What's new

At least one country is trying to listen to its 'Father of the Nation' - Ashok Swain

It was ur leaders that wanted a "secular" India...not ours. So a complete transfer of population for u couldn't have happened since there was no argument/advocacy of such from ur side. And yes Kashmir should've gone to Pak and still should. Jammu can go to India.

As for jumping the gun...there's no such thing as jumping the gun. The Raja was trying to remain independent instead of choosing India or Pak. This was not an option...all princely states HAD to pick one or the other.

There would have been better negotiations if Muslim League entered negotiations with Hindu organizations rather than Big Umbrella ones like Congress. Just as India rightly knew that best chance of peace India ever had was with Musharraf as they were finally not dealing with lame ducks and with somebody who originally hailed from Delhi. BJP itself was manned by Hindus from Pakistan at that time like Advani


If a former world power like Portugal came around by 1961 then the Raja would have come around way before that. Trust me or better still trust your common sense. so all in all 20 to 30 percent of Indian held Kashmir should have legitimately gone to Pakistan then. It's just you guys could not stay put and play poker. and here we are, inheritors of the mess of history.
 
.
There would have been better negotiations if Muslim League entered negotiations with Hindu organizations rather than Big Umbrella ones like Congress. Just as India rightly knew that best chance of peace India ever had was with Musharraf as they were finally not dealing with lame ducks and with somebody who originally hailed from Delhi. BJP itself was manned by Hindus from Pakistan at that time like Advani


If a former world power like Portugal came around by 1961 then the Raja would have come around way before that. Trust me or better still trust your common sense. so all in all 20 to 30 percent of Indian held Kashmir should have legitimately gone to Pakistan then. It's just you guys could not stay put and play poker. and here we are, inheritors of the mess of history.
dude seriously are u still blaming Pak for Kashmir situation after being familiar with the matter?

Let me reiterate...Raja HAD NO CHOICE and had to pick one. The dude was trying to milk it. It was India that jumped in and caused the division that exists(with India holding its own portion and Pak holding its own). India saw a chance to seize territory based on Raja's attempt to get rescued...knowing full well that Kashmir had Muslim majority. Just prior to that India had forcefully taken Junagadh citing Hindu majority even though Junagadh's Nawab acceded to Pak. This is some next level hypocrisy of "heads I win, tails u lose".
 
.
Understanable.

Your pervailing, growing problem is Two Nations in one country.

However, now that is not easy. You have about 300million muslims... including the unregistered.

How you are going to solve this one? RSS formula? Berma Formula? But we are talking 300million...

I do agree with you..that Gandhi created so many troubles for both sides...


Problems for Pakistan are the opposite... we need to find solutions as well... but not the kind you have.
But that is another discussion for another time... will tag you to have your perspective..if you like!


What has been happening right now...Constant dilution of Indian Islam through syncretism. I know an engineer who worked at the Redmond HQ of Microsoft who has gone back to India to preach to poorer Muslims that the Prophet was a strict vegetarian, and they believed him. 100 years from now Indian Islam would bear little resemblance to Islam as followed in KSA or Pakistan. The endgame is to make Muslim piety in India as soporific as say in Albania. Or to dilute Indian Islam so much that it would have no functional difference to Hinduism. Hinduism attempted this same thing on two shramanic religions around 1500 years back. One got diluted and other survived and remained intact. The survivor was Jainism
 
.
Really! Was this woman there? She should not allowed in Pakistan for being so anti Kashmir and pro Indian military. She galmourizes Indian officers who tortured Kashmiris. And she was the one who had been sending news report from Kashmir under curfew that all is well there.

This is what SMQ did to her couple of days ago

 
. .
So we come back to point we already agreed upon...

Anyhow, Acceleration is indpendent of any actor... Momentum of History ...

Loss of one's world makes one seek certainties of past or promises of future...without actually building one's own world.... Human Condition is captive of Human Blueprint...



You wrote it so succinctly and eloquently. Worthy of being framed. I swear if you ever start a Thread on Human Blueprint, I would be a regular contributor. I will write some essays on the Momentum of History vis-a-vis subcontinent and even may be Greater Eurasia over the Christmas holidays. If your thread exists by then,I would exclusively post there
 
.
The truth is both India and Pakistan had a majority culture that was desi. There are two manifestations of this desi culture, the Muslim iteration and the Hindu iteration. Sort of two sides of the same coin. This desi culture was native to South Asia and was backward, traditional, supersitious, narrow minded, bigoted, averse to change. This backwardness [desi] had largely dominated South Asia with millions living in poverty and ignorance, generation after generation entirely uneffected by who was ruling them. Moghuls, British etc.

However in the latter part of British rule a small sliver of South Asians were co-opted and educated in the ways of modern world by British. This small group of people would go onto form the elite in both Muslim and Hindu communities. Men like Jinnah, Nehru, Iqbal, Gandhi were all products of British rule. They were 'brown sahibs'. After 1947 this group too over in Pakistan and India.

