Reunification of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh

[jinxeD_girl]

That is actually incorrect, it was not a religious but a politcal fight. You actually had the pathans of NWFP area and the local punjabi muslims ally together to fight the mughals. On the other hand the mughals were allied with the mostly hindu rajputs. Among the marathas as well there were many muslim soldiers allied to them fighting against the mughal-rajput alliance.

So before the events of the 1940s the hindu-muslim animosity was nowhere near the level it was done. That did the most damage for relations between the two communities.


There is no doubt that there were some muslim rulers who indulged in looting of temples for profit contrary to the teachings of Islam. At the same time, Islam itself spread mainly due to efforts of sufis and saints.

Infact, the first muslim in the sub-continent was the King of present day Kerala who accepted Islam during the lifetime of the prophet Muhammed.

Consider this, out of the 80+ invasions that took place from the NW India. Only three incidents involved a muslim invader against a local Hindu ruler. Ghauri, Ghaznawi and Muhammed bin Qasim, in all other cases it was muslim invading against a muslim ruler, or a non-muslim against a non-muslim ruler.




That again proves the point that if both Hindus and Muslims in the sub-continent are mainly from the same ethnic stock

I will post an article written by some Bangladeshi... why partition was necessary especially for Bengali Muslims... he made some very good points...

I don't have time right now to scan and post the article...

 

[ASQ-1918]

Don't listen to "Abi". Azeris, neither the ones in Iran or Azerbaijan or elsewhere are not Iranic. We were called as Caspian Tatars before. Azeri is a new name.

Persians always discriminate, insult Iranian Azeris but when in discussion, apperantly they make them as "Iranic" to support their own discussion.

 

[Abi]

Don't listen to "Abi". Azeris, neither the ones in Iran or Azerbaijan or elsewhere are not Iranic. We were called as Caspian Tatars before. Azeri is a new name.

Persians always discriminate, insult Iranian Azeris but when in discussion, apperantly they make them as "Iranic" to support their own discussion.

Please go and spew your soviet propaganda elsewhere.

 

[ASQ-1918]

If the Indic people unite then would there be anything wrong with the Afghan people uniting? I mean, just because there are Afghan people (By Afghan people i mean Pashtuns and Baluch, although i am not sure if Baluch can be considered Afghans as well as Iranic) in Pakistan, does not mean the Indic people shouldn't unite, does it?

Then Iran should be splitted into peices.

There are 5 ones I can mention...

 

[Abi]

Then Iran should be splitted into peices.

Azeris in northwest

Turkmens in northeast

Kurds in west

Arabs in southwest

Balochs in south-east

See how much that was...

Reported. Like i said before, take your soviet propoganda elsewhere. This thread has nothing to do with Azeris or Azerbaijan.

 

[EjazR]

@Abi

There certainly will not be any political reunification like the German unification in the sub-continent. The most we can expect is strengthening of the SAARC type institution which would function like a south Asian EU of sorts. By the 1940s events were such that partition had to take place. And there are plenty of evidence of direct and indirect involvement of the British officials. It is no longer a matter of trying to reunite the subcontinent. What should be done is to look forward and work towards a regional co-operative council where external countries (outside south asia) don't interfere in the relations of neighboring countries.


And of course according to many Indian leaders including Gandhi, Abdul Gaffar Khan and Maulana Azad, the partition was considered to be not in the best interests of muslims or of India as a whole as it would stunt the growth of either. Especially because the basis of the partition was not some geographical or ethnic groups but religious which has only be used in the case of Israel.

There is an excellent book In the Shadow of the Great Game by the N.S. Sarila where he outlines from British and American declassified documents how the partition plan, including the fine details as which district will go where had already been drawn up by 1942 much before it was presented to the public. Pakistan was to be an ally of the British and the US against the USSR moving into the middle east and the perceived communist leaning India. If you look at the history of the past 50 years, Pakistan has been of the highest recipient of western military aid second only to Israel. Recently the same role has been taken up by China as well.

