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

[FaujHistorian]

In which case you better read up about Arya Samaj, Swami Dayananda Saraswathi and the Cow protection Movement .

Please Please Please do not forget to associate specific date/year and particular statements.

You gotta move your historical knowledge and discussion style in a more grown up style.

We all read 3rd class newspapers and watch these lazy @rse TV talk show hosts and then regurgitate falsehood or at least less than desired info.

So please do not forget to mention specific dates and statements.

Thank you

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

You are in a wrong thread buddy.

I wish we were conducting a poll to find out whic NRI is supporting partition and who is not.

But that is not the topic.

Please read the Original Post (OP) to find what is being discussed and then add your input.

Thank you

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.

You my dear are discussing things that happened 20-30 years later than what we are trying to discuss.


Please keep the time period and year in mind before adding your input.

 

[Chak Bamu]

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.

Well that is one way of putting things in perspective. Your perspective, not mine. It was not about equality of Muslims and Hindus, but rather the fact that Muslims had been dealt with more harshly in the aftermath of 1857. Plus, Muslim elite tended to be landowners and higher government functionaries. With the arrival of British, they could not maintain their status and crumbled. It was in this atmosphere that Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, himself a nobleman tried to turn the situation around. Already Muslims had fallen way behind their Hindu compatriots because of their aversion to British and consequently lost influence as a community. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan's efforts were to reverse this trend. You can not fault him for trying to improve matters. He did his best, and frankly none of what he did could be construed as something that could logically and conclusively lead to Pakistan.

High caste Hindu community had as much a hand in creation of Pakistan as any Muslim. Pakistan came into existence because by 1940 Muslims had realized that they must agitate for separation to get a better deal. Until 1945 Pakistan was not really a certainty. Failure of Cabinet Mission Plan left no doubt as to the direction of events and eventual creation of Pakistan. The division of India is not solely responsibility of a few Muslim individuals. Pretty much everyone had a hand in its creation. It was inevitable. That is fate. It had to happen.

 

[FaujHistorian]

.... Muslims had been dealt with more harshly in the aftermath of 1857. Plus, Muslim elite tended to be landowners and higher government functionaries. With the arrival of British, they could not maintain their status and crumbled.......

I respectfully disagree CB.

While a section of Muslims in central India (mainly UP and Bihar) may have suffered negative consequences of 1857, Most of the Muslim landlords retained their lands.

This is especially true in Muslim majority provinces where Muslim landlords did not suffer huge consequences. In fact British gov gave all the newly irrigatable land in Punjab to Muslim Landlords such as Luddan Khan whose next generation adopted last name as "Doltana". I am sure you know which landed family I am talking about.


Reasons for British behavior of being pro-Muslim in the villages and pro-Hindu in the cities of Muslim majority provinces are multiple.

And I'll go through them time permitting. Hopefully that will tie up nicely with the excellent input from @scorpionx.


The real issue with central Indian Muslims was not the loss of land etc or persecution by British.

It was unrelenting Mullahtic pressure from both Mullahs and the Islamist elite who created a poisonous environment that was:

--- anti-education
--- anti-English
--- anti-school
--- anti- hard work
and last but not the least

--- anti-global


Which was not too different from the poison being spread throughout the world today thanks to leaders like Taliban Khan, Jahaliyya fil Islam (JI) and it infects large parts of Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Middle East and some African countries.


Thus Sir Syed Ahmad's fight was

--- anti-Mullah
--- anti-Islamism

and
--- pro-British
--- pro-Global-future.




Please also note that 1857 war was against BEIC (British East India Company).

British government only came in after 1857.

In 1857 only one Muslim majority province was under direct BEIC control aka Bengal and indirect controlled province was modern day Sindh.

Punjab the largest and richest Muslim majority province, and Frontier province only came under Britain after the collapse of the government of Great Maharaja Ranjeet Singh.

So let's make sure we do not omit key details.


I'll add later as to when and why Congress in general and Lala Lajpat Rai in particular became hostile to Muslim majority provinces in 1910-1920's even when Lala Rai was a Punjabi.


Peace

 

[FaujHistorian]

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."

Excellent reference and quotation. Bravo.


I may just add that the said statement was not by a Muslim and it was made in the 1920s.


Will add more.

I plan to discuss the "REAL" reasons of why the author this statement was hell bent on dividing and partitioning Indian subcontinent.


peace

1924 reference that repeats partitioning of India from an earlier reference of 1922.

*THE HINDU-MUSLIM PROBLEM (1924)* by Lala Lajpat Rai

 

[bronxbull]

Muslims were cribbing right from 1857 as to how Hindus were more educated than us,how they are getting ahead quicker blah blah blah

I see bangladeshi muslims talking like that even now.

 

[FaujHistorian]

Muslims were cribbing right from 1857 as to how Hindus were more educated than us,how they are getting ahead quicker blah blah blah

I see bangladeshi muslims talking like that even now.

Please don't add $hitty statements unless you have a reference to back it up.

Thank you

 

[bronxbull]

Reference was always there,The partition of Bengal was one such activity.

