Indus Nationalism could have avoided the tragedy of Partition

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

At the start, Sikhs were merely Hindus who have decided to take up arms to protect against the tryanny. This would explain why many Hindu families of the Punjab region used to make the eldest male child a Sikh. The rest continued to remain Hindu.

If Indus ethnic (regional) nationalism would have been the trigger for Pakistan, then by the same logic, we would have Deccan nationalism, North east tribal nationalism, Bengal nationalism, Gangetic nationalism and so on. Why stop at only Indus nationalism?

Also, Indus nationalism would not have been led by Jinnah who was a Gujarati.

rest of the subcontinent have the overwhelming pudgy, beady eyed, desi look therefore not much differentiation for Nationalism..but yes as explained before...around 3 North Eastern states east of Assam would have broken off, namely Nagaland,Manipur and Mizoram...they would have existed as three new Bhutans to our east

 

[Imad.Khan]

If Pakistan was created on the Basis of Indus Nationalism, then Pakistan would have gotten all of Kashmir (including Jammu and Ladakh) as well as all of Punjab till west bank of Sutlej..regarding multi-nation theory, I think all of India would have stayed intact except the North-Eastern states that lie east of Assam --But then again present day Bangladesh along with CHT (very pro-India due to India being birthpace of Buddhism) would have been part of India....Pakistan would have been the big winner under Indus Nationalism...India's position would have remained the same or slightly better..But the biggest winner would have been the region and its people...With a 1,000 year of peace and prosperity

your reply lacks logic, for example why would there be a Pakistan and not multiple countries, what would be the reason for them to be together. Plus using the same indus nationalism what makes you think there would be a single India instead of multiple countries again based of some sort of river nationalism.

 

[magra]

rest of the subcontinent have the overwhelming pudgy, beady eyed, desi look therefore not much differentiation for Nationalism..but yes as explained before...around 3 North Eastern states east of Assam would have broken off, namely Nagaland,Manipur and Mizoram...they would have existed as three new Bhutans to our east

If facial features were the basis, then would you have merged Pahari looking people from Uttarakhand, Himachal with Nepal?
Where would Andaman & Nicobar go?

Also, if you talk about looks. Even in today's Pakistan, there are people with very different looks. Punjabis look very different from Pathans, who look very different from Hazaras.
In fact, it is very difficult to differentiate Punjabis from Gangetic plain people based on looks alone.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

your reply lacks logic, for example why would there be a Pakistan and not multiple countries, what would be the reason for them to be together. Plus using the same indus nationalism what makes you think there would be a single India instead of multiple countries again based of some sort of river nationalism.

River nationalism is widespread in Pakistan because the country is literally shaped around the Indus river backbone....The case of Indus is very unique in South Asian History..Other than the small sliver around the eastern Punjab-Haryana axis, Indus Basin is completely cut off from rest of the subcontinent due to the deserts of Thar and the Rann of Kutch...This has led to a general drift of Indus culture away from rest of subcontinental culture...you can see it in the nature of Islamization in the Indus Basin....Indus Basin for the most part remained a pastoralist heavy country till late Mughal period compared to agricultural heavy country in rest of South Asia...heck the Potohar region is basically as much of an outpost of the Central Asian steppes as the Hungarian steppes are in the Pannonian Basin .....,.rest of the river cultures of the subcontinent were much more connected to each other due to lack of formidable geographical barriers

If facial features were the basis, then would you have merged Pahari looking people from Uttarakhand, Himachal with Nepal?
Where would Andaman & Nicobar go?

Also, if you talk about looks. Even in today's Pakistan, there are people with very different looks. Punjabis look very different from Pathans, who look very different from Hazaras.
In fact, it is very difficult to differentiate Punjabis from Gangetic plain people based on looks alone.

cuz all Indians carry heavy AASI admixture that shows up phenotypically in majority of the population in ALL of the states except those 3 aforementioned NE states....it's just Andamanese are pure AASI

 

[magra]

River nationalism is widespread in Pakistan because the country is literally shaped around the Indus river backbone....The case of Indus is very unique in South Asian History..Other than the small sliver around the eastern Punjab-Haryana axis, Indus Basin is completely cut off from rest of the subcontinent due to the deserts of Thar and the Rann of Kutch...This has led to a general drift of Indus culture away from rest of subcontinental culture...you can see it in the nature of Islamization in the Indus Basin....Indus Basin for the most part remained a pastoralist heavy country till late Mughal period compared to agricultural heavy country in rest of South Asia...heck the Potohar region is basically as much of an outpost of the Central Asian steppes as the Hungarian steppes are in the Pannonian Basin .....,.rest of the river cultures of the subcontinent were much more connected to each other due to lack of formidable geographical barriers

cuz all Indians carry heavy AASI admixture that shows up phenotypically in majority of the population in ALL of the states except those 3 aforementioned NE states....it's just Andamanese are pure AASI

Also Indus flows from Kashmir to Punjab to Sindh. So as per your logic, these would become Pak. Balochistan would have remained independent. KPK would have merged with Afghanistan.

