Congressi Propaganda: Hindu Majority provinces and Muslim Majority provinces can't live together

[KRAIT]

If you are not telling us the organization, how are we supposed to refute your answers/doubts/questions/arguments ?

Coz I have seen multiple examples of modified history of Pakistan taught and prevelance of conspiracy theories there.

 

[dray]

Anyways, I am still waiting for your answers to the following questions:

1. Who gave the idea "Hindu majority provinces cannot live with Muslim majority provinces"?
-------- the same entity supported the idea of chopping into half two provinces Punjab and Bengal based on religion.

2. Who was the first major leader that supported the use of religion in the riots against the government.

Thank you

1. "Who gave the idea" - Not any individual to blame here, the idea was already there, many people were realizing it, many were discussing it, and finally one said it in public. Please don't try to say that Muslims were given that idea by someone and they themselves didn't support the idea wholeheartedly. There was also an idea floated by someone for a separate nation for Bengalis, but that idea didn't find many takers among Bengalis, finally Bengal was divided on the basis of religion and not ethnicity. Pakistanis wanted a Muslim state, they got it, now don't shift the responsibilities.

In fact, I am only pointing towards the two sentences marked in red above, and I have already mentioned the reason for that also.

2. Depends upon from where you want to start, riots happened even in pre-British period!!

 

[notsuperstitious]

We need to differentiate between 'propaganda' - questionable in the first place and political demands, formal and agressively used in street politics to really get an answer.

As a parallel, Ill draw attention of pakistani posters to their own debate about whether jinnah sought a secular system for pakistan. Certainly people on both sides of that argument present jinnahs different spreches in support. Jinnah was a politician and said different things at different fora. But we can truly judge him by actions only. In this case his appointmemt of a hindu as law minister.

Using the same principle my opinion is that more than congress Muslim league was into religious separatism.

 

[Kompromat]

The title sounds very familiar. Who is the author? you are not talking about Jalal. Are you?

Thanks.

 

[FaujHistorian]

1. "Who gave the idea" - Not any individual to blame here, the idea was already there, many people were realizing it, many were discussing it, and finally one said it in public. Please don't try to say that Muslims were given that idea by someone and they themselves didn't support the idea wholeheartedly. There was also an idea floated by someone for a separate nation for Bengalis, but that idea didn't find many takers among Bengalis, finally Bengal was divided on the basis of religion and not ethnicity. Pakistanis wanted a Muslim state, they got it, now don't shift the responsibilities.

In fact, I am only pointing towards the two sentences marked in red above, and I have already mentioned the reason for that also.

2. Depends upon from where you want to start, riots happened even in pre-British period!!

Good effort. But still you are trying to pull things out of the air.

You gotta say there was a Man XYZ who openly declared that

"Hindu Majority provinces cannot live with Muslim Majority provinces".


Please stick to the topic.

We need to differentiate between 'propaganda' - questionable in the first place and political demands, formal and agressively used in street politics to really get an answer..

yes. That should be it.

Who among the leaders aggressively touted the idea that


Hindu majority provinces cannot live with Muslim majority provinces.

.....
Ill draw attention of pakistani posters to their own debate about whether jinnah sought a secular system for pakistan.

Please do not mention Jinnah in this thread unless you know he was the first to declare





Hindu majority provinces cannot live with Muslim majority provinces.



If you believe so, then please provide some date some year to show it.


Thank you

If you are not telling us the organization, how are we supposed to refute your answers/doubts/questions/arguments ?

Coz I have seen multiple examples of modified history of Pakistan taught and prevelance of conspiracy theories there.

I am simply asking the question, which party's leader(s) was/were the first to aggressively tout the idea that



Hindu majority provinces cannot live with Muslim majority provinces.



So many INdian posters tend to give long lectures about Islam and Pakistan. So this is an effort to get to the root of you alls understanding of the subject matter.

Thank you

 

[dray]

Good effort. But still you are trying to pull things out of the air.

You gotta say there was a Man XYZ who openly declared that

"Hindu Majority provinces cannot live with Muslim Majority provinces".

Please stick to the topic.

