Balkanization of India is viable but I don't care

[TheGreatMaratha]

As representatives of British Raj with 100% direct authority, the Mountbattens were immensely powerful decision-makers in 1947. They had 100% control over which territories would remain with India, and which would go Pakistan's way.

Yes.

Nehru had immense influence with Edwina Mountbatten which helped secure more territories for India.

No. Partition was simply done based on Hindu and Muslim populations.

So basically when Sardar Patel unified Hyderabad or any other region, the United Kingdom turned a blind eye and did not come to the aid of the Princely state despite their long-standing agreements. Why? Because Nehru had immense influence with the Mountbattens and the British Royalty.

You mean to say United Kingdom would have attacked the Indian Union say, just a year after Partition? When they had already suffered the effects of WW II? Lol.

Sardar Patel had zero role in that stage of negotiation, so Nehru was still the boss here (Gandhi had stepped out of picture after June 1947).

This is Ramachandra Guha on Patel and Nehru:
"After Gandhi’s death, Patel and Nehru put their differences aside and kept India together. They laid the foundation of modern India. After Patel’s death too, Nehru carried forward Gandhi’s legacy".

Also, words like zero role is an indication of your clear biasness.
https://www.thestatesman.com/cities...after-gandhi-ramachandra-guha-1502726141.html

Edwina Mountbatten personally disliked Sardar Patel (she had claimed that he smelled bad).

Ref?

Just watch a few movies like Gandhi (1983), Jinnah (1998) and you will get an idea.

Have watched Gandhi. I'll simply say that Patel is under appreciated.

Also, my point regarding Mountbatten stands. Any sane person will hardly consider him as an architect of India. But again, this is PDF.

Brits abandoned the princely states and went with Nehru.

That's because the princely states weren't fit to rule themselves. Many of the kings were more concerned about living lavishly than thinking for their subject. Of course, there were exceptions.

I beleive brits deliberately created fake boundaries and fake countries to keep them weak. Look at countries like vietnam, malaysia, kore - all lingusitic countries with proper socities.

Do you mean to say both India and Pakistan are fake countries? I don't know about Pakistanis here but I as an Indian will take strong offence to that in the current situation. Btw, where are you even from originally?

 

[MayaBazar]

Well yea India made it binding. Without india there is no need for other states to learn a useless language which can supply no jobs or make you any income. And as india tries to integrate it burdens non-hindi speakers more and lighten the burden on hindi speakers. It gives them an advantage which others must forsake just for living in their own lands. Thanks to India.
And it is not just street communication. Indian parliament and govt which grabs lions share of taxes uses only hindi/english as its medium of instruction. Even during peak of corona indian health ministry was giviing instructions only in hindi no translation nothing.
Indian military uses only hindi for local commands.

I learnt French, Hindi, Telugu and English in school.

My Hindi turned out to be more useful than French.

But you are the butt of contemptuous jokes, guilty woman.

- PRTP GWD

You can take any joke and they are always insensitive to a group. That is the nature of a joke.

If you are so sensitive, then stay away from jokes.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

Without india there is no need for other states to learn a useless language which can supply no jobs or make you any income.

Why should people even know their native tongue if jobs is the only criteria?

And as india tries to integrate it burdens non-hindi speakers more and lighten the burden on hindi speakers. It gives them an advantage which others must forsake just for living in their own lands. Thanks to India.

Native language subjects are compulsory in every state board. So if a Delhite comes to live in Maharashtra with his family, his kids have to learn Marathi to pass secondary school exam as well as the 10th Board exams. I think it's the same with other states as well.

This is Shreyas Iyer, a South Indian speaking Marathi as he lived in Mumbai.

Aamir Khan speaking in Marathi

Indian parliament and govt which grabs lions share of taxes uses only hindi/english as its medium of instruction.

Have you cared to look at the Indian currency?

Even during peak of corona indian health ministry was giviing instructions only in hindi no translation nothing.

Apart from you, no one is crying about.

Indian military uses only hindi for local commands.

Soldiers are not banned from speaking in their native tongues. Regarding commands, well, you can't have commands in 20 odd languages. It's just a command anyway.

 

[Kamikaze Pilot]

You can take any joke and they are always insensitive to a group. That is the nature of a joke.

If you are so sensitive, then stay away from jokes

Madam,

Sardarji jokes are in jest and Sikhs are respected lot. Sardarji jokes mean nothing.

But golti jokes have racist connotations and often are a satire on golti folk's real behaviour.

