A 3rd Pakistan was supposed to be created

[haviZsultan]

Whatever - Hyderabad was 95% Hindus - very unilikely it would remain a 'third pakistan'?

Are u mad? Hydrabad is 60% hindu and 40% muslim. It has the highest ratio of Muslims than all other parts of India.

 

[Malang]

Are u mad? Hydrabad is 60% hindu and 40% muslim. It has the highest ratio of Muslims than all other parts of India.

all other parts?? I doubt it.. there are many Muslim dominated districts in India... an eg is Rampur, UP which Is Muslim dominated..

 

[salman nedian]

It’s useless to debate on this topic its like spinning in a circle. We all know that Indians have intentions of expansionism and they captured not only Kashmir and Hyderabad but Goa also. They don’t have single criteria and don’t obey any ethical laws. They do what is true according to them i.e. all the things which can satisfy their desire for land grabbing. I don’t see any neighboring country which is happy with India.

 

[bhangra12345]

Are u mad? Hydrabad is 60% hindu and 40% muslim. It has the highest ratio of Muslims than all other parts of India.

There is a difference between the city of hyderabad and the then state of hyderabad. The state of hyderabad was overwhelmingly hindu, the city even today has 30%muslim population- though the demographics have changed hugely due to migration..

 

[Flintlock]

It’s useless to debate on this topic its like spinning in a circle. We all know that Indians have intentions of expansionism and they captured not only Kashmir and Hyderabad but Goa also. They don’t have single criteria and don’t obey any ethical laws. They do what is true according to them i.e. all the things which can satisfy their desire for land grabbing. I don’t see any neighboring country which is happy with India.

Goa? You'd rather have the Portuguese occupy Goa than someone from the subcontinent? Sheesh.

 

[salman nedian]

Goa? You'd rather have the Portuguese occupy Goa than someone from the subcontinent? Sheesh.

Yeah! Because that “Someone” from sub-continent has damaged us a lot.

 

[Flintlock]

Yeah! Because that “Someone” from sub-continent has damaged us a lot.

Hardly. You have inflicted much more self-damage than India could ever manage.

In any case, its time for subcontinental solidarity, and not bickering about the past.

I don't see Mexico bickering about the US taking its land.

 

[salman nedian]

Hardly. You have inflicted much more self-damage than India could ever manage.

In any case, its time for subcontinental solidarity, and not bickering about the past.

I don't see Mexico bickering about the US taking its land.

What kind of sub continental solidarity you are talking about?

Let’s take Cricket example we have supported India on Harbhajan issue and you have refused to play in Pakistan as a compensation of Australian tour.

 

[Flintlock]

What kind of sub continental solidarity you are talking about?

Let’s take Cricket example we have supported India on Harbhajan issue and you have refused to play in Pakistan as a compensation of Australian tour.

oof...comeon man...you know there are scheduling problems. Tournaments are never organized at such short notice.

 

[salman nedian]

No, that was not the tournament we proposed a short series just as a good gesture.
Any ways I don’t want to derail the thread.

 

[Venkat]

As per the partition agreement - no 'state' could remain 'independent' . Any state that has a common border with both india and pakistan will have a choice on where to join. But any other kingdom / state etc DID NOT have an option for going 'independent'. The Nizam merely had dreams based on bad advice . But he did not have any option to go independent, or even join Pakistan (Because it did not have any common border with either West or East Pakistan)

 

[mujahideen]

As per the partition agreement - no 'state' could remain 'independent' . Any state that has a common border with both india and pakistan will have a choice on where to join. But any other kingdom / state etc DID NOT have an option for going 'independent'. The Nizam merely had dreams based on bad advice . But he did not have any option to go independent, or even join Pakistan (Because it did not have any common border with either West or East Pakistan)

I guess you dont know much about the Partition. The Princely states were given the choice to join India or Pakistan or declare independence. I dont know where you get your information from. Read any book on the partition they will say what I have just told you. Now it is another story of what happened and I am not going to discuss it now but they were given the choice of declaring independence.

 

[Venkat]

I guess you dont know much about the Partition. The Princely states were given the choice to join India or Pakistan or declare independence. I dont know where you get your information from. Read any book on the partition they will say what I have just told you. Now it is another story of what happened and I am not going to discuss it now but they were given the choice of declaring independence.

No, the princely states did not have the option to go independent. Maybe you should quote your sources, and I should quote mine - what do you say?

 

[mujahideen]

No, the princely states did not have the option to go independent. Maybe you should quote your sources, and I should quote mine - what do you say?

I will name a couple of books where I have read this but their are many more but these are the ones that come to my head:
-The Emergence of Pakistan(Chaudhri Mohammed Ali)
-Friends not Masters(Ayub Khan)
-Mountbatten
-Pakistan(Daniel)
-Jinnah(Hector Bilito)
-Pakistan(by Stephan Cohen)
-Memoirs of Lord Ismay
Note that I have written the names of the authors of the book but some authors I cannot recall. Read any of these you will see what I am talking about. And besides I think on this topic we have unammious acceptance that the Princely states were indeed given the option to declare independence. This part is well known what is at debate is wether India's claim are right or Pakistan's claim are right.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

with all fairness boundaries were drawn arbitrarily... but giving 2-3 districts with an insignificant amount of land area would've helped a "friendly" (at least at the claimed to be) nation of Pakistan... a gesture of goodwill if you may...

"gestures of goodwill" are undertaken by the nations in question themselves, not by a third party that was supposed to be delineating the border based on a particular formula, and just decided to throw the rule book out when it came to those particular issues.

if it went with India.. it would have been desirable for Kashmir to be linked to India with a land route (so that in case situation with Pakistan deteriorated) so Kashmir wouldn't be cut off...

I will repeat - there was already a much larger chunk of territory of Pakistan that was separated, and there were no issues over that particular "lack of connection". Also, were these districts the only connection that India would have had with kashmir, or was there more of a shared border between the two?

If there was more of a shared border, then the argument of "providing a connection" is moot, since a connecting route could have been created at some expense elsewhere along the India-Kashmir border.

If there was no sharing of the border, except through these districts, then perhaps Venkat's argument of "no third choice" is revealing, since without a shared border Kashmir would have no choice but to join Pakistan. In either case, the decision to simply move Muslim majority provinces to India comes across as a biased decision with ulterior motives.

I didn't quite get this??

The part in parenthesis points out that your "single entity" statement is incorrect.