What's new

Indus Nationalism could have avoided the tragedy of Partition

Aug 19, 2017
3,135
-7
3,151
Country
India
Location
Germany
Let's get one thing straight here at the outset..I am not against the existence of Pakistan in fact all for it..But as towering a giant as Quaid-E-Azam was, this was one big blindspot in his vision...He backed the wrong Two Nation Theory...If he had backed the Indus Theory then the unnecessary blood shed and tragedy could have been avoided....Millions of Indus Sikhs and Hindus would not have had to leave the region and millions of completely alien people would not have come in giving the region a reverse cultural shock...the process of Partition would have been seamless...it would have been as easy devloving one state out of a bigger state in India...A bureaucratic nightmare? Sure...but not a human tragedy ...............The Indus river existed for millions of years...The distinct culture around Indus had existed for thousands and thousands of years....The genesis of Pakistan lies in the mists of time and the love people of Pakistan have for their land is certainly older than 570 AD..............What similiarity does an Indus Pashtun or Gilgiti have with a Tamilian? seriously?

If the Indus Partition theory was executed, the relations between India and Pakistan would have been very smooth and exemplary...Like that of between Czech Republic and Slovakia...where one PM visits another PM before the end of the term to say goodbye......I refuse to be held hostage to the wrong Two Nation Theory



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



EDIT:
Another side effect would have been that Kashmir,Jammu along with Buddhist Ladakh would have naturally ended up with Pakistan...Indus Nationalism being the driving force behind creation of Pakistan, India would not have been able to logically argue against Indus rationale....But on the upside for India would have been that present day Bangladesh would have fallen into Indian hands, along woth Theravada Buddhist Chittagong Hill Tract........Having CHT would have been way more of a boost for the legitimacy of the new Indian state than Kashmir ever could have been.......CHT is the only place in the subcontinental mainland that houses the original sect of Buddhism (Theravada) in an unbroken lineage ...Ladakh,Nepal,Sikkim,Bhutan,Arunachal,Spiti Valley house the newer Vajrayana sect

India being the birthplace of Buddhism, having CHT would have beeen the feather in the cap of atheistic, pro-Buddhist, anti-Hindu,anti-superstition Nehru



Kashmir conflict is entirely due to the wrong two-Nation Theory
 
Last edited:

-blitzkrieg-

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 1, 2015
3,553
2
4,219
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Let's get one thing straight here at the outset..I am not against the existence of Pakistan in fact all for it..But as towering a giant Quaid-E-Azam this was one big blindspot in his vision...He backed the wrong Two Nation Theory...If he had backed the Indus Theory then the unnecessary blood shed and tragedy could have been avoided....Millions of Indus Sikhs and Hindus would not have had to leave the region and millions of completely alien people would not have come in giving the region a reverse cultural shock...the process of Partition would have been seamless...it would have been as easy devloving one state out of a bigger state in India...A bureaucratic nightmare? Sure...but not a human tragedy ...............The Indus river existed for millions of years...The distinct culture around Indus had existed for thousands and thousands of years....The genesis of Pakistan lies in the mists of time and the love people of Pakistan have for their land is certainly older than 570 AD..............What similiarity does an Indus Pashtun or Gilgiti have with a Tamilian? seriously?

If the Indus Partition theory was executed, the relations between India and Pakistan would have been very smooth and exemplary...Like that of between Czech Republic and Slovakia...where one PM visits another PM before the end of the term to say goodbye......I refuse to be held hostage to the wrong Two Nation Theory

Quaids two nation theory in broader perspective does include the ancient history and indus civiization but its not the major ingredient like culture and religion because Pakistanis unlike indians or even persians dont think much about their ancestors, as no one would want dig deep into a "non muslim " past..it does not sell.
 

yuba

FULL MEMBER
Feb 2, 2010
769
0
623
Country
India
Location
United Kingdom
Quaids two nation theory in broader perspective does include the ancient history and indus civiization but its not the major ingredient like culture and religion because Pakistanis unlike indians or even persians dont think much about their ancestors, as no one would want dig deep into a "non muslim " past..it does not sell.
Why is it like that I'm a Sikh and it does not bother me what my ancestors were before they converted to Sikhism. I have a love for the land we are from Punjab and the food and being from the jatt caste that own and farm the land.
 

