Partitioning India over lunch

[Omar1984]

Muslims celebrate holi, they dont do pooja in temples. If some Hindu is close to a Muslim then they maybe called upon to do the auspicious things done in a pooja, it doesnt imply they do pooja. And they dont speak Sanskrit either. And finally, who says that there is a mandate for Muslims to speak or know Urdu? They can damn well be practicing Muslims and say their prayers in French/Sanskrit/Tibetan, they would still be Muslims.

I've met Indian Muslims who said they went to Hindu temples and performed pooja with their Hindu friends. Slaman Khan was also caught on camera in a poja ceremony in a Hindu temple. And they read and write in devangri. Even Islamic schools in India have lessons in devangri script instead of the Urdu script. Imagine what Allama Iqbal would think about Muslims in India today.
Prayers are in Arabic, Holy Quran is in Arabic, but we Pakistanis have translations in Urdu script. Our poetry is written in Urdu script, our newspapers are written in Urdu script. All Muslims of British India wrote and read in Urdu script not devangri, today Indian Muslims read and write in devangri script.

It is presicely this attitude of yours why Bangladesh seceded.
Whether or not they are Muslims is a question between Them and God. You are no one to butt in or judge.
If Muslims wherever they are majority need their own land, then do explain why Bangladesh wanted to break away. Remember, incase you plan on blaming India, that there needs to be local support for any insurgency to succeed.

Bangladesh and Pakistan was separated by the huge massive India that was in the middle, Pakistan's #1 enemy that we fought multiple wars with. No one can deny this, take a look at the world map.

Which is what would not have been spent had partition not occured in the first place.

Had Mountbatten been fair and followed the rules of partition, India wouldn't had been Pakistan's # 1 enemy.




This movie was directed by Jamil Dehlavi, a British director with Indian descent, its in English and its a very good movie that explains well why Partition had to happen.

 

[Captain03]

divide and rule
still working today for the british

 

[Fennecus]

Thats one opinion. Same like there was no concept of china prior to Mao.

That's not true my friend.

The Chinese republic (the first modern republic in East Asia) was established in 1912 under Sun Yat-Sen, who was a Chinese nationalist.

 

[Amanpuneet Singh]

partition is good for both countries there would have been more riots and more radical people if the partitioned have not happened not a one Delhi ruler ruled a full India in its present state south India was captured only by British so u cant have people of so many religions in such big number combined together other wise we would have been in civil war by now so both countries are good in present shape minus the radical and leaders that breed with in borders.

 

[third eye]

If there had been no partition, there would not have been any Taliban to speak off in the first place. Think why Taliban was created-think why Pakistan joined US camp in the first place-to secure military equipment to be able to fight a war with India.


Anyone could have become the first Prime Minister, doesnt make a difference. Jinnah as fate would have it, died in a couple of years, even if he had become the first PM, Nehru would still have taken over the reigns.

That Congress and ML may or maynot see eye to eye only showcases the true essence of democracy. Thats the idea of democracy, different parties with different ideas.

And land reforms may still have happened, as Nehru became the PM after Jinnah, one way or another.

I wish life was as simple as it is trying to be made into.

My views remain unchanged.

 

[Rajkumar]

few facts for people here.
1. Muslims didn't have strong middle class community, few were extremely rich and rest are poor[which is pretty much today's scenario still]. so voices of the 'muslims' on political front were from rich community.

2.it true that lower class Muslims were seen as dalits by higher class Hindus[i have documentary in which people admitted this who are still alive from the day]

3.Reason of partition is not Mountbatten but reason above and Britishers divide and rule policy but massacre on partition is Mountbatten fault because partition was a slow process but he suddenly changed it and gave very little time to the British barrister to do his job.

4.Present India is very much different from that day. People in cities really don't care what your religion is for being their friend or lover or neighbor. off course rural India still have this complexes but fading due to inclination towards economic factor[i am from rural Indian side i know it].

5. M. Jinnah could have been our first PM but Nehru wanted it so much that he didn't care about greater good of india. if sardar patel would have been instead nehru i bet partition may not have happened.

i still wish that i am able to travel to pakistan without visa to my friend's house and see kite festival in karachi.
[disclaimer: all facts are from documentary BBC: "1947 the day india burned"]

 

[Contrarian]

I've met Indian Muslims who said they went to Hindu temples and performed pooja with their Hindu friends. Slaman Khan was also caught on camera in a poja ceremony in a Hindu temple.

