrath of the devastated millions languishing in refugee camps in Karachi, the League leaders promptly transferred accolades for the creation of Pakistan to the miserable immigrants, and announced, “It is because of your sacrifices that Pakistan became a reality.”
League leaders keep assuring the devastated poor continually of their memorable contribution to the cause of Pakistan. Even after 60 years the exploited hapless live in abject misery in Karachi, but contented and proud. They believe it was because of their great sacrifices that Pakistan was created. They have never felt perplexed about the League leaders and their cronies who grabbed prime evacuee property, business opportunities and jobs, and became rich. The habitual turncoats have either ruled this country, or have remained hand in glove with the Martial Law regimes.
Running away from mainstream politics is indicative of avoiding competition.** If at all the partition of India was the brainchild of the British, the All India Muslim League became a tool in their hands for the execution of their scheme.**
One bizarre theory was floated half a century ago for absolving All India Muslim League from the accountability for the mass massacre of men, women and children in India. It was called the Gandhian plan of partition of India. It suggested that Mahatma Gandhi had conspired with the British for the partition of India. The idea was to convert India into a theocratic Hindu country. The theory did not gain ground and fizzled out. It is very hard to absolve All India Muslim League from the massive murders, rape and devastation the Indian Muslims, Hindus and the Sikhs had to experience in the name of a separate homeland for the Muslims of India. Only they who went through the hell could tell what it was like being alive in 1947-48! For the younger generations it is a history. They could hardly feel the heat of the soul-shattering gory events of 1947-48. Only on a few occasions before in human history, death had pursued life so relentlessly and made a mockery of it.
Elsewhere in the world the main actors in the horrendous happenings are tried, even in absentia, for their crimes against humanity. The characters in the First and Second World Wars are still tried for inflicting misery and torturous death on mankind. The blood of the people of the subcontinent was not that cheap to have flowed like water in the villages, towns and the cities of India. The ones responsible for the holocaust deserve to be tried.
So are the ones responsible for the horrible bloodbath in East Pakistan, now transformed into Bangladesh. The guilty, no matter how mighty, can’t get away with crimes against humanity.
To understand the gravity of the problem we must take into account the huge difference in the population pattern between East Pakistan and West Pakistan. At the time of the partition of India, the population of East Pakistan was 45 millions, and the population of West Pakistan was 30 million. This reality was always ignored by the rulers of Pakistan from 1947 to 1971. In the backdrop of the language controversy of 1948 came the provocative Constitutional proposals of Liaquat Ali Khan. The Bengalis rose in revolt, and brought the government down to its knees.
Re: Why did the Partition of India take place?
..
Re: Why did the Partition of India take place?
I was just commenting on your post where you said that Jinnah was offered to be primeminister of India by Ghandi which was shown in the movie "Ghandi" as well. This is fabricated history and your own post says that he was power hungry. Had he been so power hungry he would have accepted that offer given by Ghandi so either he was power hungry or he was not offered prime ministership of united india.
Re: Why did the Partition of India take place?
Abhiman! your comments about ML fate after partition are almost correct. There is no doubt that lot of feudals and autocrats joined ML after 46 elections (not before) like unionist party of punjabies etc . They actually joined it seeing the wind and then after death of Jinnah got rid of Liaqat by assasination and rest is all history.
I never knew that ML exists in India as well. can you put some details.
I posted for you links for Direct Action Day, did't you read yourself and saw that they being anti hindu is a propaganda. The riots were instigated by congress supported mahasabhai's and later in turned into bloodshed for both communities (not hindus only).
Jinnah is himself stated to have said that he has "Khotay" i.e. unusable coins in his pocket. Refering to nasty elements in his party and probably he intended to get rid from them over a period of time but died soon after partition. He could have concentrated on removing them soon after partition if the violence and kashmir problems have not errupted.
Jinnah wanted India and Pakistan to have good relations just like two brothers who separate from a joint family but still are brothers and his repeated statements depict that but during and soon after partition behaviour of Indian leadership was revengeful therefore the hawks in Pakistan took over and changed the course of South Asia. i narrated few examples as well like refusal to give share in treasury, water stoppage in 48, coal embargo, trade embargo on Pakistan's refusal to devalue etc etc. These incidents were taken by hawks to prove that India wants to swallow Pakistan. the Indian hawks actually made sure that Hawks come intopower in Pakistan too so that their existence remain justified. They kept Kahsmir burning so that their need is always felt.
I think both the countries should forget about the past as who did what and India should solve the Kashmir problem according to wishes of people i.e.plebiscite (may they join India or Pakistan) and we can have a very good partnership in subcontinent.