Indus Pakistan

ELITE MEMBER
May 7, 2012
19,194
186
55,938
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Let's get one thing straight here at the outset..I am not against the existence of Pakistan in fact all for it..But as towering a giant Quaid-E-Azam this was one big blindspot in his vision...He backed the wrong Two Nation Theory...If he had backed the Indus Theory then the unnecessary blood shed and tragedy could have been avoided....Millions of Indus Sikhs and Hindus would not have had to leave the region and millions of completely alien people would not have come in giving the region a reverse cultural shock...the process of Partition would have been seamless...it would have been as easy devloving one state out of a bigger state in India...A bureaucratic nightmare? Sure...but not a human tragedy ...............The Indus river existed for millions of years...The distinct culture around Indus had existed for thousands and thousands of years....The genesis of Pakistan lies in the mists of time and the love people of Pakistan have for their land is certainly older than 570 AD..............What similiarity does an Indus Pashtun or Gilgiti have with a Tamilian? seriously?

If the Indus Partition theory was executed, the relations between India and Pakistan would have been very smooth and exemplary...Like that of between Czech Republic and Slovakia...where one PM visits another PM before the end of the term to say goodbye......I refuse to be held hostage to the wrong Two Nation Theory
Well funny you should say that. This is exactly in a round about way that Allama Iqbal espoused in his speach of 1930. This is the first recorded event where Pakistan as exists was called for. Let's just have a look at what Allama Iqbal demanded in 1930.

1618352362249.png



Then three years later Rehmat Ali coined the name for this land 'PAKSTAN' in his pamphlet "NOW OR NEVER" printed in 1933 which was acronym for all the five provinces on the Indus Basin.


1618352463691.png


These are facts that are conveniently ignored. In fact is it not a wonder that PAKSTAN stands for the five pieces of the jigsaw on the Indus Basin geography? The name PAKSTAN has the DNA of the Indus Basin writ into it. This fact.

Pakistanis unlike indians or even persians dont think much about their ancestors, as no one would want dig deep into a "non muslim " past..it does not sell.
This is because of deliberate choice by the state for 70 years to obfuscate this aspect of the 96% native people of the Indus Basin. You will notice the PPP of Sindh invests fair bit on the IVC and Mohenjo Daro as Sindhi heritage.
 

-blitzkrieg-

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 1, 2015
3,553
2
4,219
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Why is it like that I'm a Sikh and it does not bother me what my ancestors were before they converted to Sikhism. I have a love for the land we are from Punjab and the food and being from the jatt caste that own and farm the land.
For us anything before advent of Islam was daur-e-jahalat(era of ignorance) or polytheism and caste based society.However most pakistanis have not understood the sheer importance of this land in pre islamic times. History is not a living room talk.
 
Last edited:

Bossman

SENIOR MEMBER
Jul 11, 2010
2,838
-5
3,727
Stupid “what if” thread. It’s done, live with it. #uck the tragedy.

The Indians were responsible for the nature of our relationship and still are. Nehru was ultimately responsible for creation of Pakistan as he thought it was a failed entity and will collapse within a year or so and Muslims will come crawling back under Hindu domination. So wrong was he. The Indian Muslims unfortunately made the wrong bet and have to live with consequences.
 
Last edited:

yuba

FULL MEMBER
Feb 2, 2010
769
0
623
Country
India
Location
United Kingdom
For us anything before advent of Islam was daur-e-jahalat(era of ignorance) or polytheism and caste based society.However most pakistanis have not understood the sheer importannce of this land even in pre islamic times. History is not a living room talk.
For sikhs even though caste is not meant to be there we still have not got past that we still have it . When i mentioned caste i did not mean it as putting any caste down i mean it as being farmers which most jatts are and the connection to it that we have. Caste is still there in the background and when we get married. But Sikhs have not shaken of their castes they may say it but today you have differant gurdwaras based on caste but we don't have any issue with our ancestors being Hindu it not an issue . But we all love the land that we hail from just a pity that the Punjab on the Indian side some of the youth have been swallowed up by drugs .
 
Aug 19, 2017
3,135
-7
3,151
Country
India
Location
Germany
Well funny you should say that. This is exactly in a round about way that Allama Iqbal espoused in his speach of 1930. This is the first recorded event where Pakistan as exists was called for. Let's just have a look at what Allama Iqbal demanded in 1930.

View attachment 733818


Then three years later Rehmat Ali coined the name for this land 'PAKSTAN' in his pamphlet "NOW OR NEVER" printed in 1933 which was acronym for all the five provinces on the Indus Basin.


View attachment 733819

These are facts that are conveniently ignored. In fact is it not a wonder that PAKSTAN stands for the five pieces of the jigsaw on the Indus Basin geography? The name PAKSTAN has the DNA of the Indus Basin writ into it. This fact.