Muslims acitivity in India was dormant after the demise of the Mughal empire,but then when the Brits start getting prominent,the story started again.

Basically there were numerous princely states,any political settlement was possible,1,2,3 or 5 countries.

 

[FaujHistorian]

.....
Muslims acitivity in India was dormant after the demise of the Mughal empire,but then when the Brits start getting prominent,the story started again.

Do you try to read a book or two before spewing ignorance?

I mean why put one liners if you don't have anything to back them up?

Why?

.....
Basically there were numerous princely states,any political settlement was possible,1,2,3 or 5 countries.

Since when? what year?

Which princely states would have been allowed to form a country.

By whom?


Please be serious.

I want you to contribute but no thread cr@pping please.


Thank you

 

[Indischer]

@FaujHistorian Are you refering to Vinayak Damodar Savarkar? that guy was actually way ahead of his times...

Also, if he is indeed your reference, you also must be knowing that he wasn't a leader of the INC.

 

[FaujHistorian]

@FaujHistorian Are you refering to Vinayak Damodar Savarkar? that guy was actually way ahead of his times...

Which specific statement or essay of VDS are you referring to?

Thanks

 

[Indischer]

Which specific statement or essay of VDS are you referring to?

Thanks

No specific statement. It was just a guess. He too was convinced that Hindus and Muslims couldn't coexist, but I guess his solution to that was not partition. So, the one who made those statements in 1924 was Lala Lajpat Rai? Classic!

BTW, wasn't Choudhry Rahmat Ali's Pakistan declaration in 1933 a sign that many Muslims too saw partition in favorable light?

 

[anjaneyashruti]

Well that is one way of putting things in perspective. Your perspective, not mine. It was not about equality of Muslims and Hindus, but rather the fact that Muslims had been dealt with more harshly in the aftermath of 1857. Plus, Muslim elite tended to be landowners and higher government functionaries. With the arrival of British, they could not maintain their status and crumbled. It was in this atmosphere that Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, himself a nobleman tried to turn the situation around. Already Muslims had fallen way behind their Hindu compatriots because of their aversion to British and consequently lost influence as a community. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan's efforts were to reverse this trend. You can not fault him for trying to improve matters. He did his best, and frankly none of what he did could be construed as something that could logically and conclusively lead to Pakistan.

Their status had long eroded since the days of the Maratha Empire and the Sikh Empire ruling India. They just wanted to recreate a Mythical Muslim Leadership.

Selective Quoting of Lala Lajpath Rai will not do .........let me show you how he starts the essay.

"...........It is suggested on behalf of Muslim leaders that (a) Communal representation with separate electorates in all the legislatures, local bodies, Universities, and other official or semi-official bodies should be provided.

Mr. M. A. Jinnah is the latest recruit to this party, and I really cannot understand how he calls himself a nationalist still. The euphemism that this is only tentative, and that a time will come when the Muslims will be ready to give up communal representation, should deceive no one........................Communal representation by itself is a sufficiently bad principle, destructive of, and antagonistic to, the idea of a common nationhood, but separate electorates make this vicious principle immeasurably worse. If our Muslim countrymen are really earnest in their belief in nationalism and in their demand for Swaraj, the least they can do is not to insist on separate electorates..............."

You see, however you spin it, it always falls heads up.

 

[bronxbull]

FH

What exactly do u want?

Every since the Muslim league party was formed,partition was always on the lines.

Some states like Junagarh/hyderabad/travancore were exeptions who were rich enough to run on their own.

 

[anjaneyashruti]

FH
What exactly do u want?
Every since the Muslim league party was formed,partition was always on the lines.
Some states like Junagarh/hyderabad/travancore were exeptions who were rich enough to run on their own.

Exactly, what is the purpose of this thread ?

To blame partition on hindus when it was the muslims who wanted it ?

Why pretend to go though all this, just blame the Hindus and be done with it. In any case the Hindus are not complaining the partition happened.

 

[Chak Bamu]

No specific statement. It was just a guess. He too was convinced that Hindus and Muslims couldn't coexist, but I guess his solution to that was not partition. So, the one who made those statements in 1924 was Lala Lajpat Rai? Classic!

BTW, wasn't Choudhry Rahmat Ali's Pakistan declaration in 1933 a sign that many Muslims too saw partition in favorable light?

Chaudhry Rehmat Ali was a bit of a nut, if you will. Very few people heeded his plans and visions. He was not that important. Quaid-e-Azam M. A. Jinnah had no time for him. In fact there was mutual disdain between them.

The word Pakistan, I have learned, was popularized by the Hindu press of Lahore. It caught on for whatever reason. So Ch. Rehmat Ali gets to be the originator of the name, Pakistan. But that is where his legacy starts and stops. I wonder if anybody could have seen sense in his pseudo-fascist ideas?

Let me re-iterate, among Muslim leaders Pakistan was not a certainty until very late.

@FaujHistorian. I would like to differ with you on your comments on my post. But that would drag this thread on and on. It does not quite matter how and why Pakistan came into existence. It exists and is a reality. That is enough.