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

[SinoIndusFriendship]

It is a myth that there was partition. There was no partition. The sub continent had never been one country or nation in its history even under the mongol or the British. You did not force the British out rather the Muslims were forced into Pakistan by nehru, Patel and Gandhi rejecting the Cabinet Mission Plan which would have cobbled together a con federation of three regions. In fact the Indian union was forced into a union many of the independent states were reluctant to join until forced to do so. It was rather pulled together than partitioned. Areas were given to India which rightly should have gone to Pakistan. Not to say that Pakistan was also 'cobbled' together of the bits that successfully resisted forced Indian Union. If independence was granted in 2010 no the subcontinent would have been different. It is likely that the Tamils would demand their own homeland. The Bengalis another. There would have been no Lord Mounbattan, No Nehru, No Gandhi and No Jinnah. Pakistan may not have been created but to avoid the subcontinent becoming a great power the British would have split it up into small dominions expanding their divide and rule policy. I think they regret not dividing India in such a way because to some extent they have lost influence over it. At the moment there is no democracy in India or Pakistan. In India they are rule by just 10% to 15% of the population the elite brahamins. A large chunk of Indians are denied their rights (Dalits) There are about 450 Million of them even when they are organized they are robbed of their democratic rights. They should have large numbers and influence the indian parliament if not dominate it but they dont there is something wrong. As far as a liberalised economy is concerned. That is a myth you canot not compare you economy to the 'liberlised' western economies. When you have people sleeping on the side walks in your major cities. The distribution wealth is a does not occur in your country in a meaningful way. However you spend money, missiles, nuclear subs (that are not nuclear) and have been led into a blind the trap that the USA has set up for you in a nuclear 'deal' and the Russains are conning you by selling you junk. The American and Isrealis will now rip you off by selling you downgraded weapon systems that wont work when you wish to use them. You do not wish to settle border disputes with you neighbours under the illusion of so called 'Superpower' status. If you dont settle then one day one neighbour will pull the rug from under your feet and when you get up you will find you have lost more than if you would have settled thd disputes. I sometimes wonder foreign (or traitors) spys in Pakistan not withstanding how many foreign spys (or traitors) it took India to succumb to a rather unfair nuclear deal which will fall apart even if you test your nuclear capability. OI am sure sometime in the future there is a scandal in the making when the truth is out. You have been lied to by the Indian Government and as you know 'The truth always comes out'. As in the Bofors scandal.

Finally, someone with courage to speak the truth.

 

[Hulk]

I do not think we should have been one big force. I think it would have been one big mess managing scores of illiterate people in such big nation. For a big nation to function well, it requires people to be educated.

 

[sadiqams]

Then concentrate on educating the masses and and do away with elite eduction for the elites. Cut defence spending and divert it to education. Education will improve your economy and eventually this will be your strengh.hy do you our former masters cream off our best educated people. It is because it helps their economy. We must stop this brain drain by legal methods perhaps asking our citizens to give service to the state, for a reasonable period, before they emigrate.

 

[sadiqams]

Gogbot.

What I meant was we are both, India and Pakistan, are ruled by the same elite. In Pakistan we have the same families like a dynasty. And it is the same in India. Once your vote is counted thats it. Try taking a procession in say Kashmir to wards the LOC. All the people want is freedom of movement between the two occupied kashmirs but they are met with bullets and many people die. In a true democracy people have freedom of assembly and expect the Government to protect them not trample on their rights. All the sikhs wanted was to be recognised as a separate religion (in Pakistan they are so recognised) but were met by force then led to insurgency in East Punjab. This could easily have been avoided. They defend your borders but when it comes to their rights you deny them.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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?

Hypothetically speaking, would there be any reason for India-Pakistan to obtain independence of the British, in today's 'climate of religious tolerance' and 'racial/ethnic equality and rights'?

Would India-Pakistan have continued to exist as multiple territories (Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Bengal etc.) under the flag of the UK?

 

[Omar1984]

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.

I think you must be from South India.

Things were very different in North-west British India.

If partition didn't happen, more than half of the population in Punjab would've been wiped out...because there were even riots in Punjab before partition between Muslims and Sikhs/Hindus. The Sikhs said they wanted to rule all of Punjab, the Muslims wanted to rule their own region.

There were riots in other parts of North British India also, NWFP and Balochistan didn't experience any riots because they were far away from the conflict, and those areas were almost all Muslim even before partition.

 

[EjazR]

^^

The most popular party was the Unionist Party which maintained a majoirty even in 1946. The party of anti-muslim league and anti-partition. The main leader was a muslim who ruled in coalition with sikhs and Hindus. However, the party looked after the interests of the landowner classes/jagirdars and tended to be pro-british.

