If Britan had given India its freedom in 2010, Would Partition still be necessary.

[gogbot]

Simple question, for a pure hypothetical scenario.

In today's climate of religious tolerance. Is separation on the grounds of religious differences valid.

Was the partition between India and Pakistan, A product of the thinking at the time. Where two major religions could not co-exist.

Or is it an absolutely unavoidable scenario.

Of course to answer this question one must ignore the last 60 years of history and approach it with a degree of open mindedness.

Why do i ask this question?,
i never understood the reason for Pakistan's creation.

Forgive my Ignorance for this,
But the hate that must have been present to cause the partition at the time, Is something i cant comprehend.
Especially that of the same people's , we suffered all the same under the British, to get Independence.

But then stated killing each other because one is Muslim and the other is Hindu.and what not.

I will not hear it when people say that Indians and Pakistanis are different people, You may call me a foll but i am not an idiot. Pakistan has gone to a great deal of trouble to distance it self from India , Indian history, and Indian Culture.
I don't even know what Pakistan thinks of Gandhi.

So i have started this thread so that we can better undersatnd one another. Hopefully view this hypothetical scenario together with an open minds.

In my opinion i don't see a need for partition.

Can i hear your?

 

[arihant]

it depends on political motive.

 

[SQ8]

next to impossible.. England was a dying power.. so it was losing control anyway..
The latest it could have delayed the Independence was to the 50's.

 

[gogbot]

next to impossible.. England was a dying power.. so it was losing control anyway..
The latest it could have delayed the Independence was to the 50's.

It was supposed to be Hypothetical scenario,
Where one can question the relevance of a partition of India in today's day and Age.

not 1946 but 2010.

would a partition still be necessary.

Please read my opening post more carefully

 

[grey boy 2]

It was supposed to be Hypothetical scenario,
Where one can question the relevance of a partition of India in today's day and Age.

not 1946 but 2010.

would a partition still be necessary.

Please read my opening post more carefully

Hypothetical scenario ?

I don't think so, You Indians properly having this kind of wet dream

everyday. Wake up!!

 

[greatsequence]

Get over it Pakistan is a reality and they are not the same people this is a very vague claim by indians. Pakistan would still be a seperate entity.

 

[Ruag]

What is the point of asking such a question?

 

[LCA Tejas]

We forced the british to give freedom, The help in return they divied pakistan from us and we divided bangladesh from them, they took a part of kashmir from us, but if that was in 2010, I would have to see all that happening in front of my eyes, Thats the only differance I find.lol

 

[gogbot]

did anyone but LCA tejas read my post ?

 

[gogbot]

We forced the british to give freedom, The help in return they divied pakistan from us and we divided bangladesh from them, they took a part of kashmir from us, but if that was in 2010, I would have to see all that happening in front of my eyes, Thats the only differance I find.lol

Well thanks or being the second one to actually answer the question. your participation is appreciated.

But no one is giving any reasoning as why things have to happen.

they just say they will

 

[EjazR]

The premise is wrong, partition was fundamentally not done because of religious issues although it played a role. So the issue of religious tolerance does not arise. Infact, one can argue that there was more religious tolerance and understanding then, pre 1946 where the Azad Hind FAuj was formed jointly by Hindu muslim and sikh officers during WWII.


It was done to maintain British strategic interests in the sub-continent. Refer to "The shadow of the great game" By N.S. Sarila for that. Partition was decided back in 1942 even before this was on the table.

Even in the rabid communal atmosphere of 1946 elections, NWFP province was with muslims in Congress party. Punjab province was with Unionists (a coalition of Muslims and sikhs and hindus as minor partners) and Assam was firmly in Congress hands.

Bengal was the only province that had a ML majority. In Sindh, ML could form a govt. only because the British governor there requested the appointed anglo-Indian members to join ML. So obviously in 1946 other than Bengal and Sindh, none of the provincial govt. wanted partition, still it happened.

 

[Ruag]

The partition took place in 1947 even though influential Muslim leaders, such as Abdul Ghaffar Khan and Maulana Azad, strongly opposed it.

Today, there no such tall leaders which advocate for Hindu-Muslim unity. There is even greater misunderstanding between the two groups.

If the partition did not take place, there would have more communal politics and riots. In that respect, the partition was a good thing.

 

[SinoIndusFriendship]

Answer is NO. As long as Pakistanis are predominately Muslim and Indians predominately Hindus, the religious barrier will keep you guys separated. Not only is your staunch religious stance making you enemies of each other, but it is also creating a barrier with other peoples/nations that don't share the same level of enthusiasm in your beliefs.

 

[gogbot]

Thanks to the last few posters for finally getting this thread going with More intellectual comments.
I am finally getting some answers worth reading.

 

[EjazR]

Answer is NO. As long as Pakistanis are predominately Muslim and Indians predominately Hindus, the religious barrier will keep you guys separated. Not only is your staunch religious stance making you enemies of each other, but it is also creating a barrier with other peoples/nations that don't share the same level of enthusiasm in your beliefs.

Maybe right answer but wrong wrong explanation.

Religion had nothing to do with the primary aim of partition as I explained in my post.

The problem is foreign interference in the sub-continent, whether it be China, Britain, US or USSR. Having a conflict helps these countries for obvious strategic reasons, wether it be the sub-continet or the N.Korea, S. Korea divide e.t.c.

Since Britain was directly involved in the Foreign policy as a previous colonial power, it would have done its utmost to leave antagonistic parties so that it can play one against the other have both in its orbit. The same is being done with Pakistan and India even now but unfortunately unless both sides get some brains they will be hopelessly stuck in this.