proposal for a new division of south asia

[abjktu]

I heard most of the Malayalis study in CBSE schools in the gulf.

Not sure...But there are few Kerala board(Malayalam/English medium)schools in Gulf area...

 

[$@rJen]

Well most of the Tamils like @Sriram love to work in Bangalore instead of Chennai, I can't understand what he is bragging about.

Because Chennai is very very hot... And Bangalore is damn cool to be and the lifestyle here is awesome

 

[Kinetic]

Now, west has controlled Pakistan first and now it is India's turn.

They couldn't do it when we were weak, they will not be do it when we are strong.

Indians have a great tendency and characteristics of even defining the greatest friendships. We always keep some distances.

Also, contrary to Sir @Joe Shearer view that Brits were anti-Hindu, I would say the Brits were exceptionally pro-Hindu. They gave the Hindus a united political entity in India -- something which hadn't existed for thousands of years. As noted above, this was very uncharacteristic;.the standard colonial practice was to create a mosaic of small countries, deliberately carved out to create mischief for years to come.

I don't agree with this. If you read the history of fighting against british at that time, they were predominantly Hindus and Congress not anyone from Muslim League. And British didn't gave the whole Inbdia, they gave what they had. Vast areas were controlled by kings and other foreign colonies. GoI under leadership of Sarder Patel united India one by one.

 

[abjktu]

Well most of the Tamils like @Sriram love to work in Bangalore instead of Chennai, I can't understand what he is bragging about.

Hindi is not needed in Bangalore..I too working near Bangalore..I speak Kannada and some times Tamil..Tamil is widely understood..
Tamils are around 27% of Bangalore and they are also one of the earliest settlers..
Moreover Bangalore is only 30 km from Tamilnadu border...

 

[INDIC]

Not sure...But there are few Kerala board(Malayalam/English medium)schools in Gulf area...

most of the gulf Malayalis during college days were CBSE guys and the CBSE educated South Indians speak very fluent Hindi. Although most of the time they spoke English and dressed like dudes.

 

[faisal6309]

They couldn't do it when we were weak, they will not be do it when we are strong.

Indians have a great tendency and characteristics of even defining the greatest friendships. We always keep some distances

Let's see. But it seems like your getting more in hands of west.

 

[INDIC]

Hindi is not needed in Bangalore..I too working near Bangalore..I speak Kannada and some times Tamil..Tamil is widely understood..
Tamils are around 27% of Bangalore and they are also one of the earliest settlers..
Moreover Bangalore is only 30 km from Tamilnadu border...

I know it, many of my colleagues used to speak in Tamil at many locations. Although Hindi was enough for me, even you speak English, the guys in the front started speaking Hindi. Even in North Karnataka, Hindi was enough.

 

[Judge]

I think even Ayub Khan had also proposed a joint Indo-Pak defense agreement , in a federation with two autonomous province & Quaid e Azam Md.Ali Jinnah as its prime minister, the Quaid would almost certainly make sure that the arm forces had the maximum numbers of Muslims , & that would be the masterstroke with which, the power of running federal India would ultimately favour the Muslims , it was the best solution ,which power hungry Nehru & the ever deceitful British had to ruin it, & they did

he who has the Army, has the keys to Authority !

Also one of the reasons why it would not have worked.
Hindus would not agree to have more Muslims in the Army than Hindus. It would at best have to be proportional representation - which again would favour Hindus and Sikhs.
Mr borgza, you are trying and thinking of a way in which Muslims can sort of hijack the steering wheel of United India, whereas Hindus would never agree to that. The days of one King ruling over and favouring 'his people' are over and can not be repeated.

Blaming Nehru for ensuring that Muslims were not able to become the drivers of a United India is not going to work. Its exactly like Hindus blaming Nehru for not keeping India United, while ensuring that Muslims were never given any important political or military post.

Lastly, the statement of he who has the Army has the power is wrong and better suited to failed states or medieval states. India and almost all Western democracies are examples that the Man who controls the Army has no political power at all. Army is entirely subservient to the polity and has zero political capital.

 

[abjktu]

I know it, many of my colleagues used to speak in Tamil at many locations. Although Hindi was enough for me, even you speak English, the guys in the front started speaking Hindi. Even in North Karnataka, Hindi was enough.

North Karnataka is more close to NI culture..Even in their food habits,dressing styles too..
Hindi is also widely understood,especially in the Bangalore main city limits...A lot of business establishments,textiles,shops,jewelry are owned by Punjabis and Gujaratis..

 

[Judge]

If Britain wanted to retard the spread of socialism/communism in the region, it would have created a dozen states in the subcontinent which would continually be at each other's throats, not posing a threat to anyone outside the region. That's what the Brits did in the Middle East, Africa and the rest of their dominions.

The Brits did give a balkalized India.

They wanted to be out and they got out while giving the more than 500 kingdoms the option of choosing to be independent. Almost ALL of whom were choosing independence!

The Britishers and almost the entire Western world did not support India when India was trying to take back Goa, Daman, Diu, Sikkim!

It was Indian political leaders who maneuvered and got all the dissenting kingdoms to join India by hook or crook leaving only 2 areas separated - Bangladesh and Pakistan.What exactly do you think Sardar Patel's full time job was? That is the difference between us and the other colonies in Africa and Middle East. We worked on our country/subcontinent after the British left, the Arabs got kings and queens who didn't.

What the British wanted was so many smaller kingdoms so as to keep India eternally occupied in itself and many different areas with which they could continue to exert influence on India.

I have seen you tend to keep doing this - give credit to Britishers for the successful work Indians did in being able to thwart British designs...and take it as British benevolence.

