Why did the Partition of India take place?

Arts & Culture Culture, Arts, Literature & Linguistics
81

Re: Why did the Partition of India take place?

This is the website of the Indian Union Muslim League : Indian Union Muslim League | Kerala

MKF, I quote from the link that you provided itself :

Our intelligence patrols noticed that the crowd included a large number of Muslim goondas, and that these slipped away from the meeting from time to time, their ranks being swelled as soon as the meeting ended. They made for the shopping centres of the town where they at once set to work to loot and burn Hindu shops and houses.

Houses were burned in the north and east of Calcutta, probably due to Muslim leaders compelling Hindu shopkeepers to close their shops, and the rank and file pulling people off their bicycles and off the buses.

Anyway, Calcutta had both sides of massacres. In Muslim majority districts like Comilla Cantonment, Noakhali there was a Hindu wipe-out . The trouble started when the Muslim Chief minister of West Bengal, Suhrawardy declared Direct Action Day as a Public holiday. Even policemen were asked to stay at home.

Look, lets not delve into how many Hindus and Muslims died on those few days. I have posted one letter and one large article by 2 Pakistani gentlemen in a reputed Pakistani paper that airs the same views about the ML that I have :- That it was hungry for power. So you may as well argue with your fellow countrymen.

The point is :- Hindus too can make the same claim that they were treated very badly in Muslim-ruled provinces wchich had substantial Hindu portions like Bengal and Punjab.
There is no use bickering over that again and again.

What I stress is the usage of an old ideology to get immediate political gains.
In 1992, the out-of-power BJP raided the Babri Masjid and destroyed it. They won the 1998 elections. But you should know that the Babri Masjid Vs. Ram Mandir debate dates back to the 19th century atleast.
The BJP simply raked up an old political issue and came to power in 1998.

This is what the Muslim League did in 1940 !! It raised the old ideology of Syed Ahmed and Iqbal to storm into the 1946 elections as victors.

Alright. From the website of the Indian Union Muslim League :-

Muslim IUML Members of Parliament:-

  1. G. M. Banatwalla, MP, Lok Sabha, Constituency: Ponnani, Kerala

  2. E. Ahamed, MP, Lok Sabha, Constituency: Manjeri, Kerala.

  3. M.P. Abdus Samad Samdani, MP, Rajya Sabha, Kerala

MLAs (Eleventh Legislative Assembly, Kerala, Constituted on 16 May, 2001)

  1.  P.K. Kunhalikutty

  2.  Dr. M.K. Muneer

  3. Nalakath Sooppy

  4. Cherkalam Abdullah

  5. P.K. Abdur Rab     

  6. Kutty Ahmed Kutty

  7. E. T. Mohammed Basheer     

  8. Ishaque Kurikkal

  9. K.N.A. Kader     

  10. T. P M. Sahir

  11. Ahmed Ali C. T.

  12. Kalathil Abdulla

  13. P.K.K. Bava     

  14. Ibrahim Kunju

  15. C. Mammutty  

  16. C. Mayinkutty

Who says India is a communal country ? The dream of INC is being realised here.
And this is just Kerala. UP, Bihar, West Bengal, MP, Jharkhand also have scores of Muslim MPs. India’s water minister is Saifuddin Soz. Foreign secretary is E. Ahmed.

82

Re: Why did the Partition of India take place?

It is definitely correct what you have posted here & it is good that Muslims are coming up in India. Why i was constantly posting on thsi forum was to realize the Indians that they must do something to improve the confidence of Muslims. I have met countless Indian muslims and Hindus and i felt that Hindus do not hesitate to criticize what they feel wrong is happening in India like i do about Pakistan (i am a natural skeptic) but Muslims were very cautious and trying to be more loyal than they should be due to lack of confidence as they are considered triators prima facie.

Actually Sir Syed and Iqbal only saw the stubborness of Elite Hindus of those times once they predicted that it will happen sooner or later. Urdu was the lingua franca but Hindi was generated to stay away from Muslims because Urdu script was Arabic. That is when Urdu-Hindi riots errupted in 1867 where sir syed commented his famous saying that it seems difficult for both of them to stay together.

Anyway i am sure that India being a democratic country will succeed (in future) to safeguard our poor , our direction is still not very clear, some times for some times against but solution of kashmir according to plebiscite will greatly reduce the power of hawks.

