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

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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.

No I think they are linked - if you are going to talk about religious tolerance and racial/ethnic equality in terms of the independence of Pakistan, then why not discuss an even broader hypothetical concept of the independence of the entire region?

 

[gogbot]

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.

You are right. but you only say that because of the 60 years of PAk's history.

 

[eastwatch]

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.

People in this forum are mostly from northern India and Pakistan. So, they center their thoughts on the happenings of the then NW of india. But, if someone truly studies the history of Bengal, how it came under the British, who were the locals that supported the British and who are those people that received all kinds of privileges from the British at the expense of their neighbouring community, one will quickly understand that the privileged class was the Bangali Hindus and the underprivileged were the Muslims of Bengal.

The Muslims of Bengal dominated the politics of eastern India for about six centuries. But, in the first half century of Hindu/British Raj, the Muslims were turned into a bunch of landless peasants. Since the British took away power from the Muslims in Bengal and this province first came under the British rule, therefore, the Muslims had to bear all the disadvantages of colonialism. But, this colonialism was supported by the local Bangali Hindus.

To amend the situation, the Muslim leaders of Bengal and other provinces demanded to divide Bengal into two. East Bengal was united with Assam in 1905 and the new Province was named East Bengal-Assam Province with Dhaka as Capital. However, due to continuous opposition by the elite Bangali Babus of Calcutta, east Bengal was again joined with the west in 1910. British were so tired of the Cacutta elites that they moved the central Capital from Calcutta to Delhi immediately after that.

It was a tremendous blow against the Muslims of Bengal who wanted self-improvements, and for this they needed a Province where they would have more power. THE SEED OF PAKISTAN WAS SOWN AT THAT JUNCTURE OF HISTORY. North Indian people always say about Muslim League and Mr. Jinnah, but they do not probably know that the ML was formed in Dhaka by all the Muslim leaders of then India at a convention called by Nawab Salimullah of Dhaka.

You have said about the election history of 1946, it was this vote of Bangali Muslims that again strengthened the ML concept of Pakistan. Therefore, I think, even 60 years after 1947, the reasons responsible for the partition would still have been in place in Bengal. Therefore, a Pakistan (read, a separate Muslim country) would have been created at least in this part of India.

 

[praveen]

People in this forum are mostly from northern India and Pakistan. So, they center their thoughts on the happenings of the then NW of india. But, if someone truly studies the history of Bengal, how it came under the British, who were the locals that supported the British and who are those people that received all kinds of privileges from the British at the expense of their neighbouring community, one will quickly understand that the privileged class was the Bangali Hindus and the underprivileged were the Muslims of Bengal.

The Muslims of Bengal dominated the politics of eastern India for about six centuries. But, in the first half century of Hindu/British Raj, the Muslims were turned into a bunch of landless peasants. Since the British took away power from the Muslims in Bengal and this province first came under the British rule, therefore, the Muslims had to bear all the disadvantages of colonialism. But, this colonialism was supported by the local Bangali Hindus.

To amend the situation, the Muslim leaders of Bengal and other provinces demanded to divide Bengal into two. East Bengal was united with Assam in 1905 and the new Province was named East Bengal-Assam Province with Dhaka as Capital. However, due to continuous opposition by the elite Bangali Babus of Calcutta, east Bengal was again joined with the west in 1910. British were so tired of the Cacutta elites that they moved the central Capital from Calcutta to Delhi immediately after that.

It was a tremendous blow against the Muslims of Bengal who wanted self-improvements, and for this they needed a Province where they would have more power. THE SEED OF PAKISTAN WAS SOWN AT THAT JUNCTURE OF HISTORY. North Indian people always say about Muslim League and Mr. Jinnah, but they do not probably know that the ML was formed in Dhaka by all the Muslim leaders of then India at a convention called by Nawab Salimullah of Dhaka.

You have said about the election history of 1946, it was this vote of Bangali Muslims that again strengthened the ML concept of Pakistan. Therefore, I think, even 60 years after 1947, the reasons responsible for the partition would still have been in place in Bengal. Therefore, a Pakistan (read, a separate Muslim country) would have been created at least in this part of India.

Murshid Quli Khan and Alivardi Khan were the people who created the Begal Hindu elite.It was not the british

 

[EjazR]

@eastwatch

I was just highlighting the fact that in 1947, the present day provinces of Pakistan like NWFP and Punjab did not have ML govt.

The Bengal situation is certainly different, Begalis were the first to develop the idea of nationhood, most of hte nationalist leaders came from Bengal. Maulana Azad was son of Bengali father and Meccan mother.

Muslims wern't just turned into landed peasants, these were muslim converts of mostly hindu landless peasants. The situation of the landless labourers wether Hindu or Muslim was the same. And the Hindu and Muslim elites wether in Punjab, Bengal or UP was the same.

You may recall that Bengal as a whole had a slight Muslim majority. So obviously, they would be an important political force in a united Bengal. Why would be the partition in 1905 be useful? The 1905 partition was opposed by muslims as well because it favored only a section of zamindars led by Aga Khan who were pro-British. And it was a British policy to show this partition as Hindu Bengal and Muslim Bengal instead of say just east and west bengal.

Anyways, I don't want to get into detailed discussion on this but you can PM me if you want

 

[Ababeel]

In my opinion the partition was a neccessity due to hatred and doubts created between the two communities and if it would have been happened in 2010 the consequences might have been more terrible. More killings, more bloodshed as its the era of automatic weapons (Say AK 47) and communalism has grown manyfolds all over india with tens of Hindu fascist organisation mushroomed in all parts of the country as well as presence of Muslim extremist groups in Pakistan