You lost me on AASI. please elaborate.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Pakistan would have been the big winner under Indus Nationalism...India's position would have remained the same or slightly better..But the biggest winner would have been the region and its people...With a 1,000 year of peace and prosperity

This is the most baseless and nonsensical of your conclusions today because you have again assumed that the secular republic of India would have laid down and merrily accepted your scenario.

JnK acceding to India was a personal obsession for PANDIT Nehru and his Dogra allies alike, irrespective of how Pakistan defined herself.

Whether Pakistan was formed on the basis of Indus nationalism, Muslim security, both or even neither, our nations would never have been at peace purely because of Indian underlying obsession with snatching JnK in totality.

The mighty non-aligned and highly secular republic didn't allow Hyderabad and Junagadh to determine their own destiny, did they (Even though we are constantly barraged with the narrative that the secular republic is the peaceful, non-religiously inclined country and the muzzies just wanted war and conquest)?

This whole thread is based on some dodgy theories, all in all with the consistency of Swiss cheese.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Also Indus flows from Kashmir to Punjab to Sindh. So as per your logic, these would become Pak. Balochistan would have remained independent. KPK would have merged with Afghanistan.

You lost me on AASI. please elaborate.

Balochistan and KPK have tributaries that empty into Indus


AASI componentry is what gives Indians their characteristic aesthetics...It is the single biggest genetic component in all Indians

 

[GumNaam]

partition a tragedy? speak for yourself @Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8 , for Pakistanis, it was a blessing!

#ThankYouJinnah

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

This is the most baseless and nonsensical of your conclusions today because you have again assumed that the secular republic of India would have laid down and merrily accepted your scenario.

JnK acceding to India was a personal obsession for PANDIT Nehru and his Dogra allies alike, irrespective of how Pakistan defined herself.

Whether Pakistan was formed on the basis of Indus nationalism, Muslim security, both or even neither, our nations would never have been at peace purely because of Indian underlying obsession with snatching JnK in totality.

The mighty non-aligned and highly secular republic didn't allow Hyderabad and Junagadh to determine their own destiny, did they (Even though we are constantly barraged with the narrative that the secular republic is the peaceful, non-religiously inclined country and the muzzies just wanted war and conquest)?

This whole thread is based on some dodgy theories, all in all with the consistency of Swiss cheese.

LOL India was not keen on J and K in the first place..Patel was more interested in securing Hyderabad State than getting embroiled in a non-end conflict in the Himalayan heights..Nehru was also not interested in J and K at first... If India was really hungry for J and K then it would have opened up the international border for warfare, cuz India very well knew that there was no way of defeating and dislodging Pakistan from J and K whilst keeping the warfare limited only to J and K...India was more than happy with whatever it got in J and K, and didnot want to attack Pakistan across international border to wrest rest of J an K from Pakistan (or at least make an attempt of it)

 

[magra]

Balochistan and KPK have tributaries that empty into Indus

AASI componentry is what gives Indians their characteristic aesthetics...It is the single biggest genetic component in all Indians

There may be few tributaries flowing but if ethnicity / genetics / features are your way to make nations, then Baloch and Pathans are very different from rest of Pakistan.

'AASI' or no AASI, a North Indian has much more in common culturally (and also language) with a Pakistani Punjabi than a Keralite. People would not research deep in Science before thinking of nations.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

partition a tragedy? speak for yourself @Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8 , for Pakistanis, it was a blessing!

#ThankYouJinnah

Two Nation Theory based Partition was tragedy as it was built on the corpses of one million innocent souls...Indus Nationalism based Partition would have been a blessing, as it would have been a bureaucratic affair and without any explosion of hatred

 

[yuba]

At the start, Sikhs were merely Hindus who have decided to take up arms to protect against the tryanny. This would explain why many Hindu families of the Punjab region used to make the eldest male child a Sikh. The rest continued to remain Hindu.