@Brar

- PRTP GWD

 

[MayaBazar]

Madam,

Sardarji jokes are in jest and Sikhs are respected lot. Sardarji jokes mean nothing.

But golti jokes have racist connotations and often a satire on golti folk's real behaviour.

@Brar

- PRTP GWD

Have you read any Husband-Wife jokes? They can be very male chauvinistic or Feministic.

Same with Jokes on idiots etc.

Jokes are always insensitive to a group. That is the nature of a joke.

 

[El Sidd]

Have you read any Husband-Wife jokes? They can be very male chauvinistic or Feministic.

Same with Jokes on idiots etc.

Jokes are always insensitive to a group. That is the nature of a joke.

Not when they are systematic with tribal historical innuendos.

Insensitivity towards this issue has led to complete marginalization among the different hindu princely capitalist states of India.

 

[MayaBazar]

Not when they are systematic with tribal historical innuendos.

Insensitivity towards this issue has led to complete marginalization among the different hindu princely capitalist states of India.

Have you ever noticed how Brahmans are mocked through jokes in Bollywood and Tollywood movies?

You guys are getting too sensitive.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

Not when they are systematic with tribal historical innuendos.

Insensitivity towards this issue has led to complete marginalization among the different hindu princely capitalist states of India.

https://www.brandsynario.com/why-are-pathans-always-the-victims-of-jokes-racial-bullying/

 

[Kamikaze Pilot]

Note: Those who read why India's balkanization is viable should also read why I don't care.

I am a civilian. I know nothing about security issues - internal or external. But I am the person on ground and I can vouch for the plethora of inter-community dislike or animosity. Why, I have read that even the cadets of that sacred institution - whose objective is to protect the country - the magnificent NDA, practice provincialism. The senior cadets often befriend and spare the juniors the ragging if they hail from their own state.

This is an incomplete list of who hates/dislikes whom and other subversive elements in India:

* Hindus hate Muslims and vice versa

* Negligible hate between Hindus and Christians but mixing of the rituals of the two religions and Hindu-Christian marriage are a taboo

* In some rural regions of Hindi belt the caste violence is so intense that entire families are wiped out including children

* The numbers of tribals - who serve as cannon fodder in naxalite groups - is high. They are a great destabilizing factor.

* Northies hate Southies and vice versa

* A percentage of Maharashtrians dislike bhaiyyas of UP and Bihar

* A percentage of Maharashtrians dislike/hate Kannadigas

* Kannadigas hate almost everyone else and vice versa

* Tamilians hate almost everyone else

* A percentage of Keralites hate Kannadigas

* Northies find Telugu speaking people (both from Telangana and Andhra Pradesh) particularly disgusting and nauseating and have given them jocular names

* Many states in North East - with the exception of Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh and nowadays hopefully Assam - hate mainland India

* Mainland Indians don't necessarily hate North East Indians but have a strong dislike and aversion to them and discriminate against them due to their Mongoloid features

* Goans are a special kind of idiots. They brawl with domestic tourists from all over the country but suck up to Whites and allow their nudity.

* Silver lining is nobody hates Sikhs and Sikhs hate nobody. Khalistan is history.

India also has two or three powerful enemies with whom it shares very long borders. But this situation is not an unusual case. In fact everywhere in the world balkanization process is ignited by foreign hand only.

One factor that works against the balkanization of India is the docility of South Indians. For balkanization, probably the entire populace should be of rebellious and perhaps a bit boisterous nature.

Why I don't care about India's fate?

Earlier I would root for singlehanded Indian victory over multiple external and internal enemies like Pakistan, China, USA, naxalites, Bangladesh etc. I would wonder if India is good enough to win and follow this "game". It would take exceptional intellect to prevent a tinderbox like India from inflaming. If one is able to hold India together like the British did, it would be nothing short of a work of a genius.

But I have had a bad experience with a genius. I was disappointed. Ever since, I have a dislike for geniuses. An explanatory paragraph:

I hate geniuses. I hate scientists, mathematicians, chess champions, prodigious engineers, prodigious economists and other technical prodigies. Earlier when I hadn't met one (or thought that I hadn't) I guessed being in the company of a genius would be riveting, thrilling, exciting etc. Like watching 1978 movie ‘Don’, reading the entertaining excerpts of the novel 'One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich' (by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn), listening to great music etc. I had incorrectly thought that their presence is something worth looking forward to in life. But the reality really seems to be different. Now I know the feel of a company of a genius may be no better than workplace banality. I had presumed meeting a genius would be fun. But meeting with genius turned out to be an ordinary experience. It was not much pleasure.

