Partitioning India over lunch

[Contrarian]

Never.

& thank god for the partition.

Nope. It was wrong. I too believed that partition was a good thing see'ing the present state and development of Pakistan. But i have been corrected in my views. Had partition not happened, Pakistan would not be in the state it is now.

 

[Omar1984]

Nope. It was wrong. I too believed that partition was a good thing see'ing the present state and development of Pakistan. But i have been corrected in my views. Had partition not happened, Pakistan would not be in the state it is now.

Partition had to happen. We see Indian "Muslims" today who celebrate holi, do pooja in Hindu temples, marry Hindu women and even Hindu men, they read and write in sanskrit instead of reading and writing in Urdu, they have lost their Muslim identity and just became like rest of Hindustanis.

Why is there protests to this day in Indian Occupied Kashmir, a Muslim majority region because Muslims are not Hindus and Muslims dont want to be treated like 2nd class citizen in an overwhelming Hindu majority nation.

Partition had to happen, and if Mountbatten followed the rules of partition there would be no fightings between India and Pakistan today and there would be no nuclear weapons in Pakistan today, Pakistan would not be in the state it is now had Mountbatten followed the rules of partition and tried to be fair.

BTW Pakistan was doing much better than India economically in the past.
Leaders like Zardaris/Sharifs, decades of war in neighboring Afghanistan, millions of Afghan refugees infiltrating into Pakistan, multiple wars with India over Kashmir, and billions spent on defense has made Pakistan poor today.

 

[Patriot]

India may be far more economically strong then Pakistan but thank god we Muslims are safe in Pakistan.Something like Gujrat Massacre would never happen to Muslims in Pakistan and yes, you will now blab about Taliban problem.It will be solved as soon as America withdraws from Afghanistan or Pakistan signs peace treaty with them.

 

[godsavetheworld]

Partition had to happen. We see Indian "Muslims" today who celebrate holi, do pooja in Hindu temples, marry Hindu women and even Hindu men, they read and write in sanskrit instead of reading and writing in Urdu, they have lost their Muslim identity and just became like rest of Hindustanis.

That is sick. Such thoughts dont prevail in the 21st century in India. And that is the reason why things liike "sati" and "child marraige" and "polygamy" are nearly extinct in India but still rampant in Pakistan and other arab countries. Just cause they celebrate holi, or diwali doesnt make them any lesser muslim. Religion is a belief not a rule.

Indian culture doesnt comprise of purely Hindu's or Muslims or Chritians. It is a mixture of all elements that govern this world. We have jews and Muslims staying together. We have Hindu's changing their religion to Muslim because love a particular Muslim woman.

We dont set self imposed restrictions inorder to abort our development. Take you friend China as an example. And listen to what Dalai Lama had to say about changing Chinese views about Tibetians.

BTW Pakistan was doing much better than India economically in the past.
Leaders like Zardaris/Sharifs, decades of war in neighboring Afghanistan, millions of Afghan refugees infiltrating into Pakistan, multiple wars with India over Kashmir, and billions spent on defense has made Pakistan poor today

They were all your actions. You had inititated all the wars and got defeated to cripple your economy even more. There is on point whining about it now. The grass always looks greener on the other side. No 'but's" and 'if''s are going to save Pakistan today.

 

[Omar1984]

That is sick. Such thoughts dont prevail in the 21st century in India. And that is the reason why things liike "sati" and "child marraige" and "polygamy" are nearly extinct in India but still rampant in Pakistan and other arab countries. .

Sati is Hindu tradition. India has 80% Hindu population, Pakistan has only 1% Hindu population.

Polygamy in India: http://www.defence.pk/forums/curren...a-brothers-share-wife-secure-family-land.html

Child marriages in India.

A child marriage session in a Hindu temple.

 

[third eye]

Nope. It was wrong. I too believed that partition was a good thing see'ing the present state and development of Pakistan. But i have been corrected in my views. Had partition not happened, Pakistan would not be in the state it is now.

Are you suggesting that there should have been no partition to save Pak or Western India as it would then have been ?

No No..

Partition was needed.. if not then there would be more political divisions in S Asia than what there are today.

If it weren't for Pak, the taliban would possibly be all over today. Think :

1. Would Jinnah & nehru agreed to a power sharing apparatus in undivided India ?
2. Would Congress & Muslim League ever seen eye to eye ?
3. Would land reforms have taken place in " Western India " as they have in the " rest of India " ?

..and so on.

Don't want to digress from the subject..

 

[godsavetheworld]

Sati is Hindu tradition. India has 80% Hindu population, Pakistan has only 1% Hindu population.

Polygamy in India: http://www.defence.pk/forums/curren...a-brothers-share-wife-secure-family-land.html

Child marriages in India.

A child marriage session in a Hindu temple.

