Partition Reality

[Sid]

Quotes taken down due to copyright issues. Thnx

 

[Sid]

Quotes taken down due to copyright issues. Thnx

 

[Sid]

Quotes taken down due to copyright issues. Thnx

 

[sword9]

Originally posted by Sid@Mar 24 2006, 02:55 PM
'Should the Congress form coalition ministries to include Muslim League members?' The decision against coalition ministries appeared to be logically and theoretically correct, but there is a broad consensus of well informed opinion that, in practice, the decision proved disastrous.

There is no doubt that the decision of the Congress leaders was extremely unwise and it was bound to have disastrous consequences. The Muslims now fully realised that as a separate community, they had no political prospects in future. The Congress ultimatum was the signal for the parting of ways, which, by inevitable stages, led to the foundation of Pakistan.

Sid,
The above two extracts from your post are the most enlightening. Lack of gaining power and the seemingly difficult task of gaining it in a non-muslim majority country, seemed to be the driving force for demanding a muslim country where the Muslim League could not loose an election.

 

[VisionHawk]

Sid did u mention partion of bengal which took place in 1906 but on hindus anger was reversed in 1911 it also played a vital role in achieving a separate muslims homeland.

I would like to mention some more things

Bande Matram
This was a nationalist hindu song in which hindus were encouraged to expel Muslims for `HIndustan`. This was not a Congress policy, but the singing of the song was made compulsory before start of official business everyday in the provincial assemblies :idiot: . This worried and offened Muslims

HINDI-Urdu conflict
anotherfactor was Hindi-Urdu controversy in which The hindus demaded that Urdu should be replaced by Hindi as the offcial language of India.

The Wardha Scheme

This was an education scheme based on Ghandi`s views and introduced into all Congress education ministries.Teaching was to be in Hindi , Spinning cotton by hand was introduced into the school curriculum and there was to be no religous education . All the students were expected to bow before a picture of Ghandi hung in their schools . Muslims saw these measures as an attempt to subvert a love for Islam amongst their children and convert them to hinduism.

 

[VisionHawk]

The Congress tyranny

Whilst it was never official Congress policy, Muslims feared that a major aim of of their hindu rivals was to erase the Muslim culture.It is true that in some places Hindu extremists behaved in an appalling way.Muslims were forbidden to eat beef (cow is Hindu`s holy mother) and recieved harsh punishments if they slaughter cows .Azaan(Muslim call to prayers) was forbidden and attacks were carried out on mosques.Noisy processions were arranged near mosques at prayer time and pigs sometimes were pushed into the mosques.Muslims felt that if they lodged complaints with the authorities decisions were always made against them.Some times there were anti muslim riots in which Muslims were attacked and their houses and property was set on fire.Viceroy LINLITHGOW (spellings not sure) himself talked of "many instances of continued oppression om small ways" all of these incidents explains why Muslims see the period 1937-38 as one Congress tyranny

 

[VisionHawk]

Hindus and Muslims are two seprate nations Two nation theory was first given by Sir syed Ahmed khan who at first was a strong believer of Hindu Muslim unity but he soon realised that Hindus were not so keen on working with the Muslims and that Congress which which stated that it will represent the views of all the communities of India so came out to be a pro hindu and an anti muslim organization Sir syed ahmed Khan was a remarkable person he encouraged the muslims to recieve western education and to came forward with face to face with Hindus and compete with them in all spheres of Life he there fore also founded
Muhammadan Anglo Oriental school which in 1974 became a college and in i think 1924 became Aligarh university he also founded a school first at ghazi pur and after that in muradabad.After him it was Allama Iqbal also gave the two nation theory which stated that muslims and Hindus are two completely different races and can never ever live together.He stated that
Muslim believe in one God where as Hindus believe on the multiplicity of gods , Muslims believe on equality where as Hindus believe on caste system (achut , brahmin etc) Muslim and Hindus have separate cultures and backgrounds.
It was on 23 march 1940 where Lahore resolution was passed and all the muslims under the leadership of Quadi-e-Azam worked hard day and night and after 7 yearsof constant struggles and sacrifices Pakistan emerged on the world map as an independent nation (Do u guys know that Muhammad Ali Jinnah was suffering from TB but he didnot let anybody know this just for Pakistan and also didnot go to Uk for its operation this tells us what a remarkable person he was :flag: )

 

[Sid]

VisionHawk, with all respect, what you have discussed in your posts is a very 'generalized' approach to the partition issue and a lot of religion there as well. What you have said is true but what we were involved in discussing before that, is the political situation that developed between the different leaders and their parties.