You missed my question of plebiscite. why not try our lucks with people on ground. Muslims, Hinuds buddhs all collectively voting for either Pakistan or India.

83

Re: Why did the Partition of India take place?

By M.S.N. Menon

NEHRU was not sure.

“Merely by being born in India does not make you an Indian,” he says. Then what makes you an Indian? “To be an Indian, in the real sense of the term,” he says, “you have to lay claim on your inheritance.” In this country, only the Hindu claims the Indian inheritance.

Nehru himself was a great admirer of his Indian inheritance. Naturally, he was a true Indian—a true Indian nationalist.

Muslims make no claims on their Indian inheritance. Except on the land. They say they are different from the Hindus. Which is why they called for Partition. Do they, then, deserve to be called Indians? By the logic of Nehru, they do not.

Nehru recalls how proud the Greeks and Italians were (and are) of their past, although they are Christians today. But why are Indian minorities (Christians and Muslims) not proud of India’s past? This is a complex issue. Let me explain.

Sheikh Abdullah writes: “Nehru used to call himself an agnostic. But he was also a great admirer of the past of India and the Hindu spirit of India.” But who inspired him? He was inspired by the “same revivalist spirit as seen in Dayanand Saraswati and K.M.Munshi”, Sheikh says. (Atish-e-Chinar)

It is clear Abdullah did not like India’s past. Obviously, he was no nationalist. Dr. Akbar Ahmed says that Muslims of the Indian sub-continent have failed to explain their past, present and future. More so the past.

Here is another example. In 1948, Nehru was addressing the Aligarh Muslim University convocation. He asked the assembled Muslims—the cream of Muslim society—whether they admired the past of India. There was deafening silence. But let me explain this in some detail. He told them: “I am proud of our inheritance and our ancestors, who gave an intellectual and cultural pre-eminence to India. How do you feel about this past?” (Only a nationalist could have asked such a question.) Not one Muslim got up to answer Nehru’s question. But it calls for an answer. The Muslims cannot ignore it.

To Nehru, nationalism was more an emotional attachment to the motherland, to its fauna and flora, to its mountains and rivers, to its people, to its past. But “to the average Indian,” he says, “the whole of India was a kind a punya bhoomi”(holy land).

What is more, says Nehru, “In moments of crisis, a country calls up its traditions to raise a high pitch of effort and sacrifice.” This was the case when India had to fight the British empire. Only a people with a past can call up their past.

India is no holy land to Christians and Muslims. That is the difference between the nationalist Hindus and the minorities. For us, Hindus, India is holy. She is the “mother.” For them, India is a piece of territory. Jerusalem is holy to them. Mecca is holy to them. Not India.

That is precisely why we Hindus have a greater stake in the destiny of this land. “The fate of India is largely tied up with the Hindu outlook,” says Nehru in a letter written on November 17, 1953 to K.N. Katju, his Home Minister.

Is the fate of India tied up with the Muslim outlook?

To this he has a highly significant reply. He says: “The Muslim outlook may be and, I think, is often worse. But it does not make much difference to the future of India.”

Can you believe that this was written by Nehru, the man with a soft heart for the Muslims? But it is true. How is one to explain it?

By 1953 Nehru was a changed man. His faith in Muslims was shattered after Sheikh Abdullah betrayed him. Thus the nationalist in him came out in full force when he wrote his Last Will and Testament.

It was Nehru’s hope that his secularism would provide for Hindus and Muslims a framework within which they could bring about the necessary adjustments. But it was a false hope.

Nehru was no great thinker. He made many many mistakes. But he was a great lover of his country. And he could express his love in most beautiful words.

84

Re: Why did the Partition of India take place?

I think you are thinking the unthinkable in the wrong direction as i have recentely visited three indian cities and i am ashamed to see the conditios of muslims, it is teriable and un thinkable too , i was not allowed to enter the Jamia mosque delhi from main entrance(Due to unknow security reasons ) .

then i was suprised to see the mosque in black colour new Qatib Minar as it was done just to keep the mosque at a side of complete complex ,

i think i was very important for us to be away from Hindus as every think can change but not the hindus mental state.

thank you QUAID - E - AZAM

85

Re: Why did the Partition of India take place?

pathetic comment.

People like you are the ones the world can do very well without.

86

Re: Why did the Partition of India take place?

Yea, india was never a country, and hence never existed before 1948. The british subcontinent was partitioned, not india.

Ignorant people do not realize the offense they bring us when you use such language.