Oxford Debate: Partition of India.

[Indus Pakistan]

Talking about the reasons of partition is as useless as talking about why Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Italy & Iran are not a part of Syria. Absolutely ridiculous and pointless.

Bravo.

Ps. How come nobody talks about the reason for antecedent to 1947? The forced integration by British of coterminous Pakistan in 1849?

Try politics. Same thing, but the profit is significantly better and you don't have to move around as much.

Nice one. Problem is I am in UK. I have too many skeletons in my closet for politics in UK. Should have thought about that when I wa younger but I was wild and full of it. So politics in UK is going to be short shelf life for me. That looks like Pakistan but crazy as I am I have no intention to get blown away or relish the prospect of being torn limb from limb by some crazed mob because of what I said. And trust me I would say what I want to say. even in Pakistan. So politics for next life.

Every one should accommodate 1 haram thing to maintain sanity.

Hahaha. Yep sanity has a prce.

Bank heist

On second thoughts this is a bad idea. I have cop as a brother in Her Majesties Constabulary.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Bravo.

Ps. How come nobody talks about the reason for antecedent to 1947? The forced integration by British of coterminous Pakistan in 1849?

Regarding your post-script alone: it was just another phase, in no way distinguishable from any other phase in the relentless advance of the British in India. Not systematic, never planned, but, in hindsight, inevitable to expand to the natural boundaries that they had the coup d'oeil to perceive. They did not plan to be masters of the Carnatic; they did not plan the conquest of Bengal; they did not plan their upward progress into Oudh; they did not plan the annexation of Mysore, or the subjugation of Hyderabad; they did not plan to overthrow the Marathas; and, above all, they had no thought of shouldering aside the Great Mughal and supplanting him with the widow Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. It only seems to be planned when considering matters in hindsight; in that light, things always appear to have been a dark and murky conspiracy and a wilful movement towards Manifest Destiny. In reality, it was a series of accidents; like the fall of one domino in a series, each accident led to another, and another, and another.

Again, what you term Gangasthan had nothing to do with the other eight riparian cultures that constituted the cultural conglomerate that the British finally mastered. The British conquered that particular one rather later than others; their earliest conquests were of the Kaveri basin and the Krishna and Godavari basins, starting at the earliest stages from the estuaries and working their way up channel. Each culture was subdued with no thought about its homogeneity or substance. As said earlier, each was an accident, and each led to another.

The debate was well-meaning but the speakers struggled. Ashis Ray was the worst, Salman Khurshid the best, and little to be chosen between the two students and Union members, except that I found one of them to display the most extraordinary system of vowel enunciation. It seemed to be a regional dialect. I could not place it.

I agree with @django; you would have graced the panel, and that is said without prejudice to my complete disagreement with your brilliant new social and historical constructs.

 

[El Sidd]

No secular can explain or defend the partition.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

The reason is very simple. Pakistan has left an incredibly deep psychological scar to the Western world and particularly India. I say the Western world in hindsight. Especially considering Pakistan's souring relationship with the West after the end of the Cold War. The answers to your questions are mostly hidden in the debate. Listen carefully to the words and try understanding the rationale.

The regret is deep. It is painful. You can also sense it during the debate. When some Indians claim that the partition was a good thing they are obviously lying. Deep down this is an injury they will never recover from. No nation can claim that losing territory is good. Indians will be mourning for generations to come. It is natural. All nations that lost territory mourn this part of history.

Do notice how almost every panelist is an Indian. Only the Indian narrative has been propagated during this debate. That is on both sides for and against the motion. This is obviously not a fair nor balanced debate. It doesn't take into account the Pakistani perspective.

One side interestingly argues that the Brits had an evil design to partition India in order to control the newly formed state and to prevent the former USSR from reaching warm waters i.e. Arabian Sea.

Whatever the case, we don't realize how lucky we are to have a separate nation. This is truly nothing short of a miracle.

