A question arose in another thread thats quite interesting. Which is did Pakistan get partitioned from India? I noticed the majority view amongst the Indian's was their country 'India' was carved up..
I absolutely reject this contention. My view is that a territory was divided into two states from British India which is not the exact same entity as today's Indian Union.
I stated in my previous argument that at the heart of this fallacy is that it was not 'India' as in the present Indian Union that was divided in 1947 and that this misunderstanding rests in the nomenclature. This untruth has been peddled since 1947 and today it's almost accepted as a given.
My argument is subtle but the result if I can prove my contention is profound. We in Pakistan don't have to sit like some new upshot in the shadow of a mature, established state to our east. We can look at our neighbour in the eye as a equal.
First of all I would suggest we sort out the nomenclature issue, which is and has been the cause of this misunderstanding in South Asia and the world. I will give numbered points for ease of discussion and referance.
1. Today we have two nation states, Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Republic of India. To avoid the nomenclature mixup I will henceforth refer to the Republic of India as Bharat and of course Republic of Pakistan as simply Pakistan.
2. Prior to 1947 there was no nation state ( I stress this point ) in the sub continent There existed a territory acquired by a foreign power, piece by piece through hook and crook and driven by imperial greed.
3. This foreign power had over time taken over almost a entire region ( a geographic defintion ) called India.
4. This label 'India' had been around in various forms since antiquity. It had derived from the Sanskrit Sindhu for the river Indus. The Greeks had used label 'India' and it's meaning would have been the land adjacent to Indus River. That is the Sindh Province, today in Pakistan.
5. Over time this very restricted meaning or understanding of the word 'India' extended eastwards until almost the entire geographic region we call South Asia today came be known as India. Therefore the term India was synonymous with the region we call today South Asia.
6. Thus not only was the term India synonymous with todays South Asia much like other geographic regional names in use today like Iberia, Scandinavia, Balkans, Maghreb or Indochina.
7. Maghreb as a region has been known as such for over a millenia, as has Scandinavia but Libya or Finland are recent 'inventions'. If Finland decided to appropriate the regional geographic name Scandinavia for itself it would not then mean that this nation state now going as the Scandinavian Republic has been around since antiquity.
8. Also just because it ( Finland ) had appropriated a geograhic regional name for itself it would not mean that it could claim everything within that region, that is the entire history of that region as its own. That would be tantamount to intellectual fraud. That is exactly what Bharat has been doing since 1947. It is almost bordering on identity fraud.
9. Now lets go to before 1947. We had a British colony. It's borders were drawn arbitrarily and represented the maximum extent of British power, Had the British been weaker, those borders would have been less extent. Had they been even stronger those borders would have been even more extent.
10. That British colony existed within a region, we would call that South Asia today but then it was known as India ( like Scandinavia etc ) thus this colony was titled 'British India'. Today's Pakistan or Bharat share the exactly the same relationship to British India. The only advantage Bharat has gained is because it also chose the style 'India' which happened to to share the same nomenclature with the British Colonial entity and before that the geograhic region.
11. In a strange twist of history a name 'India' that had meant just the land adjacent to River Indus, came over time to mean the entire region we call South Asia and now in a total leap of disconnect it has come to refer to a nation state called Bharat. The disconnect being that it originally just meant a area in today's Pakistan and now has come to mean a area that is a total disconnect from the original land ( which is in todays Pakistan ) , to what is today Bharat ( which is well to east of the original meaning ). This can 'identity theft' today can throw up all sort of strange situations as I shall point out later.
12. Indian independance Act 1947:-
(1)As from the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, two independent Dominions shall be set up in India, to be known respectively as India and Pakistan.
(2)The said Dominions are hereafter in this Act referred to as the new Dominions, and the said fifteenth day of August is hereafter in this Act referred to as the appointed day.
2.(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (3) (4) of this section, the territories of India shall be the territories under the sovereignty of His Majesty which, immediately before the appointed day, were included in British India except the territories which, under subsection (2) of this section, are to be the territories of Pakistan.
13. We can adduce certain facts from the above Act.
(i) That there existed a British Colony known variously as 'British India' or just plain 'India' ran by a London appointed official called a Viceroy which was part and parcel of the British Empire.
(ii) That this adminstrative structure would cease to exist in 1947 and in it's place two nation states shall come into existance viz Republic of Pakistan and Bharat Republic.
(iii) That the territory adminstered by the said structure would be apportioned out betwen both nation states.
(iv) That as a function of decribing the precise apportionment it states that Bharat shall be British India minus Pakistan.
(v) That when you cut something you slice the smaller piece from the bigger, not slice the bigger piece from smaller. The language of the act just follows that function.
(vi) We cannot use the fact that the term India is being used because that only proves my contention, that is it goes back to the heart of what I have been saying, namely the nomenclature. That is why I am using the term Bharat to prove my point. Both Republics, Pakistan and Bharat if I may draw the analogy just plain wines.
(vii) Whereas the impression given is Pakistan is some new immature wine lacking any pedigree whereas Bharat is some vintage Champagne thats been cultivated for centuries.
14. The truth is both Republics are modern creations dating from 1947. Both are as vintage or lack of as much as each other. The nomenclature is just a dupe, a gloss that obfuscates the reality. Just because Bharat decides to appropriate the name 'India' unto itself does not mean that it suddenly becomes a vintage wine as much as a cheap wine does not become a true Chamapagne just because it labels itself as such.
15. A point was made that Bharat is indeed the sole successor to British India. That is absurd notion. It indeed was a successor state to British India but so was Pakistan.
16. How else would the assets that belonged to British India get divided to both Bharat and and Pakistan? Why and how did the territory held by British India be apportioned to both with some going to Pakistan and some to Bharat if the former was also not also a succerssor state?
17. Contention was made that Bharat the is the sole successor state by stating that United Nations seat held by British India was given to Bharat contrary to Pakistan's efforts.
18. Well the person who made this point (16) should know that not all things can be apportioned. If a father left a horse as inheritance to two sons, they could not divide it into two. By the same logic you cannot apportion a seat. Only one party can have it.
19. If my father left a club membership to me and my brother we very well could not both demand it, when there would only be one. Clearly we would have to resolve the matter by some other means, perhaps the older one getting it. In the instance of the UN seat Bharat gets it because clearly it was the largest piece out of the defunct British India.
So gentleman ( ladies ) I put it to you that this is all about nomenclature. I have avoided the term India to prove my point. We all know that Bharat has used that label and continues to use it, although as a nation state, it is as young as Pakistan. But by using the name India it as gained a historical link goin back to 5,000 years.
Could people please do me enormous favour, please only contribute to this thread if you can add something for or against based on the points made, preferably reasioned out. Lets keep this focussed.