This thread is more about clarifying Indian misconceptions about Jinnah who they believe was the sole person responsible for partition. The fact is, he wasn't and he didn't regret any of his actions and I stand by him.

 

[Sid]

Originally posted by sword9@Mar 24 2006, 06:08 AM
Sid,
The above two extracts from your post are the most enlightening. Lack of gaining power and the seemingly difficult task of gaining it in a non-muslim majority country, seemed to be the driving force for demanding a muslim country where the Muslim League could not loose an election.

[post=7687]Quoted post[/post]​

Add to that Congress' attitude towards the Muslims. It knew well that it did NOT represent the Muslims of British India but it kept persisting that it did and even went ahead with propaganda tactics such as the 'mass contact' program which pissed the Muslims off majorly.

As the passages point out, not forming coalition ministries was a decision that proved fatal for united India.

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by Sid+Mar 24 2006, 01:45 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sid &#064; Mar 24 2006, 01:45 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>You don&#39;t get it yet. Step by step approach was better because it would not have annoyed the British if independance was asked at the right time because after World War II, they were granting independance to most of their colonial outposts and withdrawing anyways (remember that India and Pakistan are not the only countries to get their independance in 1947 from Britain - most countries got it in the time frame of 1947-1951).
[/b]

You are talking about some step by step approach which was never put into use and it could&#39;ve,might&#39;ve,would&#39;ve worked or not worked at all. And it has got nothing to do with your so called muslim insecurity in united India, so lets drop it.

Originally posted by Sid@Mar 24 2006, 01:45 PM
Really? That is why they were always trying to &#39;persuade&#39; Muslims to vote for them and not the League? No matter what form or political agenda Congress took up after partition, the fact remains that it was a Hindu Nationalist party before the partition and only had a few Muslim members to &#39;show-off&#39; that it represented all of India when clearly it did not. My upcoming post about 1937 elections would shed light on this.

Congress?&#33; Hindu Nationalist party?&#33; You are defying logic here.
Tell me, Why would they support that useless Khilafat movement? Why would the RSS hate Congress from the start? Why do you think Nathuram Godse assasinated Gandhi? For fun?&#33;
Trying to persuade Muslims to vote for Congress and not for league,further shows their pro-muslim mentality. They always stood by muslims.

<!--QuoteBegin-Sid@Mar 24 2006, 01:45 PM
What? I never said that partition was not based on religion&#33; It was because Jinnah wanted to secure the rights of the Muslims in a Muslim-majority state (yes, there is a difference between an Islamic State and a Muslim-majority State) because Congress did NOT agree to his &#39;parity&#39; vision to keep India united. My main objective for the creation of this thread and make Indians understand is that Jinnah was &#39;forced&#39; by the Congress&#39; actions and attitude to demand for Pakistan as his only hope to safeguard the rights of the Muslims of the subcontinent.

[post=7679]Quoted post[/post]​

[/quote]
You are contradicting yourself. You say partition was not based on religion but b&#39;coz Jinnah wanted to secure the rights of the Muslims?&#33; what sort of logic is that?

 

[Sid]

Originally posted by Hammer@Mar 26 2006, 02:46 AM
You are talking about some step by step approach which was never put into use and it could&#39;ve,might&#39;ve,would&#39;ve worked or not worked at all. And it has got nothing to do with your so called muslim insecurity in united India, so lets drop it.
Congress?&#33; Hindu Nationalist party?&#33; You are defying logic here.
Tell me, Why would they support that useless Khilafat movement? Why would the RSS hate Congress from the start? Why do you think Nathuram Godse assasinated Gandhi? For fun?&#33;
Trying to persuade Muslims to vote for Congress and not for league,further shows their pro-muslim mentality. They always stood by muslims.