If Indus ethnic (regional) nationalism would have been the trigger for Pakistan, then by the same logic, we would have Deccan nationalism, North east tribal nationalism, Bengal nationalism, Gangetic nationalism and so on. Why stop at only Indus nationalism?

Also, Indus nationalism would not have been led by Jinnah who was a Gujarati.

Sikhism is a separate faith we have different belief systems. A Hindu could fight tyranny without becoming Sikhs. It is very likely my ancestors were Hindu and we are taught to respect all faiths it was only after 1984 that some Sikhs started showing hate to Hindus. I have heard about the eldest son being made a Sikh before so it could be true. I'm no expert on this matter I love history but when I start reading up on Sikh history I feel shame because I led a life so far from those teachings. I have received a book history of the jat clans a while ago might start with that.If you can prove the first part of what you said i would love to know. Also if the Sikhs had chosen to go with pakistan would the relations between Punjabi Sikhs and Muslims stayed peaceful.I love my state and country and history can't be changed your past is your past move on hope both countries prosper and can one day be good neighbors a visit to Pakistan is on my bucket list my mama and Mami and other pilgrims always talk about how well they treated

 

[magra]

Two Nation Theory based Partition was tragedy as it was built on the corpses of one million innocent souls...Indus Nationalism based Partition would have been a blessing, as it would have been a bureaucratic affair and without any explosion of hatred

Any kind of partition would have involved alienating some sections and thus violence. 'No partition' was the least violent approach, but Muslim league was adamant to get Pakistan, so that scenario also would have led to violence. No easy answers. Just have to accept what happened and move on.

 

[magra]

Sikhism is a separate faith we have different belief systems. A Hindu could fight tyranny without becoming Sikhs. It is very likely my ancestors were Hindu and we are taught to respect all faiths it was only after 1984 that some Sikhs started showing hate to Hindus. I have heard about the eldest son being made a Sikh before so it could be true. I'm no expert on this matter I love history but when I start reading up on Sikh history I feel shame because I led a life so far from those teachings. I have received a book history of the jat clans a while ago might start with that.If you can prove the first part of what you said i would love to know. Also if the Sikhs had chosen to go with pakistan would the relations between Punjabi Sikhs and Muslims stayed peaceful.I love my state and country and history can't be changed your past is your past move on hope both countries prosper and can one day be good neighbors a visit to Pakistan is on my bucket list my mama and Mami and other pilgrims always talk about how well they treated

Sikhism started so to purify Hinduism of some of its issues and also take some positive aspects from Islam. Also it grew purely as a response to later Mughal rulers (after Akbar) who started harrassing Hindus.

Pre-British, there was not much difference between Hindus and Sikhs. British encouraged Khalsa Sikh recruitment in the army, thus encouraging the differentiation between Hindus and Sikhs.

Please read this quora link below for more clarity.

Is it true or a myth that there was a tradition of making the first-born child in the family a Sikh and the other children in the family ...

Answer (1 of 44): It is not a myth but reality. Even today, most of Punjabi Hindu families have tradition of making the first son as Sardar (not necessarily Sikh). You will find many Hindu Sardar in Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Delhi. The reason was that despite repeated requests of Guru...

www.quora.com

 

[masterchief_mirza]

LOL India was not keen on J and K in the first place..Patel was more interested in securing Hyderabad State than getting embroiled in a non-end conflict in the Himalayan heights..Nehru was also not interested in J and K at first... If India was really hungry for J and K then it would have opened up the international border for warfare, cuz India very well knew that there was no way of defeating and dislodging Pakistan from J and K whilst keeping the warfare limited only to J and K...India was more than happy with whatever it got in J and K, and didnot want to attack Pakistan across international border to wrest rest of J an K from Pakistan (or at least make an attempt of it)

You're either academically lazy or deliberately misleading your readers to push your own "innocent old India was forced by evil pakizz to take JnK" narrative bullcrap.

Recollecting observations between Patel, Nehru and Manekshaw during a meeting in late 1947:
"It was Sardar Patel’s intervention that delivered the dispatch order to Manekshaw. He recollected for Jha:
As usual Nehru talked about United Nations, Russia, Africa, Godalmighty, everybody, until Sardar Patel lost his temper. He said, ‘Jawaharlal, do you do you want Kashmir, or do you want to give it away’. He [Nehru] said, ‘Of course, I want Kashmir.'Then he [Patel] said ‘Please give your orders’. And before he [Nehru] could say anything Sardar Patel turned to me [Manekshaw] and said. ‘You have got your orders’."

If you wish to pursue your original arguments, feel free, but kindly desist from inventing history to support said arguments.