It's very painful. If the best of humankind are boring, then is there anything to look forward to?

Since then, I am past caring. I stopped bothering about whether the establishment pulls the challenging feat off or whether they fail. The moment I think of the actuality of geniuses I instantly lose interest in the games of international politics.

- PRTP GWD

@Syama Ayas @Dark1

- PRTP GWD

 

[letsrock]

I learnt French, Hindi, Telugu and English in school.

My Hindi turned out to be more useful than French.

s.

Your self delusion has no ends. hindi is useful because india was forced on you - first by brits and then by congress. Without india whats the use of hindi - it gives you no jobs other than making "freinds" with hindi people who, lets admit the fact has generally no respect for south indians, ghats etc.
If you are from Ap the jobs come to you from your economy or gulf economy or USA economy.

 

[Shantanu_Left]

No. Partition was simply done based on Hindu and Muslim populations.

Not true. The Mountbattens had absolute authority to decide what they want to do with ANY territory of British era Hindostan. They did not consult with British Parliament or the King either, think of it like a Power of Attorney.

Not all territories were allocated based on whether they had more Hindus or Muslims. Hoshiarpur in Punjab is a classic example. It was majority Muslim around 1947. However, Nehru was able to convince the Mountbattens to transfer that territory to India. So you see, there was a NEGOTIATION which secured various territories of modern day India. And the main negotiating parties were British representatives, the Mountbattens, and Nehru/Jinnah for their respective countries.

Lady Edwina Mountbatten never invited Sardar Patel to one of the many informal tea parties where the fate of India and Pakistan were decided. Nehru, and Fatima Jinnah were the ones who attended those meetings.

Luckily for India, Nehru was able to secure Hoshiarpur otherwise there would have been no passage to Jammu and Kashmir.

Sardar Patel was never there in any of these meetings.

You mean to say United Kingdom would have attacked the Indian Union say, just a year after Partition? When they had already suffered the effects of WW II? Lol.

Yes, had there been no strong negotiator from India with the Mountbattens, the Brits might have supported, for example, Hyderabad or the larger provinces like Kashmir.

You clearly don't know the British rulers very well then. Even as late as March 1947, many of them were reluctant to part with their Jewel in the Crown. And World War was already over 2 years ago, so that wouldn't have stopped them from coming to the aid of their princely allies in India...had there been no silent agreements such as between Nehru and the Mountbattens. Or, Jinnah's and the Mountbattens.

Go look up in the dictionary what "negotiation" means.

This is Ramachandra Guha on Patel and Nehru:
"After Gandhi’s death, Patel and Nehru put their differences aside and kept India together. They laid the foundation of modern India. After Patel’s death too, Nehru carried forward Gandhi’s legacy".

True. They worked as a team.

I'll simply say that Patel is under appreciated.

No he's not. He unified the princely states of India. And that's why he is considered the Iron Man. Where did I deprecate his role?

But he certainly never got invited to any of Mountbatten secret parties where the fate of India was being decided. That's Nehru alone who did that.

 

[letsrock]

Why should people even know their native tongue if jobs is the only criteria?

Native language subjects are compulsory in every state board. So if a Delhite comes to live in Maharashtra with his family, his kids have to learn Marathi to pass secondary school exam as well as the 10th Board exams. I think it's the same with other states as well.




Soldiers are not banned from speaking in their native tongues. Regarding commands, well, you can't have commands in 20 odd languages. It's just a command anyway.

You first accepted india as default and then go about how to make it work - we need one language from army, one laguage for this. Well you dont really need that if maha had its own country. And now you are making it about some odd individuals here and there.

The facts are simple hindi is imposed on you - you want to watch how laws are made in your own country with your tax money - you gotta learn hindi. your own army does not speak your tongue. this is not how people majorly live in most countries. Understand that.

Do you mean to say both India and Pakistan are fake countries? I don't know about Pakistanis here but I as an Indian will take strong offence to that in the current situation. Btw, where are you even from originally?

Pakistan was a demand that came within . There was voting on it. Though one can contest it definitely had more legitimate basis. There was never much of a choice for indian population here. Look at indian populations from nagaland to tamilnadu how can they all be parts of one country ?

 

[MayaBazar]

Your self delusion has no ends. hindi is useful because india was forced on you - first by brits and then by congress. Without india whats the use of hindi - it gives you no jobs other than making "freinds" with hindi people who, lets admit the fact has generally no respect for south indians, ghats etc.
If you are from Ap the jobs come to you from your economy or gulf economy or USA economy.