You are contradicting yourself. You say partition was not based on religion but b&#39;coz Jinnah wanted to secure the rights of the Muslims?&#33; what sort of logic is that?

[post=7789]Quoted post[/post]​

Are you sure, you were &#39;wide awake&#39; while posting all this? In fact, your post gives me a vague sense of &#39;desparation&#39; to prove your points.

First of all, talking about the step-by-step approach; it didn&#39;t succeed because Gandhi reduced everything to &#39;swaraj&#39;. This, he enshrined in every Hindu&#39;s mind (if not every Indian&#39;s) with his constant appeals to Hindu religious sentiment such as the &#39;Rama Raj&#39; and what not. This IS related to Muslim insecurity as unlike Gandhi and his dedicated band of followers, not everyone wanted outright independance, because they knew that if the British left in a hurry without solving the problems that Muslims faced, they would be left at the mercy of the ruling Hindus who would, then, deal with them as they pleased (being the majority).

About Congress being pro-Muslim, I said it before and I&#39;ll say it again. what role and strategy Congress adopted after partition does not concern us here. What DOES concern us here is its role and agenda before partition. At that time, Congress&#39;s &#39;official&#39; policy was Independance for India and to keep it united, that does not make it &#39;pro-Muslim&#39;. Whatever one-off pro-Muslim activities it did carry out, they were more part of a strategy to choke the life out of Muslim League (undermine it) and what it stood for than any love for Muslims. As far as Khilafat movement is concerned, I think if you re-read my post regarding Gandhi&#39;s introduction of religion into politics (which sheds light on the Khilafat movement) you&#39;ll be able to understand it better. Gandhi was assassinated by RSS because Gandhi (and Congress) agreed to the partition, not because either was pro-Muslim or whatever. Trying to pursuade Muslims with desparation to vote for Congress, doesn&#39;t make it pro-Muslim, it merely shows that Congress was trying to achieve support that it DID NOT have to further its political agenda. This is because, if it was &#39;actually&#39; pro-Muslim like the Muslim League, it wouldn&#39;t have to pursuade people to vote for it, they&#39;d do it themselves. This view is indisputably confirmed by what happened in 1937 elections (when many Muslims thought that Congress was atleast neutral if not anti-Muslim and did infact vote for it) and the elections of 1946 (when Congress miserably failed to secure Muslim votes, confirming what Muslims had realized by that time).

Where did I say that partition was not religion based? Infact the part of my post that you quoted before saying I was contradicting myself CLEARLY shows that I was NOT. Partition &#39;was&#39; based on religion because Muslims were a religious community. There religion differentiated them from Hindus and combined with their distinct customs and traditions, they were a nation on their own, thereby, proving the two-nation theory correct.

 

[sword9]

Originally posted by VisionHawk@Mar 24 2006, 07:37 PM
Hindus and Muslims are two seprate nations Two nation theory was first given by Sir syed Ahmed khan

Sir Syed Ahmed Khan is an interesting personality. There is an analysis written on him by a retired Pakistani army officer. It can be found in the defencejournal search of "1857 Sepoy Mutiny". His analysis and research is brilliant.

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by Sid+Mar 27 2006, 12:50 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sid &#064; Mar 27 2006, 12:50 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Are you sure, you were &#39;wide awake&#39; while posting all this? In fact, your post gives me a vague sense of &#39;desparation&#39; to prove your points.
[/b]

If it makes you happy, sure.

Originally posted by Sid@Mar 27 2006, 12:50 AM
First of all, talking about the step-by-step approach; it didn&#39;t succeed because Gandhi reduced everything to &#39;swaraj&#39;. This, he enshrined in every Hindu&#39;s mind (if not every Indian&#39;s) with his constant appeals to Hindu religious sentiment such as the &#39;Rama Raj&#39; and what not. This IS related to Muslim insecurity as unlike Gandhi and his dedicated band of followers, not everyone wanted outright independance, because they knew that if the British left in a hurry without solving the problems that Muslims faced, they would be left at the mercy of the ruling Hindus who would, then, deal with them as they pleased (being the majority).