Losing territory is not always a bad thing. No one in Pakistan cares that bangladesh is no longer a part of the Pakistani federation. The evidence of this is in the non-existent hatred Pakistanis have for bangladesh and bangladeshis. Contrast that to the abnormal hatred indians have for the Pakistani race and nation. That is undeniable proof that partition has left a HUGE scare on the indian psyche. This is further compounded by the fact that the Indus Valley civilisation was almost exclusively located in modern-day Pakistan.

I agree with you that the NO ONE in their wildest dreams EVER thought that Pakistan would become a nuclear weapons state. This has laid to rest many an imperialist & hegemonic design.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

No secular can explain or defend the partition.

No mullah can explain the forced integration of 1849 nor can they can explain the partition. Only lawyers, preferably British trained lawyers with a penchent for quality western dress fashion can do that? Now I wonder who that is?

 

[El Sidd]

No mullah the integration of 1849 nor can they can explain the partition. Only lawyers, preferably British trained lawyers with a penchent for quality western dress fashion can do that? Now I wonder who that is?

This guy was muslim secular not secular muslim.

You need to lay off the superficial juice.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

This guy was muslim secular not secular muslim.

Oh okay. I did not know you knew Jinnah. Do forgive.

You need to lay off the superficial juice.

You need to order a new brain. China does them at great prices I hear.

 

[Corona]

I'm sensing a pattern here......

 

[MultaniGuy]

I'm sensing a pattern here......View attachment 462621

Yout think I give a damn for Gandhi?

I don't care about Gandhi or Bhagat Singh.

 

[El Sidd]

Oh okay. I did not know you knew Jinnah. Do forgive.

You need to order a new brain. China does them at great prices I hear.

I forgive you. No Problem.

I will definitely look iit up. Brings me to the question.

If brain transplant work. What identity will it assume. And heart transplant too.

You ask intriguing questions

 

[Corona]

Yout think I give a damn for Gandhi?

I don't care about Gandhi or Bhagat Singh.

I wasn't addressing you mate. I was just stating an observation. If you want to pick up a fight, I suggest you go looking for one of the usual cow piss/camel piss patrons of this board.

Another observation..
Some people (regardless of nationality) accuse others of the same stock of being traitors/deserters/opportunists when they see that the person in question is no longer a resident of the country. Something I noticed in this forum a couple of times. Ironic, when the very people who envisioned these countries were very often 'outsiders' themselves. I guess sometimes, you just have to step back a bit to see the problems.

 

[Pakistani E]

Surely the debate should be titled and centered on "Partition of British India as a political entity." Otherwise it implies that "India" was some unitary state before the advent of the British in the subcontinent and it was politics and de-colonization that fractured this unity and not the fact that it was never really a united political, ethnic or religious entity to begin with.

A pointless debate in that sense.

 

[Jackdaws]

Fatima Jinnah wore a Gharara most of the time in Pakistan.

Where did you get that Jinnah's sisters wore saris. lol. Where did you get this from.
This is completely new to me. LOL.

From what I've seen online -

I guess she was Indian according to you.

 

[django]

I would have torn extra excretion ducts in these guys if I was there. I must say and yes I brag that not many can stand in my way of verbal reasoning and articulation. Of late age is catching so slowing down but my son is taking over where I was.

More later. Chilling by listening to some music and musing over my next big project. Need more money. Loads of more money. Maybe a bank heist?

I agree you would have really spiked up the debate.......Try a big job kind of like the Italian job.Kudos yaar

 

[MultaniGuy]

From what I've seen online -

I guess she was Indian according to you.

Well they used to live in Bombay. So they adopted the local costume there.

We Pakistanis do not wear Saris.

Yes Jinnah was a Muhajir.

But now we Pakistanis reject saris. Saris is not our culture.

Kameez Shalwar is our culture for both men and women. And Gharara for women.

Sari is not common in Sindh, Pakistani Punjab, Balochistan, and Pakthunkwa and in Pakistani Kashmir.

All Pakistanis reject Saris except the Muhajirs.

I want Saris to be banned in Pakistan.

Maybe Fatima Jinnah wore a Sari in pre-partition days, but now we Pakistanis are different from Indians.