This is because of deliberate choice by the state for 70 years to obfuscate this aspect of the 96% native people of the Indus Basin. You will notice the PPP of Sindh invests fair bit on the IVC and Mohenjo Daro as Sindhi heritage.


Another side effect would have been that Kashmir,Jammu along with Buddhist Ladakh would have naturally ended up with Pakistan...Indus Nationalism being the driving force behind creation of Pakistan, India would not have been able to logically argue against Indus rationale....But on the upside for India would have been that present day Bangladesh would have fallen into Indian hands, along woth Theravada Buddhist Chittagong Hill Tract........Having CHT would have been way more of a boost for the legitimacy of the new Indian state than Kashmir ever could have been.......CHT is the only place in the subcontinental mainland that houses the original sect of Buddhism (Theravada) in an unbroken lineage ...Ladakh,Nepal,Sikkim,Bhutan,Arunachal,Spiti Valley house the newer Vajrayana sect

India being the birthplace of Buddhism, having CHT would have beeen the feather in the cap of atheistic, pro-Buddhist, anti-Hindu,anti-superstition Nehru
 

The Accountant

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Aug 13, 2016
7,588
18
9,006
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Let's get one thing straight here at the outset..I am not against the existence of Pakistan in fact all for it..But as towering a giant Quaid-E-Azam this was one big blindspot in his vision...He backed the wrong Two Nation Theory...If he had backed the Indus Theory then the unnecessary blood shed and tragedy could have been avoided....Millions of Indus Sikhs and Hindus would not have had to leave the region and millions of completely alien people would not have come in giving the region a reverse cultural shock...the process of Partition would have been seamless...it would have been as easy devloving one state out of a bigger state in India...A bureaucratic nightmare? Sure...but not a human tragedy ...............The Indus river existed for millions of years...The distinct culture around Indus had existed for thousands and thousands of years....The genesis of Pakistan lies in the mists of time and the love people of Pakistan have for their land is certainly older than 570 AD..............What similiarity does an Indus Pashtun or Gilgiti have with a Tamilian? seriously?

If the Indus Partition theory was executed, the relations between India and Pakistan would have been very smooth and exemplary...Like that of between Czech Republic and Slovakia...where one PM visits another PM before the end of the term to say goodbye......I refuse to be held hostage to the wrong Two Nation Theory



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



EDIT:
Another side effect would have been that Kashmir,Jammu along with Buddhist Ladakh would have naturally ended up with Pakistan...Indus Nationalism being the driving force behind creation of Pakistan, India would not have been able to logically argue against Indus rationale....But on the upside for India would have been that present day Bangladesh would have fallen into Indian hands, along woth Theravada Buddhist Chittagong Hill Tract........Having CHT would have been way more of a boost for the legitimacy of the new Indian state than Kashmir ever could have been.......CHT is the only place in the subcontinental mainland that houses the original sect of Buddhism (Theravada) in an unbroken lineage ...Ladakh,Nepal,Sikkim,Bhutan,Arunachal,Spiti Valley house the newer Vajrayana sect

India being the birthplace of Buddhism, having CHT would have beeen the feather in the cap of atheistic, pro-Buddhist, anti-Hindu,anti-superstition Nehru



Kashmir conflict is entirely due to the wrong two-Nation Theory
Can u go even lower than that ? Kashmir problem is fault of Quaid.e.azam? Are you out of your senses?

Why u r trying to justify illegal and immoral occupation of kashmir ? Be it religious standard or ethinic standard kashmir does not fall with india ...
 

Kabira

BANNED
Jul 12, 2014
14,396
-20
13,640
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Jinnah asked Sikhs but they refused the offer. Pakistan would have gotten all of British Punjab including hindu majority areas and of course IoK. Basically British were kind enough to sikhs to overlook hindu population in modern Haryana which would eventually convert to Islam or sikhism post 1947 anyway as it usually the case with hindus not of brahmin castes. Unless of course sikhs and muslims joined hands against hindus in riots.

British also went extra mile to give Kashmir to India by making muslim majority district of punjab Gurdaspur part of India.
 
Aug 19, 2017
3,135
-7
3,151
Country
India
Location
Germany
Jinnah asked Sikhs but they refused the offer. Pakistan would have gotten all of British Punjab including hindu majority areas and of course IoK. Basically British were kind enough to sikhs to overlook hindu population in modern Haryana which would eventually convert to Islam or sikhism post 1947 anyway as it usually the case with hindus not of brahmin castes. Unless of course sikhs and muslims joined hands against hindus in riots.