Yeah, and my new house was inaugurated with a "havan", which is essentially a pooja, and one Muslim lady(who is very close to us-like a mother) sat during the havan/pooja and was the one who inaugurated it. It doesnt mean she has to believe in Hinduism. That any Muslim may sit in a pooja, and merely wish well with god, doesnt make him a non muslim.

Or the fact that i celebrate Eid with my friend and his mother makes special kebabs for me to eat with them on Eid makes me a non Hindu?

And they read and write in devangri. Even Islamic schools in India have lessons in devangri script instead of the Urdu script. Imagine what Allama Iqbal would think about Muslims in India today.
Prayers are in Arabic, Holy Quran is in Arabic, but we Pakistanis have translations in Urdu script. Our poetry is written in Urdu script, our newspapers are written in Urdu script. All Muslims of British India wrote and read in Urdu script not devangri, today Indian Muslims read and write in devangri script.

Yeah, and WHO the hell gave Pakistan the right to define what script to use for reading and writing, or have lessons in or to pray in?
Who gives a damn what Allama Iqbal would think about Muslims in India? You tell me, do the Muslims of India need permission from Allama Iqbal to pray? Or is a nod from Allama Iqbal or people like you needed before Allah considers them as Muslims?

Muslims in India can read/write and pray in any language or any script they want. And they would still be Muslims.

Bangladesh and Pakistan was separated by the huge massive India that was in the middle, Pakistan's #1 enemy that we fought multiple wars with. No one can deny this, take a look at the world map.

Oh yeah, you forgot one point-that you were trying to impose this Taliban style laws on them, that they have to talk, pray and write in Urdu.

They are Bengali's-and they will do ALL of that in their own language. Pakistan cannot dictate.

Had Mountbatten been fair and followed the rules of partition, India wouldn't had been Pakistan's # 1 enemy.

This movie was directed by Jamil Dehlavi, a British director with Indian descent, its in English and its a very good movie that explains well why Partition had to happen.

Yeah im sorry, i dont buy that stuff. In a multicultural democratic country-people with all kinds of opinion can co-exist together peacefully. Had it not been for the British, there would not have been any need of Partition.

 

[Contrarian]

5. M. Jinnah could have been our first PM but Nehru wanted it so much that he didn't care about greater good of india. if sardar patel would have been instead nehru i bet partition may not have happened.

That is precisely the heart of the matter. The whole concept of "Two Nation Theory" is hogwash to fool people. The only culprits were the strong personalities of Nehru and Jinnah. Both wanted power, and neither was willing to concede.

Heck Jinnah never wanted anything bad for India, yet the Pakistan after him has brought nothing but war.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

That is precisely the heart of the matter. The whole concept of "Two Nation Theory" is hogwash to fool people. The only culprits were the strong personalities of Nehru and Jinnah. Both wanted power, and neither was willing to concede.

Heck Jinnah never wanted anything bad for India, yet the Pakistan after him has brought nothing but war.

This is a flawed argument- the event of partition itself is not the cause of all of South Asia's problems today. The manner in which partition occurred, and the reluctance of some parties to accept it, which in turn further inflamed the problems resulting from a flawed partition process, is to blame.

 

[Rajkumar]

That is precisely the heart of the matter. The whole concept of "Two Nation Theory" is hogwash to fool people. The only culprits were the strong personalities of Nehru and Jinnah. Both wanted power, and neither was willing to concede.

Heck Jinnah never wanted anything bad for India, yet the Pakistan after him has brought nothing but war.

it is partially right. no body wants to give up power willingly. it true in India's case as well in Pakistan's. but degree of reluctance to give up power was more on Pakistan's side that why they[politicians] didn't allow land reforms and it took years them to finalize constitution and its implementation[they were having honeymoon with newly acquired power]. Thus corruption grew.Due to this army came in to picture in short period of democracy rule.

 

[Joe Shearer]

That is precisely the heart of the matter. The whole concept of "Two Nation Theory" is hogwash to fool people. The only culprits were the strong personalities of Nehru and Jinnah. Both wanted power, and neither was willing to concede.

Heck Jinnah never wanted anything bad for India, yet the Pakistan after him has brought nothing but war.

Dear Sir,

This may not be absolutely correct, to say that both wanted power, and neither was willing to concede.

It appears from a lot of materials that have been discussed by historians lately that at least as late as July 1946, and possibly even down to the time of actual partition, Jinnah tried very hard for a compromise. It was the intransigence of the INC which made this impossible, and in making partition inevitable, happened to break Gandhi's heart.

I could give you much more detail, but it will be very lengthy. If you wish, I can send you references for your private consideration.

Please note that I am Indian myself, an admirer of some aspects of Nehru, those aspects in which he built a strong, industrial and technical foundation for India, and assiduously promoted secularism. My comment above is only in the interest of drawing your attention of some current work that may change your opinion.

I regret that after studying these materials, I have come to somewhat dismal conclusions about the conventional wisdom prevailing about Partition - the second Partition, that is, the Partition of India into India and Pakistan.

Sincerely.

 

[white_pawn]

divide and rule
still working today for the british

Yup Captain03, it does and will keep on working until both India and paksitan come to their sences or understand it, as there was no such haterade in between Hindus, Muslims, Christen or any other religion in south asian region.

Even now same strategy works very well

 

[Joe Shearer]

This is a flawed argument- the event of partition itself is not the cause of all of South Asia's problems today. The manner in which partition occurred, and the reluctance of some parties to accept it, which in turn further inflamed the problems resulting from a flawed partition process, is to blame.

Dear Sir,

You are perfectly right in one respect, of course, insofar as the event itself is not the cause of all of South Asia's problems today. However, when you state that it is due to the manner in which the event occurred, and to the resistance of some parties to it, it was not clear what you were referring to. I understand that it is not always possible to compress a complex issue into a few lines, but if you could expand a little on these two points, it would be helpful.

Sincerely.

 

[Contrarian]

Dear Sir,

This may not be absolutely correct, to say that both wanted power, and neither was willing to concede.

It appears from a lot of materials that have been discussed by historians lately that at least as late as July 1946, and possibly even down to the time of actual partition, Jinnah tried very hard for a compromise. It was the intransigence of the INC which made this impossible, and in making partition inevitable, happened to break Gandhi's heart.

I could give you much more detail, but it will be very lengthy. If you wish, I can send you references for your private consideration.

Please note that I am Indian myself, an admirer of some aspects of Nehru, those aspects in which he built a strong, industrial and technical foundation for India, and assiduously promoted secularism. My comment above is only in the interest of drawing your attention of some current work that may change your opinion.

I regret that after studying these materials, I have come to somewhat dismal conclusions about the conventional wisdom prevailing about Partition - the second Partition, that is, the Partition of India into India and Pakistan.

Sincerely.

I would be grateful if you could actually forward me the materials you refer to. It should definitely make for an interesting read.

On a side note, it is irrelevant whether you are an Indian or not. What is relevant however, is the quality of arguments you put up and the kind of links you give for corroboration.

On another note, i do agree, that though I blame Nehru for being naive in his dealings with the China, his vision of India as a leading industrial and scientific power and his work towards the same was certainly more than what a majority of the people give him credit for.

Regards,
Malay

 

[Omar1984]

Muslims in India can read/write and pray in any language or any script they want. And they would still be Muslims.


Oh yeah, you forgot one point-that you were trying to impose this Taliban style laws on them, that they have to talk, pray and write in Urdu.

They are Bengali's-and they will do ALL of that in their own language. Pakistan cannot dictate.


Yeah im sorry, i dont buy that stuff. In a multicultural democratic country-people with all kinds of opinion can co-exist together peacefully. Had it not been for the British, there would not have been any need of Partition.

Our prayers are in Arabic and we pray like Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) prayed. All Muslims must pray in Arabic. Its not Talibans only, all Muslims regardless of ethnicity MUST pray in Arabic.

The Muslims of British India have been reading and writing in Urdu script for a long time now not devangri script. Today Indian Muslims have forgotten Urdu script and read and write in devangri.

Partition was a must to keep our culture strong. Religion always had an influence on culture in South Asia.