Not in a position to give a long answer right now, will do so later, but dividing the population on religious lines was first adopted by the Brits from the very early days of their colonization. It was Viceroy Lord Carzon who went for the physical partition of the Bengal Presidency in 1905. Though they argued that it was for administrative efficiency, but the very design of the partition revealed the actual purpose. So, you can say it was Lord Carzon, in case you are determined to find one sacrificial lamb. But I would still prefer this quote:

"A student of history may ask: who was the architect of partition? Iqbal? Jinnah? Gandhi? Nehru? Patel? The Congress party? The Muslim League? The Hindu Mahasabha? The Akali Dal? The British? No one person and no single party can take the credit or the blame for partition. It was a deadly serious game that had many players. The principal figures involved have acquired an iconic status in India and Pakistan. Often the hero of one is a villain for the other, so bitter was the experience of partition. Sixty years later, when one looks at them as historical figures, one finds them to be all too human, with their prides and their prejudices, their strengths and their limitations. They made choices like all humans and these choices had the human touch of triumph and tragedy. They were as much creators of history as were its victims."

The Partition of India | History of Islam

Thank you!

 

[scorpionx]

Contrary to the popular belief the supposed boundaries between Hindus and Muslims was not drawn by Muslim League but the Hindu Obscurantists and a pro-Hindu faction among the Congress,the vanguard of Unified Indian Identity itself,mainly led by Lala Lajpat Rai,who during the 20's wrote numerous articles on why Hindus and Muslims can not live together. This very statement was reiterated by Dr.B R Ambedkar some years later.

The Pre-partition history what we read in our respective countries are merely a selective one according our very own conveniences. We have excluded some extraordinarily important facts, included minor details which were not so special.We have glorified failures,secluded those who really does not deserve such flat criticisms. I am not a very big fan of blind nationalism and still looking for a true Government approach to study our history of Independence from a point of vantage,free from any communal or political prejudice.

I thank @FaujHistorian for bringing this topic again and I would definitely like to be informed more from you on this subject.

 

[anjaneyashruti]

Contrary to the popular belief the supposed boundaries between Hindus and Muslims was not drawn by Muslim League but the Hindu Obscurantists and a pro-Hindu faction among the Congress,the vanguard of Unified Indian Identity itself,mainly led by Lala Lajpat Rai,who during the 20's wrote numerous articles on why Hindus and Muslims can not live together. This very statement was reiterated by Dr.B R Ambedkar some years later.

The Pre-partition history what we read in our respective countries are merely a selective one according our very own conveniences. We have excluded some extraordinarily important facts, included minor details which were not so special.We have glorified failures,secluded those who really does not deserve such flat criticisms. I am not a very big fan of blind nationalism and still looking for a true Government approach to study our history of Independence from a point of vantage,free from any communal or political prejudice.

I thank @FaujHistorian for bringing this topic again and I would definitely like to be informed more from you on this subject.

Then I suggest you read your history books again.

Lala Lajpat Rai was a great admirer of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan before Syed Ahmed started to criticise the Congress and started the All India Muhammadan Educational Conference which was the parent body of All India Muslim League.

It was Sir Syed who was instrumental in developing a Muslim political class independent and at odds with Hindu-majority Congress.

If you want to quote history, better dig deep. What you find will surprise you.

 

[scorpionx]

Then I suggest you read your history books again.

If you want to quote history, better dig deep. What you find will surprise you.

Dear anjenyashruti, I am a reader and learner. What ever I have said is according to Indian and Western Historians itself.If I get something against what I have wrote I will readily apologize to Lalaji,here.As you suggested, I have already stated digging deep for the last two years and yes,I have found something surprising quite contrary to our usual belief. Thank you.

By the way,do you know who said the lines below?

"Under my scheme the Muslims will have four Muslim States: (1) The Pathan Province or the North-West Frontier; (2) Western Punjab (3) Sindh and (4) Eastern Bengal. If there are compact Muslim communities in any other part of India, sufficiently large to form a province, they should be similarly constituted. But it should be distinctly understood that this is not a united India. It means a clear partition of India into a Muslim India and a non-Mulsim India."

 

[Chak Bamu]

Then I suggest you read your history books again.

Lala Lajpat Rai was a great admirer of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan before Syed Ahmed started to criticise the Congress and started the All India Muhammadan Educational Conference which was the parent body of All India Muslim League.

It was Sir Syed who was instrumental in developing a Muslim political class independent and at odds with Hindu-majority Congress.