 

[timetravel]

I know this mate , it was Nehru & his lust for power who rejected it, you will be amazed to learn that it was Qauid-e-Azam Md.Ali Jinnah & Mahatma Gandhi, who agreed to the cabinet mission plan , when Gandhi ji supported Md.Ali Jinnah in this, Nehru felt betrayed by Gandhi (note the role of Gandhi in negotiation with the British, diminished considerably after that , as Nehru made sure that Gandhi becomes symbolic rather then have a say in political matters in the real term) in fact the cabinet mission plan was the undisputed victory of both Qauid-e-Azam & Allama Iqbal , as the struggle from the beginning was to secure two large autonomous provinces within the framework of a federation , I think even Ayub Khan had also proposed a joint Indo-Pak defense agreement , in a federation with two autonomous province & Quaid e Azam Md.Ali Jinnah as its prime minister, the Quaid would almost certainly make sure that the arm forces had the maximum numbers of Muslims , & that would be the masterstroke with which, the power of running federal India would ultimately favour the Muslims , it was the best solution ,which power hungry Nehru & the ever deceitful British had to ruin it, & they did

he who has the Army, has the keys to Authority !

This is why Nehru didn't agree to the plan and correctly so.

From the beginning you could see, Jinnah had no intention of unity. He only intended to ensure Muslim rule over sub continent in the disguise of his evil plan.

One nation means no discrimination on bases on religion (caste, colour, region). Jinnah's plan was based on discrimination based on religion. You cannot be living in a democracy and have different rules for different religions.

His plan was incapable to integrate the country, but would only encourage more division and civil war.

Why do Muslims have problem in living under same rules as every citizen of the country? Why he needs special privileges for Muslims in united India? why cannot Muslims live like everyone else? Why Muslims want to be in Majority in Army? Why they want everything based on Religion? and why Muslims need a Majority Muslim army in a Hindu majority nation. Is it to try and do what they did to non Muslims in Pakistan in whole subcontinent?

Nehru was absolutely right in rejecting such a discriminatory plan for special benefits to Muslims.

It's good division happened, what Jinnah was demanding was absolutely unreasonable and non consistent with democratic and secular values.

Even in future if there is to be an integration of Pak, India, BD in any way- it would best be an economic integration, and never a political one. For a political integration would mean the very idea of division was flawed and Jinnah was wrong in asking for a separate country based on religion.

The very start for a political integration, starts with the acceptance that partition was wrong. Any political integration would only happen under secular and democratic values. No special privileges for Muslims and no Islamic constitution or Islamic republic.

So the Muslims of the Pak and BD would have to change for that. With their present attitude towards religion and their desire to insert religion into every aspect of the social fabric of a country thus making no distinction between religion and state, it is not possible to have a political integration of the region.

Yes we can have a economic integration. And in future if Muslims can look beyond their religion in life, then we can think of political integration.

 

[INDIC]

This is why Nehru didn't agree to the plan and correctly so.

From the beginning you could see, Jinnah had no intention of unity. He only intended to ensure Muslim rule over sub continent in the disguise of his evil plan.

One nation means no discrimination on bases on religion (caste, colour, region). Jinnah's plan was based on discrimination based on religion. You cannot be living in a democracy and have different rules for different religions.

His plan was incapable to integrate the country, but would only encourage more division and civil war.

Why do Muslims have problem in living under same rules as every citizen of the country? Why he needs special privileges for Muslims in united India?
why cannot Muslims live like everyone else? Why Muslims want to be in Majority in Army? Why they want everything based on Religion?

and why Muslims need a Majorty Muslim army in a Hindu majority nation. Is it to try and do what they did to non Muslims in Pakistan in whole subcontinent?

Nehru was absolutely right in rejecting such a discriminatory plan for special benefits to Muslims.

It's good division happened, what Jinnah was demanding was absolutely unreasonable and non consistent with democratic and secular values.

If partition hadn't happened, we would never get rid of communal electorate and couldn't have push for key reforms like framing constitution in record time, integration of princely states, state reorganization based on languages, abolishing feudalism and consensus on official languages. Like Muslims league would have allowed muslim ruled princely completely merging in India or wouldn't have allowed removal Hindi majority Haryana and Himachal from Muslim majority Punjab or dividing Hyderbad during the creation of language states.

Partition brought greater stability which was not possible with incompetent Muslim League.

 

[Developereo]

And British didn't gave the whole Inbdia, they gave what they had. Vast areas were controlled by kings and other foreign colonies. GoI under leadership of Sarder Patel united India one by one.

The Brits could have divided British India into independent countries called Bengal, Bihar, Assam, UP, Punjab, Madras, etc.

This is what they did in the rest of their empire.

The princely states would have had no single entity to which they could attach.

The Brits did give a balkalized India.

See above.

If the princely states did not have a large dominating entity into which they could coalesce, it would have turned out very differently.

 

[dray]

Im all for it

Bangladesh, WB, Odissa, Bihar, UP, Chattishgar, Sikkim, Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Nagaland, Mizoram, AP, Tripura

The East Zone.

Yeah! Followed by another round of mass-killing and large-scale exodus of Hindus from these regions, right?

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Oh please. I have seen what socialists have done to Kerala. And have done to other nations. Please don't throw me in with their lot.

I speculated pre-independence division of India. But, any division of India now is not at all feasible. As an example, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala have water disputes among them. It is the Indian Union and the Supreme court apparatus they look to solve the solutions.

I oppose any splits now, as it will be bloody and messy.

Nnnnnnnnooppe too late. We have evidence against you that your a closet commie