Well, when he appealed to Muslims sentiments with that Khilafat BS, all Indian muslims didnt mind one bit, did they? They were only too happy to follow him. And when he appealed to Hindu religious sentiments, they felt insecure? what sort of hypocrisy is that?
At the mercy of ruling Hindus? What are, we hordes of Ghenghiz khan? There are 160 and odd million muslims in India today. None of them are restricted to practice their religion and YES they can eat a COW.

Originally posted by Sid@Mar 27 2006, 12:50 AM
About Congress being pro-Muslim, I said it before and I&#39;ll say it again. what role and strategy Congress adopted after partition does not concern us here.

It does, &#39;coz they can&#39;t change their colors overnight. They &#39;ve always been pro-muslim.

Originally posted by Sid@Mar 27 2006, 12:50 AM
What DOES concern us here is its role and agenda before partition. At that time, Congress&#39;s &#39;official&#39; policy was Independance for India and to keep it united, that does not make it &#39;pro-Muslim&#39;.

Congress&#39;s official policy of Independance for India,Keeping it united and voting for a secular constitution, paving way for equal opportunity for all muslims born in India in every sphere of life isn&#39;t &#39;pro-muslim&#39;, What is?
And what is the &#39;Unofficial&#39; policy of Congress?

Originally posted by Sid@Mar 27 2006, 12:50 AM
Whatever one-off pro-Muslim activities it did carry out, they were more part of a strategy to choke the life out of Muslim League (undermine it) and what it stood for than any love for Muslims.

Undermining Muslim League doesnt translate into anti-muslim activities.There is always competition between political parties and that is what happened. You are turning some political rivalry into some religious problem.

Originally posted by Sid@Mar 27 2006, 12:50 AM
Gandhi was assassinated by RSS because Gandhi (and Congress) agreed to the partition, not because either was pro-Muslim or whatever.

Gandhi&#39;s pro-Muslim policy is blatantly in his perverse attitude on the question of the national language of India. It is quite obvious that Hindi has the most prior claim to be accepted as the premier language. In the beginning of his career in India, Gandhi gave a great impetus to Hindi but as he found that the Muslims did not like it, he became a champion of what is called Hindustani. Everybody in India knows that there is no language called Hindustani; it has no grammar; it has no vocabulary. It is a mere dialect; it is spoken, but not written. It is a bastard tongue and crossbreed between Hindi and Urdu, and not even the Mahatma&#39;s sophistry could make it popular. But in his desire to please the Muslims he insisted that Hindustani alone should be the national language of India. His blind followers, of course, supported him and the so-called hybrid language began to be used. The charm and purity of the Hindi language was to be prostituted to please the Muslims. All his experiments were at the expense of the Hindus.

One of the conditions imposed by Gandhi for his breaking of the fast unto death related to the mosques in Delhi occupied by the Hindu refugees. But when Hindus in Pakistan were subjected to violent attacks he did not so much as utter a single word to protest and censure the Pakistan Government or the Muslims concerned. Gandhi was shrewd enough to know that while undertaking a fast unto death, had he imposed for its break some condition on the Muslims in Pakistan, there would have been found hardly any Muslims who could have shown some grief if the fast had ended in his death. It was for this reason that he purposely avoided imposing any condition on the Muslims. He was fully aware of from the experience that Jinnah was not at all perturbed or influenced by his fast and the Muslim League hardly attached any value to the inner voice of Gandhi.


The accumulating provocation of thirty-two years, culminating in his last pro-Muslim fast, at last goaded me to the conclusion that the existence of Gandhi should be brought to an end immediately.

--Shri Nathuram Godse

[/b]

Originally posted by Sid@Mar 27 2006, 12:50 AM
Where did I say that partition was not religion based? Infact the part of my post that you quoted before saying I was contradicting myself CLEARLY shows that I was NOT. Partition &#39;was&#39; based on religion because Muslims were a religious community.

Then we dont differ much.

<!--QuoteBegin-Sid@Mar 27 2006, 12:50 AM
There religion differentiated them from Hindus and combined with their distinct customs and traditions, they were a nation on their own, thereby, proving the two-nation theory correct.

[post=7816]Quoted post[/post]​

[/quote]
This theory sounds very much like Nazi propaganda.