British also went extra mile to give Kashmir to India by making muslim majority district of punjab Gurdaspur part of India.

Inviting tens of millions of Gangetic adivasis was incongruent with Indus Nationalism..That's why Sikhs refused...The natural border between India and Indus Basin had been determined centuries ago by Ahmad Shah Abdali-...Even after winning at Panipat in 1761, he offered all lands east of Sutlej to the Peshwa as he know it was unsustainable to hold onto those lands in the long run....and eventually he was proved right as Marathas recaptured everything east of Sutlej by 1771....
 

Imad.Khan

SENIOR MEMBER
Sep 24, 2015
6,445
9
9,295
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
Let's get one thing straight here at the outset..I am not against the existence of Pakistan in fact all for it..But as towering a giant as Quaid-E-Azam was, this was one big blindspot in his vision...He backed the wrong Two Nation Theory...If he had backed the Indus Theory then the unnecessary blood shed and tragedy could have been avoided....Millions of Indus Sikhs and Hindus would not have had to leave the region and millions of completely alien people would not have come in giving the region a reverse cultural shock...the process of Partition would have been seamless...it would have been as easy devloving one state out of a bigger state in India...A bureaucratic nightmare? Sure...but not a human tragedy ...............The Indus river existed for millions of years...The distinct culture around Indus had existed for thousands and thousands of years....The genesis of Pakistan lies in the mists of time and the love people of Pakistan have for their land is certainly older than 570 AD..............What similiarity does an Indus Pashtun or Gilgiti have with a Tamilian? seriously?

If the Indus Partition theory was executed, the relations between India and Pakistan would have been very smooth and exemplary...Like that of between Czech Republic and Slovakia...where one PM visits another PM before the end of the term to say goodbye......I refuse to be held hostage to the wrong Two Nation Theory



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



EDIT:
Another side effect would have been that Kashmir,Jammu along with Buddhist Ladakh would have naturally ended up with Pakistan...Indus Nationalism being the driving force behind creation of Pakistan, India would not have been able to logically argue against Indus rationale....But on the upside for India would have been that present day Bangladesh would have fallen into Indian hands, along woth Theravada Buddhist Chittagong Hill Tract........Having CHT would have been way more of a boost for the legitimacy of the new Indian state than Kashmir ever could have been.......CHT is the only place in the subcontinental mainland that houses the original sect of Buddhism (Theravada) in an unbroken lineage ...Ladakh,Nepal,Sikkim,Bhutan,Arunachal,Spiti Valley house the newer Vajrayana sect

India being the birthplace of Buddhism, having CHT would have beeen the feather in the cap of atheistic, pro-Buddhist, anti-Hindu,anti-superstition Nehru



Kashmir conflict is entirely due to the wrong two-Nation Theory

I don't really understand what is this version of two-nation theory. If you take religion out then its not a two-nation theory but infact a multi-nations theory, then instead of Pakistan and India, we would have had multiple smaller countries or there would not have been a Pakistan at all, because neither Nehru or the British would have accepted it, nor would the Quaid be able to gather support from the people. So honestly in my opinion the Quaid was accurate in his judgement.

As for Millions of Sikh leaving, our Quaid had already told them to ask for your own separate country or Join Pakistan as a united Punjab. The Sikhs ignored it and that was the consequences of it.

Lately i am coming across alot of Indians that hate Gandhi and Nehru because they let partition occur. They keep using the same statement that we were one country so why partition it. What these Indians don't understand or choose to ignore is that the people of our region voted to separate and we were never one country, the British Raj was an amalgamation of occupied territory, nothing more.
 

magra

FULL MEMBER
Aug 17, 2020
1,164
-3
612
Country
India
Location
United States
Why is it like that I'm a Sikh and it does not bother me what my ancestors were before they converted to Sikhism. I have a love for the land we are from Punjab and the food and being from the jatt caste that own and farm the land.
At the start, Sikhs were merely Hindus who have decided to take up arms to protect against the tryanny. This would explain why many Hindu families of the Punjab region used to make the eldest male child a Sikh. The rest continued to remain Hindu.
Let's get one thing straight here at the outset..I am not against the existence of Pakistan in fact all for it..But as towering a giant as Quaid-E-Azam was, this was one big blindspot in his vision...He backed the wrong Two Nation Theory...If he had backed the Indus Theory then the unnecessary blood shed and tragedy could have been avoided....Millions of Indus Sikhs and Hindus would not have had to leave the region and millions of completely alien people would not have come in giving the region a reverse cultural shock...the process of Partition would have been seamless...it would have been as easy devloving one state out of a bigger state in India...A bureaucratic nightmare? Sure...but not a human tragedy ...............The Indus river existed for millions of years...The distinct culture around Indus had existed for thousands and thousands of years....The genesis of Pakistan lies in the mists of time and the love people of Pakistan have for their land is certainly older than 570 AD..............What similiarity does an Indus Pashtun or Gilgiti have with a Tamilian? seriously?