If you want to quote history, better dig deep. What you find will surprise you.

Sir Syed Ahmad Khan was not about division of the country. He was worried about Muslims being left behind in education and economy. This was the reason for his activism. A secondary aim of his activities was to preserve the noble class of Muslims so that they would act as leaders and interact with British on better terms. Some of his writings would surprise Indians and Pakistanis both. He had an elitist mindset but was very concerned about relegation of Muslims as a whole to a backward status. You can not blame him for trying his best to safeguard Muslim interests when they were clearly on a downward spiral. All India Muhammadan Educational Conference might well have been the parent of All India Muslim League, but Muslim League itself began as an elitist body, totally unconcerned with a new nationalist project. You are putting up a strawman to support your position. That is indeed desperate.

I fail to see how Sir Syed Ahmad Khan could be mentioned in this context.

 

[anjaneyashruti]

Dear anjenyashruti, I am a reader and learner. What ever I have said is according to Indian and Western Historians itself.If I get something against what I have wrote I will readily apologize to Lalaji,here.As you suggested, I have already stated digging deep for the last two years and yes,I have found something surprising quite contrary to our usual belief. Thank you.

By the way,do you know who said the lines below?

"Under my scheme the Muslims will have four Muslim States: (1) The Pathan Province or the North-West Frontier; (2) Western Punjab (3) Sindh and (4) Eastern Bengal. If there are compact Muslim communities in any other part of India, sufficiently large to form a province, they should be similarly constituted. But it should be distinctly rthat this is not a united India. It means a clear partition of India into a Muslim India and a non-Mulsim India."

In which case you better read up about Arya Samaj, Swami Dayananda Saraswathi and the Cow protection Movement too. Read about the 45 communal violence that it created right up to Rangoon in Burma.

Lala Lajpat Rai was Pro Hindu, but he was not Anti Muslim. He was interested in safeguarding the rights and privileges of both the Hindus and Muslim. But he wanted mutual respect.

It was a break down of that mutual respect and demand for muslim reservation and appeasement which fractured Punjab. You know where that demand comes from.

Sir Syed Ahmad Khan was not about division of the country. He was worried about Muslims being left behind in education and economy. This was the reason for his activism. A secondary aim of his activities was to preserve the noble class of Muslims so that they would act as leaders and interact with British on better terms. Some of his writings would surprise Indians and Pakistanis both. He had an elitist mindset but was very concerned about relegation of Muslims as a whole to a backward status. You can not blame him for trying his best to safeguard Muslim interests when they were clearly on a downward spiral. All India Muhammadan Educational Conference might well have been the parent of All India Muslim League, but Muslim League itself began as an elitist body, totally unconcerned with a new nationalist project. You are putting up a strawman to support your position. That is indeed desperate.

I fail to see how Sir Syed Ahmad Khan could be mentioned in this context.

The demand for Special status and reservation for Muslims is what started the chain reaction. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan was the pioneer who started this demand. He just could not live with the days realities where Hindus were free to deal with muslims as their equals. As you rightly said, he wanted to protect the muslim elites.

 

[scorpionx]

It was a break down of that mutual respect and demand for muslim reservation and appeasement which fractured Punjab. You know where that demand comes from.

We are discussing partition of India,not TNT.Hope your acumen can differentiate between the two here.

 

[anjaneyashruti]

We are discussing partition of India,not TNT.Hope your acumen can differentiate between the two here.

History does not happen in isolation, hope you have the acumen to understand that.

 

[OrionHunter]

Let me have a shot at this. Was it Babasaheb Ambedkar? He was one of the few Hindus, if not the only one, who foresaw the consequences of not letting Muslims have their Dar-ul-lslam. He therefore openly and in cold print favoured partition and in precise detail by 1940. (He was the first Law Minister under Nehru).

He was clear in his view that partition without an exchange of population was worse than partition. His reason was impeccable. To him dividing the subcontinent was to solve its communal conflict. The Communal Award was given in 1932 when Ramsay MacDonald was the Prime Minister of Great Britain. The award gave the Muslims what they had demanded. Their weightage as well as their separate electorates were retained and in addition they were given the statutory majority of seats in the provinces in which they were the majority population.

 

[bronxbull]

I completely support partition,we already support many lazytard muslims,dont need a whole lot.