Nehru gave india it's British influenced Indian state. With some exceptions so did Pakistan. However under this thin layer of "gora sahibs" the vast ocean of desi masses continued living untouched by the loft ideas imbibed by their rulers. By 1970s changing face of Pakistani society mean't the "desi mass" began to bite the rule of "gora sahibs" by insisting their desi culture being incorporated by the state. Bhutto had felt this change and began to sing the songs of the "desi mass" even when he was not one. Bhutto's agreement to making Ahmedi's a class apart was the triumph of "desi mass" in Pakistan who impulse was cloaked as "Islam". That process only picked speed in 1980s and it reached it's climax in 2010s. However I believe the "desi mass" is now in retreat as the new generation wants benefits of modern world.

In India the "desi mass" is of course articulated as Hinduism. Hindutva is the face of "desi mass" in India. The majority in India have been slow on the take and allowed "brown sahibs" to prevail over the state but over the last two decades they have began to make their pressure felt. Ayodha and Gujrat massacre are analogous to the anti-Ahmedi actions in Pakistan of 1970s.

I think the reason was the "desi mass" has been slow in India is down to economics. India over the decades lagged behind Pakistan and most of the "desi mass" were locked in grinding poverty. Now trickle down economics and increasing urbanization will see Indian "gora sahibs" drowned out. Expect lot of chaos in India over next two decades.

@Joe Shearer @Nilgiri @OsmanAli98

Honestly the threads regarding Ayodhya/RSS/BJP/Modi or whatever are illuminating a psyche in itself w.r.t many Pakistani members here.

If you are truly a separate, distinct identity...why this much focus and attention to India? Our muslims are our citizens....the Imam of Delhi Masjid said it quite curtly when Musharraf went there (birthplace touring) and starting whinging about if "Pakistan" can do something to "help" Indian muslims.....i.e "sod off, none of your business".

You are what you are through actions, not endless theories (which are most relevant during a generational genesis/revolution that marks the broad time periods).

The actions of the PDF whinge-spam bots (about the woe is the muslim predicament in India...rather than focusing on their own country) running into pages of continued circle-jerk and mob antic shout-cry fests says more than anything else can (well past the sheer amount of cringe).

Simply put, its our country, our nation, our matter. You claim to recognise this in deepest way by cleaving your own country away right? So why this continued persistent nebulosity? Is it not hypocritical?

We have through our own toil earned credibility as a free nation with basic credible institutions, as judged by fellow free nation peers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EIU_Democracy_Index_2017.svg

800px-EIU_Democracy_Index_2017.svg.png


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Freedom_in_the_World_2018.svg

800px-Freedom_in_the_World_2018.svg.png


We simply dont (at least any longer) take any patronising sermons from others, especially non-free non-credible ones (and brothers who arbitrarily think they are Abel and we are Cain...and thus have a huge near-insurmountable chip on shoulder from onset). That too their deep set problems are far worse (be it multi-dimensional poverty on the ground or musical chair cabals up in the lofty elite power-games).

Thus sermons of that nature would be better directed towards themselves foremost....to EARN credibility (through combined, concerted actions and deeds in the end) and all else that matters, so the time-waste soap box is firm and tall and the preaching commensurately matters (and can actually be heard and has value above the rabble and din) too.

When you do take patronising sermons seriously in the inner psyche (for whatever reason), isn't it inevitable that you become pawns like the case with you lot and the oil sheikhs in how they gleefully accept their lofty patron role with no effort? Are they to blame solely, or is there blame among yourselves too for cultivating this complex within? Then the other patrons gather, seeing the model is validated and their interests can be promoted exclusively and easily (even if at the expense of yours).

Then the shrieking of cruel abandonment starts its own chorus when the patrons start reneging on whatever was "implied" in "promises" from "whenever". This to me is the true sign of weakness in psyche of a people...onus is on them to fix it. Buck up and sort it out...rather than point fingers (and get pointed back at) first thing. That just gets nowhere good. Simply thinking you win a battle by how far you (perceive with little to no reference, except own ego) can throw a spear is pretty darn stupid...it makes you a soft spectacle....and your own worst enemy.

@VCheng @Krptonite
 
.
Don't believe in this euro-american fascist terms like "Father of the nation", Har Musalman ka sirf aik hi baap hota hai.
 
Last edited:
.
I am not an intellectual kind of person...But i personally feel, when Pakistan was decided to be created for Subcontent Muslims, rather than makinh so much fuss about it, we could have amicable settled the migration of Muslims to Pakistan and India could have been a Non Muslim country..So we could have stayed like US and Canada..or take any example of good neighborly countries...
Just to correct myself, i am all talking about historical concept...I beleive the rights of our Indian Muslims in current form..

It would have been Miracle if the peaceful transaction would occur but i doubt even British wants peaceful partition, they did a lot of Hera Pheri in Partitions , I think Gandhi has accepted the separate Pakistan cause he knew Jinnah closely and he knew that Jinnah wont stop until he gets what he wants, Jinnah was a stubborn man in that sense once he has his eyes on something he don't stop until he gets it .
 