If the Indus Partition theory was executed, the relations between India and Pakistan would have been very smooth and exemplary...Like that of between Czech Republic and Slovakia...where one PM visits another PM before the end of the term to say goodbye......I refuse to be held hostage to the wrong Two Nation Theory

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT:
Another side effect would have been that Kashmir,Jammu along with Buddhist Ladakh would have naturally ended up with Pakistan...Indus Nationalism being the driving force behind creation of Pakistan, India would not have been able to logically argue against Indus rationale....But on the upside for India would have been that present day Bangladesh would have fallen into Indian hands, along woth Theravada Buddhist Chittagong Hill Tract........Having CHT would have been way more of a boost for the legitimacy of the new Indian state than Kashmir ever could have been.......CHT is the only place in the subcontinental mainland that houses the original sect of Buddhism (Theravada) in an unbroken lineage ...Ladakh,Nepal,Sikkim,Bhutan,Arunachal,Spiti Valley house the newer Vajrayana sect

India being the birthplace of Buddhism, having CHT would have beeen the feather in the cap of atheistic, pro-Buddhist, anti-Hindu,anti-superstition Nehru

Kashmir conflict is entirely due to the wrong two-Nation Theory
If Indus ethnic (regional) nationalism would have been the trigger for Pakistan, then by the same logic, we would have Deccan nationalism, North east tribal nationalism, Bengal nationalism, Gangetic nationalism and so on. Why stop at only Indus nationalism?

Also, Indus nationalism would not have been led by Jinnah who was a Gujarati.
 
Aug 19, 2017
3,135
-7
3,151
Country
India
Location
Germany
I don't really understand what is this version of two-nation theory. If you take religion out then its not a two-nation theory but infact a multi-nations theory, then instead of Pakistan and India, we would have had multiple smaller countries or there would not have been a Pakistan at all, because neither Nehru or the British would have accepted it, nor would the Quaid be able to gather support from the people. So honestly in my opinion the Quaid was accurate in his judgement.

As for Millions of Sikh leaving, our Quaid had already told them to ask for your own separate country or Join Pakistan as a united Punjab. The Sikhs ignored it and that was the consequences of it.

Lately i am coming across alot of Indians that hate Gandhi and Nehru because they let partition occur. They keep using the same statement that we were one country so why partition it. What these Indians don't understand or choose to ignore is that the people of our region voted to separate and we were never one country, the British Raj was an amalgamation of occupied territory, nothing more.

If Pakistan was created on the Basis of Indus Nationalism, then Pakistan would have gotten all of Kashmir (including Jammu and Ladakh) as well as all of Punjab till west bank of Sutlej..regarding multi-nation theory, I think all of India would have stayed intact except the North-Eastern states that lie east of Assam --But then again present day Bangladesh along with CHT (very pro-India due to India being birthpace of Buddhism) would have been part of India....Pakistan would have been the big winner under Indus Nationalism...India's position would have remained the same or slightly better..But the biggest winner would have been the region and its people...With a 1,000 year of peace and prosperity
 

masterchief_mirza

ELITE MEMBER
Apr 29, 2019
9,791
17
20,497
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Let's get one thing straight here at the outset..I am not against the existence of Pakistan in fact all for it..But as towering a giant as Quaid-E-Azam was, this was one big blindspot in his vision...He backed the wrong Two Nation Theory...If he had backed the Indus Theory then the unnecessary blood shed and tragedy could have been avoided....Millions of Indus Sikhs and Hindus would not have had to leave the region and millions of completely alien people would not have come in giving the region a reverse cultural shock...the process of Partition would have been seamless...it would have been as easy devloving one state out of a bigger state in India...A bureaucratic nightmare? Sure...but not a human tragedy ...............The Indus river existed for millions of years...The distinct culture around Indus had existed for thousands and thousands of years....The genesis of Pakistan lies in the mists of time and the love people of Pakistan have for their land is certainly older than 570 AD..............What similiarity does an Indus Pashtun or Gilgiti have with a Tamilian? seriously?