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by Sid+Mar 27 2006, 12:50 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sid &#064; Mar 27 2006, 12:50 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>The Congress decided to have homogenous ministries of its own and chose Muslim ministers from among those who were members of the Congress party. This was the beginning of a serious rift between the Congress and the League and was a factor which induced neutral Muslim opinion to turn to the support of Jinnah.

In his Autobiography, India Wins Freedom, Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, who was the President of the Congress from 1939 to 1946, speaking of the aftermath of the 1937 elections, wrote:

If the U.P. League&#39;s offer of co-operation had been accepted, the Muslim League party would for all practical purposes have merged in the Congress. Jawaharlal&#39;s action gave the Muslim League in the U.P. a new lease of life.... It was from the U.P. that the League was reorganised. Mr Jinnah took full advantage of the situation and started an offensive which ultimately led to partition.
[/b]

Both these extracts clearly explains, how Jinnah turned this political rivalry into a religious problem.Congress didnt push muslims out, but preferred the muslims who were Congress party members.There was ofcourse political discrimination but never a religious one.
Jinnah cleverly played on the insecurities of the British Indian muslims who like sheeps would follow any leader as long as he is a muslim and turned the whole problem into some religious problem.

Originally posted by Sid@Mar 27 2006, 12:50 AM
The immediate and most far-reaching effect of the Congress victory at the polls was a widening of the breach with the Muslim League. Flushed with success the Congress adopted an imperious attitude to all other political parties, a &#39;Himalayan blunder&#39;, for which it was to pay dearly in the years to come.

The Congress adopted an imperious attitude to all other POLITICAL PARTIES and not muslims. Muslim league is ofcourse a political party. There was no discrimination towards muslims in the Congress party.

Originally posted by Sid@Mar 27 2006, 12:50 AM
In a public statement, shortly after the elections in 1937 he declared, &#39;nobody will welcome an honourable settlement between the Hindus and the Muslims more than I and nobody will be more ready to help it&#39;; and he followed it with a public appeal to Gandhi to tackle this question.

The rivalry between Congress and Muslim League has been succesfully turned into a Hindu-muslim problem by none other than the clever politician that you call Quaid-e-Azam.

Originally posted by Sid@Mar 27 2006, 12:50 AM
Nehru&#39;s &#39;mass contact&#39; programme, to win over Muslims (which met with little success) added a further complication. Many Muslims, even outside UP felt that the League&#39;s very existence was being threatened and in reply to the Congress &#39;mass contact&#39; programme the League launched a vigorous counter propaganda, which was so effective that in a number of bye-elections in Muslim constituencies, the Congress candidates were defeated. &#39;These defeats showed that Nehru and the Congress had committed a serious tactical error.&#39;

No&#33;.These defeats showed that a big chunk of muslims can never be secular. Inspite of shameless appeasement policies of Nehru towards the muslims,
they have only proved that they will always follow a muslim leader.They have proved that its them who can&#39;t live peacefully with other religious groups and would only feel secure when they get themselves a shiny Islamic republic.

<!--QuoteBegin-Sid@Mar 27 2006, 12:50 AM
Nehru himself set the tone with his haughty remark in March 1937: &#39;There are only two forces in India today, British imperialism and Indian nationalism as represented by the Congress.&#39; Jinnah was quick to retort: &#39;No, there is a third party, the Mussulmans.&#39; History was to bear him out.
[/quote]
There you Go&#33;&#33; The Golden moment when Jinnah turned this whole problem into a religious one. Its funny, the champion of secularism asked for a separate state for the muslims.
Nehru remarked about Indian Nationalism and not Hindu nationalism, while Jinnah was talking about a religious community.

 

[Spring Onion]

Originally posted by Hammer@Mar 28 2006, 06:50 PM
This theory sounds very much like Nazi propaganda.

[post=7994]Quoted post[/post]​

i dont think so i think its time to accept that Pakistan is a reality which if u r honest will approve that u r still not accepting.
now as far as the creation of separate state for Muslims its as clear as anything could although we had not touched a valid reason so far which im gonna post in few days in an article shape on which im wroking on so please wait dear
And till thn try to accept that Pakistan is a reality no matter how much u deny and propogate against.

have a good day