.
Kashmir, at least the Valley, and half-of-Jammu should have gone to Pakistan. This would have saved a lot of unnecessary wars. Ladakh and half-of-Jammu could have stayed with India. The bigger problem was that because of the obstinacy of Gandhi, cooler heads were not allowed to take leadership regarding Partition from the Hindu side. It would have been a perfectly reasonable solution if there was Complete Transfer of Populations along with Pakistan getting Kashmir Valley,part-Jammu. Pakistan jumped the gun by trying to invade something that would have gone to it anyways within a decade. Many Hindus would have accepted a slightly smaller India if that meant a Muslim-free India

When you say muslim free India, does it include 200 million Indian muslims? I doubt Pakistan could take all those Indian muslims unless significant more land was given. And not just Kashmir Valley which was 98% muslim so little exchange would take place.

When Jinnah offered sikhs to stay with Pakistan it included modern Haryana and Himachal. Basically all of British punjab would have gone to Pakistan had sikhs accepted the offer. British were ready to hand over all of punjab to muslims and sikhs including hindu majority regions of Haryana and Himachal.

Now imagine if secular card was not played and every Indian muslim was not stupid enough to believe in Nehru lies. Proportionally something like Gujarat/Rajasthan state will have to be given for British to accommodate all of them. Not ideal solution by any means so secular card was best option at that time.
 
.
When you say muslim free India, does it include 200 million Indian muslims? I doubt Pakistan could take all those Indian muslims unless significant more land was given. And not just Kashmir Valley which was 98% muslim so little exchange would take place.

When Jinnah offered sikhs to stay with Pakistan it included modern Haryana and Himachal. Basically all of British punjab would have gone to Pakistan had sikhs accepted the offer. British were ready to hand over all of punjab to muslims and sikhs including hindu majority regions of Haryana and Himachal.

Now imagine if secular card was not played and every Indian muslim was not stupid enough to believe in Nehru lies. Proportionally something like Gujarat/Rajasthan state will have to be given for British to accommodate all of them. Not ideal solution by any means so secular card was best option at that time.


A reasonable partition would have given Pakistan more land in exchange of complete transfer of population. How much more is hard to say. But I guess in that scenario whole of Kashmir along with Jammu and Ladakh,Haryana,Himachal Pradesh and Indian Punjab would most probably have gone to Pakistan. But I donot see any territory of Rajasthan and Gujarat going along..This would have meant around 900 million Indians in a much smaller India...and around 400 million Muslims in a larger Pakistan...But all that is moot, as in 100-120 years there won't be a single nation state standing on the face of the earth..Both these countries have lived with present status quo for 71 years, it's just 100 years more

I think Delhi and a strip of land on the Western bank of Yamuna would have formed the border of a Hindu Republic then.Not quite dissimiliar with Lahore in the present timeline
 
Last edited:
.
A reasonable partition would have given Pakistan more land in exchange of complete transfer of population. How much more is hard to say. But I guess in that scenario whole of Kashmir along with Jammu and Ladakh,Haryana,Himachal Pradesh and Indian Punjab would most probably have gone to Pakistan. But I donot see any territory of Rajasthan and Gujarat going along..This would have meant around 900 million Indians in a much smaller India...and around 400 million Muslims in a larger Pakistan...But all that is moot, as in 100-120 years there won't be a single nation state standing on the face of the earth..Both these countries have lived with present status quo for 71 years, it's just 100 years more

Ladakh is waste land. Valley and Jammu already had muslim majority population. Haryana not big enough to accommodate all of Indian muslims in exchange with hindu population. Himachal is again mountainous waste land.

Perhaps modern Haryana and west UP would have been good enough to accommodate large numbers of Indian muslims in exchange of hindus. With that Indian hindu population would have been over 95%.
 
.
Ladakh is waste land. Valley and Jammu already had muslim majority population. Haryana not big enough to accommodate all of Indian muslims in exchange with hindu population. Himachal is again mountainous waste land.

Perhaps modern Haryana and west UP would have been good enough to accommodate large numbers of Indian muslims in exchange of hindus. With that Indian hindu population would have been over 95%.

Does it really matter now? Human civilization would collapse anyways within the next century..and war lords would be running petty states across the whole subcontinent and the Earth by then...We would most probably see some new kingdoms forming over the second half of 22nd century mixing medieval era material civilization along with some renewable energy generation..But I do expect global famine by 2099
 
.
Does it really matter now? Human civilization would collapse anyways within the next century..and war lords would be running petty states across the whole subcontinent and the Earth by then

You mean whole world will become Afghanistan? I doubt it somehow, especially that soon.
 
.
You mean whole world will become Afghanistan? I doubt it somehow, especially that soon.


We are hurtling very very very fast towards the finish line...even nuclear fuel will be spent by 2070 or 2080..and whatever new energy is generated through true renewables (wind,solar,geo-thermal,hydro) will be used to manufacture the materials for further renewable power stations...How Europe looked post 476 AD, whole world would look by 2119 AD..and it would take exactly that much time for newer polties to emerge in the world as it took for Western Europe...expect also a global population crash from 10 billion to 2 billion in a span of a generation (that is 30-35 years)...Studying Behavioural Sink experiments in rat utopias would also give us some hints
 
.
Back
Top Bottom