Its not a tradition. These are isolated cases that is why they make news. Get your facts right

 

[Omar1984]

Its not a tradition. These are isolated cases that is why they make news. Get your facts right

No Muslim ever followed sati that came from Hinduism. You get your facts straight.

 

[Contrarian]

Partition had to happen. We see Indian "Muslims" today who celebrate holi, do pooja in Hindu temples, marry Hindu women and even Hindu men, they read and write in sanskrit instead of reading and writing in Urdu, they have lost their Muslim identity and just became like rest of Hindustanis.

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.

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.

Why is there protests to this day in Indian Occupied Kashmir, a Muslim majority region because Muslims are not Hindus and Muslims dont want to be treated like 2nd class citizen in an overwhelming Hindu majority nation.

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.

Partition had to happen, and if Mountbatten followed the rules of partition there would be no fightings between India and Pakistan today and there would be no nuclear weapons in Pakistan today, Pakistan would not be in the state it is now had Mountbatten followed the rules of partition and tried to be fair.

BTW Pakistan was doing much better than India economically in the past.
Leaders like Zardaris/Sharifs, decades of war in neighboring Afghanistan, millions of Afghan refugees infiltrating into Pakistan, multiple wars with India over Kashmir, and billions spent on defense has made Pakistan poor today.

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

 

[Contrarian]

Are you suggesting that there should have been no partition to save Pak or Western India as it would then have been ?

No No..

Partition was needed.. if not then there would be more political divisions in S Asia than what there are today.

If it weren't for Pak, the taliban would possibly be all over today. Think :

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.

1. Would Jinnah & nehru agreed to a power sharing apparatus in undivided 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.

2. Would Congress & Muslim League ever seen eye to eye ?
3. Would land reforms have taken place in " Western India " as they have in the " rest of India " ?

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.

 

[macintosh]

Jinah did a BS by insisting on Partition.Together India and Pak would have been not only a strong nation military but in Asia ours would have been a no.1 economy of which even china would have been jealous of.Together with a population of 1.2 billion and a distinctive reach to ASEAN and central Asia ours would have been a peaceful and a natural superpower with no terrorists.But jinnah did what is abhorrent and nehru just agreed to it becoz he wanted power as quickly as he would have.It is something that has made us fight with each other and destroy our economy which China is very happy to see that it has no formidable enemy in Asia.How much i want to go back in time and kill Jinah the day he was born so that a unified India pak become a realty and even U.S. would bow to us instead of using us.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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

You cannot just take one set of events, ignore everything else, and then conclude that A was a better option that woudl have prevented that specific set of events.

I would argue that had Mountbatten not influenced the partition in favor of India and schemed to give India access to Kashmir, we woudl not have the Kashmir dispute today, an therefore not be as hostile to each other, which woudl in turn have influenced events in the region differently.

Partition was the right thing to do, millions demanded it - how it was done was wrong and set the stage for future conflicts.

 

[spsk]

You cannot just take one set of events, ignore everything else, and then conclude that A was a better option that woudl have prevented that specific set of events.

I would argue that had Mountbatten not influenced the partition in favor of India and schemed to give India access to Kashmir, we woudl not have the Kashmir dispute today, an therefore not be as hostile to each other, which woudl in turn have influenced events in the region differently.

Partition was the right thing to do, millions demanded it - how it was done was wrong and set the stage for future conflicts.

Yes I agree with you partition had to happen, You cannot force people to be part of India o they don't have any common bonding, Accept it or not, Hinduism is a key bonding to India to make it united and not only Hinduism, Based on this religion we have got common culture , lifestyle and language and much more in common.

May be if we were united with out anything in common we could have been broken to pieces and lost our identity.

Yes English people made a crime against us by not doing this Partition properly which cost so many lives to both of us.

 

[Contrarian]

You cannot just take one set of events, ignore everything else, and then conclude that A was a better option that woudl have prevented that specific set of events.

I would argue that had Mountbatten not influenced the partition in favor of India and schemed to give India access to Kashmir, we woudl not have the Kashmir dispute today, an therefore not be as hostile to each other, which woudl in turn have influenced events in the region differently.

Punjab did not have a boundary dispute. Why were people slaughtered while crossing into India or Pakistan?

It goes deeper than Kashmir.

Partition was the right thing to do, millions demanded it - how it was done was wrong and set the stage for future conflicts.

It was the Britishers who in the first place started sowing seeds of communal discord between Hindu's and Muslims. It was the British who partitioned India and Pakistan. Insofar, as i see it, with proper democracy, land reforms, an undivided India would have been a far better option.

 

[notsuperstitious]

Hindus and muslims lived together for a thousand years, mostly under muslim rulers and british. however when a 'hindoo majority' free india became a reality, 'partition had to happen'.

Muslims had never lived under hindu rule, how did ML leaders conclude they could not live together? guilt conscience?