No. I did not learn Hindi because someone forced me but because it is useful. Same is the case with learning English. British did not not force me to learn English. I learnt it because there is value.

If I learn English, I can use it all around the world
If I learn Hindi, I can use it all around the Indian subcontinent.
If I learn Spanish, I can use it all across most of Central and Southern Americas

Pakistan was a demand that came within . There was voting on it. Though one can contest it definitely had more legitimate basis. There was never much of a choice for indian population here. Look at indian populations from nagaland to tamilnadu how can they all be parts of one country ?

The fact and irony is that it is the non Indians like Pakistanis who have heart burn while people in India are cool being united as one country called India.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

The Mountbattens had absolute authority to decide what they want to do with ANY territory of British era Hindostan. They did not consult with British Parliament or the King either, think of it like a Power of Attorney.

He was appointed by the British government. Yes, he had a lot of power but Partition plan (Mountbatten Plan) still required the approval of the British Parliament. So you are completely wrong when you say that they didn't consult the British Parliament or the King.

Anyway, my main point is not even regarding that.

Not all territories were allocated based on whether they had more Hindus or Muslims.

Agreed. Muslim majority territories surrounded by Hindu majority areas was given to India and vice versa.

Hoshiarpur in Punjab is a classic example. It was majority Muslim around 1947. However, Nehru was able to convince the Mountbattens to transfer that territory to India. So you see, there was a NEGOTIATION which secured various territories of modern day India. And the main negotiating parties were British representatives, the Mountbattens, and Nehru/Jinnah for their respective countries.

You forgot Larkana, Shikarpur, Sukkur, Hyderabad where Hindus were in majority? Even Karachi had an equal split of Hindus and Muslims.

Luckily for India, Nehru was able to secure Hoshiarpur otherwise there would have been no passage to Jammu and Kashmir.

You can easily bypass it through Gurdaspur Pathankot or through Himachal Pradesh. What are you smoking?

Yes, had there been no strong negotiator from India with the Mountbattens, the Brits might have supported, for example, Hyderabad or the larger provinces like Kashmir.

You clearly don't know the British rulers very well then. Even as late as March 1947, many of them were reluctant to part with their Jewel in the Crown. And World War was already over 2 years ago, so that wouldn't have stopped them from coming to the aid of their princely allies in India...had there been no silent agreements such as between Nehru and the Mountbattens. Or, Jinnah's and the Mountbattens.

Should I just take you for your words? These are just assumptions that you are making. The British were in no position to start another war. They would have left the princely states to fend for themselves just like they did with Hyderabad and Kashmir.

Even as late as March 1947, many of them were reluctant to part with their Jewel in the Crown.

The British were not in a position to stay further. Not after the Quit India movement and the mutiny amongst the British Indian soldiers. The decision to officially leave India was taken in February 1947 but unofficially it was quite clear that their days were numbered.

But he certainly never got invited to any of Mountbatten secret parties where the fate of India was being decided. That's Nehru alone who did that.

Nehru certainly had a more influential role in Indian politics owing to his strong connections (son of Motilal Nehru who served as Congress President twice, close associate of Mahatma Gandhi) but also a lot due to his hard work. It didn't help that Sardar Patel passed away just 3 years after independence but he did a lot in those 3 years. So him being one of the chief architects of India is not wrong when the most important task of integration of Princely States was given to him.

This is from Wikipedia:
The Congress, as well as senior British officials, considered Patel the best man for the task of achieving conquest of the princely states by the Indian dominion. Gandhi had said to Patel, "[T]he problem of the States is so difficult that you alone can solve it".

Yes, there can be debates on who among them was more influential among the Indian masses (that would most probably be Nehru) but as I said earlier, he wasn't given too much credit. Patel certainly played a limited role pre-Independence as compared to Nehru but it doesn't mean he didn't do anything. If he hadn't done anything, the important task of princely state integration wouldn't have been given to him.

Good to see that you have now dropped your fondness for calling Mountbatten and Radcliffe as chief architects atleast as now you are debating about whether Patel was a chief architect or not. Anyway, that was simply common sense.

My last reply on this thread to a so-called 'leftist'.

 

[Kamikaze Pilot]

The fact and irony is that it is the non Indians like Pakistanis who have heart burn while people in India are cool being united as one country called India.

No. You aren't acquainted with discrimination scene in some companies. You also have no knowledge about how some Tamilians are upset about money generated in South going to BIMARU states.

- PRTP GWD