If the Indus Partition theory was executed, the relations between India and Pakistan would have been very smooth and exemplary...Like that of between Czech Republic and Slovakia...where one PM visits another PM before the end of the term to say goodbye......I refuse to be held hostage to the wrong Two Nation Theory



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



EDIT:
Another side effect would have been that Kashmir,Jammu along with Buddhist Ladakh would have naturally ended up with Pakistan...Indus Nationalism being the driving force behind creation of Pakistan, India would not have been able to logically argue against Indus rationale....But on the upside for India would have been that present day Bangladesh would have fallen into Indian hands, along woth Theravada Buddhist Chittagong Hill Tract........Having CHT would have been way more of a boost for the legitimacy of the new Indian state than Kashmir ever could have been.......CHT is the only place in the subcontinental mainland that houses the original sect of Buddhism (Theravada) in an unbroken lineage ...Ladakh,Nepal,Sikkim,Bhutan,Arunachal,Spiti Valley house the newer Vajrayana sect

India being the birthplace of Buddhism, having CHT would have beeen the feather in the cap of atheistic, pro-Buddhist, anti-Hindu,anti-superstition Nehru



Kashmir conflict is entirely due to the wrong two-Nation Theory
Nice try.

Pakistan was needed as a *safe haven for Muslims* who just want to get on with their daily lives without the (here goes): love jihad, beef jihad, mughals woz bad but asoka woz cool and marathas woz cool, Muslims woz bad but vedics woz cool and totally indigeniuses, Tipu woz more indigeniusss than vedics but still evil and we can't name space rockets after the guy who brought us rockets coz he's not Hindu, Muslims spread corona, Muslims who don't do pooja and holi through gritted teeth are bad, Muslims who do pooja and holi are still questionable, all mosques built on temples must be razed becoz Muslims wuz wrong nah, Aurangzeb did nothing for India and and and don't dance with my Hindu daughter.

Pakistan never did prejudice the lives of non-Muslim or atheist citizens, nor will Pakistan ever do such a thing as its purpose was in simply ensuring the safety of Muslims in going about their daily business.

Hindustan can never vanquish Muslims or even significantly harm Muslims as an overall population on the subcontinent any more. They learned this lesson centuries ago and we don't fear Hindustan in this regard. However, they will try their best to embarrass, humiliate, snipe at and degrade Muslims through sheer force of numerical superiority. This is why Pakistan is needed. We can pursue our daily goals without the above slowly erosive litany of abuses and microaggressions against our proud peoples.

Regarding Kashmir, your commentary is laughable. Hari Singh wasn't about to give up JnK to Muslim rulership, Indus nationalism or no Indus nationalism. His ultimate legacy was that of ethnoreligious cleansing BEFORE any decision on accession was made - keep that in mind please; his forces began their pogroms before any pathaans arrived and before any accession documents were signed because he had a very simple agenda. He wanted to bequeath JnK to Hindu rulership. His agenda was simple because hindutva thought is ultimately very simple.

The gross oversimplification you have fundamentally made here is to assume that the Secular Republic of India was ever actually based on a long-term secularist agenda. Hindu India has very conveniently played its final hand since the rise of the BJP. The BJP openly curses Gandhi, Nehru and other delusional idealists, which is what Jinnah predicted long long ago. These cursers have finally and irreversiby swept to power on an overwhelming majority ticket. Hindustan has shown the world its true face.

Your problem is not actually the definition of Pakistan, because we were always and will always be BOTH the land of the Indus AND the citadel of faith. Your problem is actually coming to terms with the true definition and legacy of The Secular Republic of India.
I don't really understand what is this version of two-nation theory. If you take religion out then its not a two-nation theory but infact a multi-nations theory, then instead of Pakistan and India, we would have had multiple smaller countries or there would not have been a Pakistan at all, because neither Nehru or the British would have accepted it, nor would the Quaid be able to gather support from the people. So honestly in my opinion the Quaid was accurate in his judgement.

As for Millions of Sikh leaving, our Quaid had already told them to ask for your own separate country or Join Pakistan as a united Punjab. The Sikhs ignored it and that was the consequences of it.

Lately i am coming across alot of Indians that hate Gandhi and Nehru because they let partition occur. They keep using the same statement that we were one country so why partition it. What these Indians don't understand or choose to ignore is that the people of our region voted to separate and we were never one country, the British Raj was an amalgamation of occupied territory, nothing more.
Nailed it.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom