Indus Nationalism could have avoided the tragedy of Partition

[War Thunder]

Let's get one thing straight here at the outset..I am not against the existence of Pakistan in fact all for it..But as towering a giant as Quaid-E-Azam was, this was one big blindspot in his vision...He backed the wrong Two Nation Theory...If he had backed the Indus Theory then the unnecessary blood shed and tragedy could have been avoided....Millions of Indus Sikhs and Hindus would not have had to leave the region and millions of completely alien people would not have come in giving the region a reverse cultural shock...the process of Partition would have been seamless...it would have been as easy devloving one state out of a bigger state in India...A bureaucratic nightmare? Sure...but not a human tragedy ...............The Indus river existed for millions of years...The distinct culture around Indus had existed for thousands and thousands of years....The genesis of Pakistan lies in the mists of time and the love people of Pakistan have for their land is certainly older than 570 AD..............What similiarity does an Indus Pashtun or Gilgiti have with a Tamilian? seriously?

If the Indus Partition theory was executed, the relations between India and Pakistan would have been very smooth and exemplary...Like that of between Czech Republic and Slovakia...where one PM visits another PM before the end of the term to say goodbye......I refuse to be held hostage to the wrong Two Nation Theory



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



EDIT:
Another side effect would have been that Kashmir,Jammu along with Buddhist Ladakh would have naturally ended up with Pakistan...Indus Nationalism being the driving force behind creation of Pakistan, India would not have been able to logically argue against Indus rationale....But on the upside for India would have been that present day Bangladesh would have fallen into Indian hands, along woth Theravada Buddhist Chittagong Hill Tract........Having CHT would have been way more of a boost for the legitimacy of the new Indian state than Kashmir ever could have been.......CHT is the only place in the subcontinental mainland that houses the original sect of Buddhism (Theravada) in an unbroken lineage ...Ladakh,Nepal,Sikkim,Bhutan,Arunachal,Spiti Valley house the newer Vajrayana sect

India being the birthplace of Buddhism, having CHT would have beeen the feather in the cap of atheistic, pro-Buddhist, anti-Hindu,anti-superstition Nehru



Kashmir conflict is entirely due to the wrong two-Nation Theory

Mate, it makes sense but from your Indian perspective and it doesn't get into the actual reasons and facts which created a need for a separate state for Muslims.

Muslims had to stand up and ask for a separate nation because it was the Muslims who were marginalized and attacked by both the Brits and their Hindu compatriots.
Brits had issues with Muslims because they had taken the reigns of Delhi from Muslims as well several other states. Before the Brits, the Muslims formed a majority of the ruling elite in India, while Hindus formed the majority of the subjects.
Muslims were also the ones who stood up and gave a tough time to India, and there are plenty of historical facts that I don't need to mention to establish it. From Tipu Sultan to Bahadur Shah Zafar, the Brits knew they can't allow Muslims to remain in positions of power any more if they want to have a long and peaceful rule over this country.
The Brits also saw Muslims as outsiders who had previously come and ruled over the land just like the Brits had done now. Hence, direct competitors to the Brits unlike the general local folk.

As a result, Muslims were made to suffer. You can look up some history of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan to understand what I'm talking about here and try to find non Indian sources for this.

Hindus also saw Muslims as their ex rulers, and hence many of them, despite having lived under Muslim rule were still never happy to be ruled by Muslims. So what do you think they will do when a new ruler replaces their old rulers and then leaves those subjects to rule over their ex rulers?

Quaid-e-Azam was one of the most firm supporters of a Single Country. He joined Congress for that and you need to study the history of his membership and works inside Congress (again from non Indian sources).

He left Congress when he figured Congress was only there to look after the rights of Hindus and in case the Brits did leave the country in the hands of entities like Congress and people like Nehru, then Muslims will definitely know a whole new level of suffering.

Present day rule of BJP, the situation in Kashmir, and the handling of Sikhs in Indian Punjab throughout the history of India is a good example of what could have happened if Pakistan did not exist.



So bottom line. It was not the sons of Indus but the followers of Islam who were at risk and being targeted allover India. Pakistan has its borders around the Indus not because it was intended but because these areas made the majority Muslims provinces and states.
So who will follow a call for separate status of sons of Indus from the rest of India when the society was already heavily fragmented thanks to Brits way of dividing and conquering?


Now the bloodshed that followed?
It was created by the Brits, not by the people. The Brits wanted a last thorn to keep both countries down and dependent on them. Hence, the Brits managed to rule even after leaving this place. And still keep ruling in one way or another.

And the basic fact that India has never been able to fix issues with Pakistan helps you understand the immaturity and problematic mindset of those at the helms of your country.

 

[magra]

nope, Muslim League asked for autonomy for Muslim majority areas, under the Union of India. Your leaders, like Nehru and Gandhi, were unwilling to give that. It was after that stubborn refusal by congress, that ML went all in for the demand of Pakistan. before that, the demand for Pakistan was a pressurizing tactic to force Congress into accepting Muslim demands.

Ahhh, yes! the typical indian way of showing themselves as the victims even when they and their allies murder hundreds and thousands in cold blood, and have a lust for land and power and blood. the dogras had already been persecuting muslims of kashmir since ages, the uprising in kahsmir was indigenous, Pakistan came wayyyy later. and if the dogra had the right to accede to india, so did the nizam had the right to go for independence or ascension to Pakistan.

It is only the greed of indian murderers, thugs and looters like Patel and nehru who turned all of this into a tragedy.

nope. only those who like to live like slaves. and those are the ones, obviously, who were brought into power as puppets when indian army took over kashmir. being a puppet of an occupying force doesnt grant one legitimacy or support of the majority.

Do you dispute the fact that National Conference headed by Sheikh Abdullah was the leading political force in J&K in 1947, and that Abdullah was leaning towards India?

Congress was against religion based division or autonomy. They only agreed to the division after Jinnah's direct action day call in Calcatta led to killings and communal riots.

Now the bloodshed that followed?
It was created by the Brits, not by the people. The Brits wanted a last thorn to keep both countries down and dependent on them. Hence, the Brits managed to rule even after leaving this place. And still keep ruling in one way or another.

And the basic fact that India has never been able to fix issues with Pakistan helps you understand the immaturity and problematic mindset of those at the helms of your country.

The only role Brits had in the partition violence was their non-presence. The original plan for indepedence was mid 1948. But the riots in early 1947 alarmed British and it advanced the date to Aug 1947 as they wanted to quickly run away. With the entire officer class of military and police gone, it was difficult to control the rampaging bloodthirsty mob.

From Indian side, the only way to fix issue with Pak is to make official the status quo - convert LOC to IB and move on. But I guess Pak still harbors hope to get Indian Kashmir and hence will want to continue the conflict.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

How do you say that India had any malevolent design in Kashmir?
India only responded to Pak's attack on Kashmir and that too only after getting the legal go-ahead (accension paper)
Your support to Hyderabad Nizam did not help him in anything. He was needlessly humiliated a year later. Had he willingly signed accension, he would have got a better bargain and lot of bloodshed could have been avoided.

I'm pointing out what Nehru stated viz his underlying feelings about Kashmir. That's all. You don't have to believe it if you don't want. That he waited for a suitable cassus belli to further his designs is irrelevant to my point. He is on record as wanting Kashmir prior to Britain's announcement regarding accession. Of course, credit is due that he - out of all Indian leaders - sought to legitimise his claim at least by ensuring autonomy and Muslim leadership within Kashmir;even that meagre concession lies in tatters now.

From Indian side, the only way to fix issue with Pak is to make official the status quo - convert LOC to IB and move on. But I guess Pak still harbors hope to get Indian Kashmir and hence will want to continue the conflict.

This is contrary to your government official narrative, who seek GB and AZK in their entirety and reference them as occupied every time they mention them. So yah, we're happy to sustain yours and Nehru's conflict.

 

[Varunastra]

For Pakistan yes I guess to a certain degree but India would still be hesitant. We don't want a country to lay claim on a civilization that we ourselves claim as our own. Our own country is named after Indus so such a partition would still lead to rivalry and maybe even ethnic violence with the pashtuns who don't identify with the indus.
Such a country would no doubt also want to lay claim to the name India and we would fiercely oppose such naming.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Let's get one thing straight here at the outset..I am not against the existence of Pakistan in fact all for it..But as towering a giant as Quaid-E-Azam was, this was one big blindspot in his vision...He backed the wrong Two Nation Theory...If he had backed the Indus Theory then the unnecessary blood shed and tragedy could have been avoided....Millions of Indus Sikhs and Hindus would not have had to leave the region and millions of completely alien people would not have come in giving the region a reverse cultural shock...the process of Partition would have been seamless...it would have been as easy devloving one state out of a bigger state in India...A bureaucratic nightmare? Sure...but not a human tragedy ...............The Indus river existed for millions of years...The distinct culture around Indus had existed for thousands and thousands of years....The genesis of Pakistan lies in the mists of time and the love people of Pakistan have for their land is certainly older than 570 AD..............What similiarity does an Indus Pashtun or Gilgiti have with a Tamilian? seriously?

If the Indus Partition theory was executed, the relations between India and Pakistan would have been very smooth and exemplary...Like that of between Czech Republic and Slovakia...where one PM visits another PM before the end of the term to say goodbye......I refuse to be held hostage to the wrong Two Nation Theory



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



EDIT:
Another side effect would have been that Kashmir,Jammu along with Buddhist Ladakh would have naturally ended up with Pakistan...Indus Nationalism being the driving force behind creation of Pakistan, India would not have been able to logically argue against Indus rationale....But on the upside for India would have been that present day Bangladesh would have fallen into Indian hands, along woth Theravada Buddhist Chittagong Hill Tract........Having CHT would have been way more of a boost for the legitimacy of the new Indian state than Kashmir ever could have been.......CHT is the only place in the subcontinental mainland that houses the original sect of Buddhism (Theravada) in an unbroken lineage ...Ladakh,Nepal,Sikkim,Bhutan,Arunachal,Spiti Valley house the newer Vajrayana sect

India being the birthplace of Buddhism, having CHT would have beeen the feather in the cap of atheistic, pro-Buddhist, anti-Hindu,anti-superstition Nehru

Kashmir conflict is entirely due to the wrong two-Nation Theory

Looks like u need to brush up on history.
Ur whole post is based on the fact that the partition caused the Hindu/Muslim divide(and hatred)...
...it was the other way around...Hindu/Muslim divide was there long before the partition...and it is for that reason partition occurred.

...also if u wanted ppl to rally under "Indus" identity...then British India would have been divided into even more parts. Rise of politics based on a regional identity under "Indus" would've given rise to many identities that exist within modern day India...bcuz those ppl would feel left out...and therefore it would give them a reason to rise up and represent themselves...like for example bengalis, nagas, etc.
...the reason they didn't go down that path is bcuz they were promised representation/inclusion under the "secular democracy" that Nehru championed...and most of them being Hindus(with various Indus and non indus identities) didn't find much appeal with Jinnah's idea of a country for Muslims...
...so consequently they stuck with the concept of India(modern day India). In short u should be glad that it didn't go down the path of different identities and only went based on different religions...
...bcuz India has way fewer religions as compared to the various identities of ppl.

 

[-blitzkrieg-]

For Pakistan yes I guess to a certain degree but India would still be hesitant. We don't want a country to lay claim on a civilization that we ourselves claim as our own. Our own country is named after Indus so such a partition would still lead to rivalry and maybe even ethnic violence with the pashtuns who don't identify with the indus.
Such a country would no doubt also want to lay claim to the name India and we would fiercely oppose such naming.

This is your misunderstanding that Pashtun dont identify themselves with river rindus.
Pashtuns have historically lived on BOTH sides of the river..

And dont worry we consider it an insult to take up a british given name.. you can keep it we would never lay claim on it

 

[S.Y.A]

Do you dispute the fact that National Conference headed by Sheikh Abdullah was the leading political force in J&K in 1947, and that Abdullah was leaning towards India?

yeah, the term "leading political force" is very subjective. out of those people who saw any future with india, abdullah may have been the most vocal, but what exactly was the percentage of people who used to think that way?

 

[Varunastra]

This is your misunderstanding that Pashtun dont identify themselves with river rindus.
Pashtuns have historically lived on BOTH sides of the river..

And dont worry we consider it an insult to take up a british given name.. you can keep it we would never lay claim on it

Don't know if they have lived but right now I have never heard of a Pashtun claiming indus heritage, priding themselves to be different from Punjabis and Sindhis who are more into the Indian cultural sphere.
India name was given by the greeks. Still it was based on sanskrit Sindhu.
We don't mind, we get all the ancient pride and glory with the name, we also have Bharat as official name.
Good for us if Pakistanis never think of claiming it

 

[Kabira]

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

This is BS. Sikhism started as different faith. Mughals didnt presecute hindus but sikhs. Hindu brahmins were against sikhism and influenced Mughals to take action againt early sikh gurus.

You dont need to become sikh to rise up against Mughals. Actually all high caste rajputs were allies of Mughals and large number of them converted to Islam. Rajputs make up like 1% of all sikhs.

 

[Kabira]

yeah, the term "leading political force" is very subjective. out of those people who saw any future with india, abdullah may have been the most vocal, but what exactly was the percentage of people who used to think that way?

Pretty large numbers of Kashmiris supported Abdullah because he promised them independent Kashmir where ethnic Kashmiri muslims will be majority. Its another matter that once India occupied IoK they refused to honor their promise.

Kashmiris are justified in their struggle for that reason but not sikhs. Sikh leader joined India without any condition. Sikhs could have gotten independent state if they really wanted, that was perfect time for Khalistan. Instead they chose secularism only to change mind after 1947.

 

[magra]

I'm pointing out what Nehru stated viz his underlying feelings about Kashmir. That's all. You don't have to believe it if you don't want. That he waited for a suitable cassus belli to further his designs is irrelevant to my point. He is on record as wanting Kashmir prior to Britain's announcement regarding accession. Of course, credit is due that he - out of all Indian leaders - sought to legitimise his claim at least by ensuring autonomy and Muslim leadership within Kashmir;even that meagre concession lies in tatters now.

How do you know Nehru's underlying feelings if he did not state those or did?

There was no conflict between Nehru & Patel on getting plebiscite done once the active battle ends. But for that plebiscite to happen, UN had laid some conditions which Pak did not follow. The only differing opinion was to whether go to the UN for help on plebiscite or do it ourselves. Patel wanted that India first captures the entire J&K and then does plebiscite (like it did in Junagarh). Nehru wanted to avoid further bloodshed and was too trusting in the UN's ability to make Pak behave.

This is contrary to your government official narrative, who seek GB and AZK in their entirety and reference them as occupied every time they mention them. So yah, we're happy to sustain yours and Nehru's conflict.

Till you agree on LOC to IB, the region on both sides is disupted and claimed in entirety by both parties. Hence both parties will claim the other's area as occupied. How can we give up claim on GB and Pak Kashmir if you dont give up claim on Indian Kashmir.

yeah, the term "leading political force" is very subjective. out of those people who saw any future with india, abdullah may have been the most vocal, but what exactly was the percentage of people who used to think that way?

There were no free and fair elections in J&K before independence. Hence there is no way of knowing exactly what percentage supported which leader.

 

[magra]

Looks like u need to brush up on history.
Ur whole post is based on the fact that the partition caused the Hindu/Muslim divide(and hatred)...
...it was the other way around...Hindu/Muslim divide was there long before the partition...and it is for that reason partition occurred.

It is a cycle. There was some divide before partition. The partition increased the divide. Without partition, the divide may have reduced over time as there would be no British govt to further stoke differences. Jinnah would have died a year later, so Muslim league would have been without its most charismatic leader and the majority would fall behind Congress. Had Nehru / Patel knew that Jinnah is terminally ill and is going to die soon, they would have agreed with Gandhi to make Jinnah the first PM of united India.

...also if u wanted ppl to rally under "Indus" identity...then British India would have been divided into even more parts. Rise of politics based on a regional identity under "Indus" would've given rise to many identities that exist within modern day India...bcuz those ppl would feel left out...and therefore it would give them a reason to rise up and represent themselves...like for example bengalis, nagas, etc.
...the reason they didn't go down that path is bcuz they were promised representation/inclusion under the "secular democracy" that Nehru championed...and most of them being Hindus(with various Indus and non indus identities) didn't find much appeal with Jinnah's idea of a country for Muslims...
...so consequently they stuck with the concept of India(modern day India). In short u should be glad that it didn't go down the path of different identities and only went based on different religions...
...bcuz India has way fewer religions as compared to the various identities of ppl.

Agree with you on this.

 

[magra]

This is BS. Sikhism started as different faith. Mughals didnt presecute hindus but sikhs. Hindu brahmins were against sikhism and influenced Mughals to take action againt early sikh gurus.

You dont need to become sikh to rise up against Mughals. Actually all high caste rajputs were allies of Mughals and large number of them converted to Islam. Rajputs make up like 1% of all sikhs.

Sikhism is not exactly a different religion as explained earlier. It is just a purified form of Hinduism with some positive aspects taken from Islam. In fact, Hindu / Sikh / Budhist / Jain are just variations of one religion. Their core philosophy is same and they differ only in details. Today, people belonging to these faiths marry into each other with a lot less friction then say a Hindu marrying a Christian / Parsi / Muslim.

The appeal of this new faith (new but not separate from Hinduism) was more in Punjab region as most of the gurus came from here. Rajputs were primarily Rajasthan based.
Where did you read that Hindus were against Sikhs?

Ofcourse there were Hindu allies in Mughal administration. India being majority Hindu, Mughals could not have ruled over India without co-operation from some Hindus.

After Akbar, and especially during Aurangzeb, discrimination and oppression on Hindu population had increased. Eg. Jizya tax was restarted (tax on Hindu pilgrimage).

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

It is a cycle. There was some divide before partition. The partition increased the divide. Without partition, the divide may have reduced over time as there would be no British govt to further stoke differences. Jinnah would have died a year later, so Muslim league would have been without its most charismatic leader and the majority would fall behind Congress. Had Nehru / Patel knew that Jinnah is terminally ill and is going to die soon, they would have agreed with Gandhi to make Jinnah the first PM of united India.


Agree with you on this.

If only we had known that smoking causes cancer during that time, the destiny of the subcontinent would have been RADICALLY Different

 

[gulli]

Partition turned out very good for India, though british made sure people die and relation are tarnished for ever. People stuck in that era must move on. Pakistanis are happy with Pakistan n Indians r happy with India.