The Sikhs got agigated only after it was decided to partition the province. Like I have said previously, people were killed in punjab because of the partition not for it.
In contrast, although Kolkatta suffered riots in 1946 Direct Action as well but at the time of partition Ghandhi and Suhwardy both were present there to prevent any flare up. Hence, there was little bloodshed there when the actual partition took place. Probably one of the reason why 20% of Bangladesh is stil Hindu and similarly in WB you have about 20% muslims.

In contrast, the numbers are around 1-2% in the Punjab region now in both India and Pakistan

 

[Omar1984]

^^

The most popular party was the Unionist Party which maintained a majoirty even in 1946. The party of anti-muslim league and anti-partition. The main leader was a muslim who ruled in coalition with sikhs and Hindus. However, the party looked after the interests of the landowner classes/jagirdars and tended to be pro-british.

The Sikhs got agigated only after it was decided to partition the province. Like I have said previously, people were killed in punjab because of the partition not for it.
In contrast, although Kolkatta suffered riots in 1946 Direct Action as well but at the time of partition Ghandhi and Suhwardy both were present there to prevent any flare up. Hence, there was little bloodshed there when the actual partition took place. Probably one of the reason why 20% of Bangladesh is stil Hindu and similarly in WB you have about 20% muslims.

In contrast, the numbers are around 1-2% in the Punjab region now in both India and Pakistan

Muslim Punjabis were strong supporters of a separate homeland for Muslims with Punjab included in the Muslim nation.

The person who came up with the name, Pakistan, on 1933 for a separate Muslim country was Punjabi Muslim.
Choudhary Rahmat Ali - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Pakistan movement started long before the 1940's. And when Sikhs heard that there was going to be a Pakistan with Punjab included, they along with Hindus started the massacre.

 

[Kasrkin]

If Britain had given India independence in 2010 then partition would not have been necessary because Pakistan already got hers in 1947.

Partition is more than just the independence of India, its the independence of Pakistan as well. We're just as proud of our independence from Britain and India as you are from the British.

 

[Srinivas]

stop comparing the indian democracy with that of Pakistan. you have military dictatorship in after each democratic rule. And how do you know that india is ruled by elite
our prime minister is a sikh, our vice president is a minority and the list goes on ......... yes i agree there may be some issues which india has to solve but we are in right direction.
talking about the rights of the sikhs ,the recent incidents in SWAT show how careless your government is when taliban taxed sikhs and are displaced from their homes.

 

[Comet]

talking about the rights of the sikhs ,the recent incidents in SWAT show how careless your government is when taliban taxed sikhs and are displaced from their homes.

Yeah as if we asked them or backed them.
These Talibans are killing Paksitani's and you are worried about some stupid tax on Sikhs.

 

[EjazR]

Muslim Punjabis were strong supporters of a separate homeland for Muslims with Punjab included in the Muslim nation.

The person who came up with the name, Pakistan, on 1933 for a separate Muslim country was Punjabi Muslim.
Choudhary Rahmat Ali - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Pakistan movement started long before the 1940's. And when Sikhs heard that there was going to be a Pakistan with Punjab included, they along with Hindus started the massacre.

There might have been some support in Punjab of course, but the main support base was in Bengal and the UP/Bihar area. Read up on historical documents and you will clearly find that in 1946 the Unionist party won and formed the provincial government in Punjab

 

[Spring Onion]

stop comparing the indian democracy with that of Pakistan. you have military dictatorship in after each democratic rule. And how do you know that india is ruled by elite
our prime minister is a sikh, our vice president is a minority and the list goes on ......... yes i agree there may be some issues which india has to solve but we are in right direction.
talking about the rights of the sikhs ,the recent incidents in SWAT show how careless your government is when taliban taxed sikhs and are displaced from their homes.

bwahhh yeh stop comparing Indian democracy based on communal riots with that of Pakistani dictatorship.

Atleast our dictators have taken over the powers without bloodshed.

And as far as Swat, is concerned the attrocities of TTP terrorists are not limitted to uprooting Pakistani Sikhs from their homes but these TTP terrorists have killed hundreds of Pakistani Muslims too.
All the innocent Pakistanis are their target irrespective of their religion.

 

[praveen]

There might have been some support in Punjab of course, but the main support base was in Bengal and the UP/Bihar area. Read up on historical documents and you will clearly find that in 1946 the Unionist party won and formed the provincial government in Punjab

Punjab was ruled by the Unionist party not the muslim league.They were a bunch of landlords.They sided with the league after they heard of nehru's land reforms

 

[gogbot]

Hypothetically speaking, would there be any reason for India-Pakistan to obtain independence of the British, in today's 'climate of religious tolerance' and 'racial/ethnic equality and rights'?

Would India-Pakistan have continued to exist as multiple territories (Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Bengal etc.) under the flag of the UK?

You are right, and you can also start a new thread adressing that hypothetical question if you wish.

I only want the answer to my hypothetical question right now, but i will be more than happy to contribute if you start your own thread addressing your hypothetical question.