 

[Abi]

@Abi

There certainly will not be any political reunification like the German unification in the sub-continent. The most we can expect is strengthening of the SAARC type institution which would function like a south Asian EU of sorts. By the 1940s events were such that partition had to take place. And there are plenty of evidence of direct and indirect involvement of the British officials.


And of course according to many Indian leaders including Gandhi, Abdul Gaffar Khan and Maulana Azad, the partition was considered to be not in the best interests of muslims or of India as a whole as it would stunt the growth of either. Especially because the basis of the partition was not some geographical or ethnic groups but religious which has only be used in the case of Israel.

There is an excellent book In the Shadow of the Great Game by the N.S. Sarila where he outlines from British and American declassified documents how the partition plan, including the fine details as which district will go where had already been drawn up by 1942 much before it was presented to the public. Pakistan was to be an ally of the British and the US against the USSR moving into the middle east and the perceived communist leaning India. If you look at the history of the past 50 years, Pakistan has been of the highest recipient of western military aid second only to Israel. Recently the same role has been taken up by China as well.

Of course. Dividing countries was Britain's specialty. The Kashmir issue was also done by the British to stop the unification of India and Pakistan.

 

[ASQ-1918]

Reported. Like i said before, take your soviet propoganda elsewhere. This thread has nothing to do with Azeris or Azerbaijan.

You were the one talking about that. So go and read your own post and report yourself.

And Pakistani members here are all right about that.

Then Iran should be splitted into peices.

 

[Abi]

You were the one talking about that. So go and read your own post and report yourself.

And Pakistani members here are all right about that.

Then Iran should be splitted into peices.

Maybe you should read my post again. I was talking about "Unification" not splitting countries up.

Zakali, have you heard of talyshstan?

 

[ASQ-1918]

Maybe you should read my post again. I was talking about "Unification" not splitting countries up.

So when it dosen't suits you its "splitting countries up"?

It had the same meaning.

 

[Hussein]

You were the one talking about that. So go and read your own post and report yourself.

And Pakistani members here are all right about that.

Then Iran should be splitted into peices.

you mean the pan turk ones?
yeah they make lot of noise in Iran
sadly there are problems both in government behavior (insulting an hero a constitutional savior) and some pan turkists

ok it was a war between armenia and azerbaidjan
we supported armenians
but we should respect each other

none of kurds azeris have really a land that they own in Iran.
Persia was greater and already stolen by soviets and english
hey you didn't think we are tired of being cut into pieces?

you never heard about the Julius Cesar words
Divide to reign

So i think about India and Pakistan
more you fight each other more you are weakening your countries and loosing your energy
and some people of some countries are just so happy about this

 

[Young-khan]

Don't listen to "Abi". Azeris, neither the ones in Iran or Azerbaijan or elsewhere are not Iranic. We were called as Caspian Tatars before. Azeri is a new name.

Persians always discriminate, insult Iranian Azeris but when in discussion, apperantly they make them as "Iranic" to support their own discussion.

You are wright, they feel that central asia, afghanistan, and parts of pakistan is theirs.

Afghans and most central asians people are connected to what is now pakistan, punjabis and other pakistani ethnic groups carry turkic afghan blood. This started when the afghan and turks pushed toward what is punjab and other areas.

To so say a pakistani punjabi is only different in religion from an indian one is wrong. They are very different.

Only unification will be of pak afghania, indians like to give out this warm smile of tolerance and equality, however muslims are persecuted, mosques burnt, even christians attacked by dominant extreme hindus. look at partys like bjp and their policies to know what really india is about.

There was a reason for pakistan, its fine the way it is for time being, no connection with indic people but alot with turckic afghans, so only unification will be with that side.

 

[Hammy007]

this thread was started by an iranian so let it go to the direction where iranians want, but i must point out that mocking the creation of pakistan by saying that it was british conspiracy, abi and other members should thank that they are in such a good forum because everybody is allowed to express his opinion regardless of nationality and the level of tolerance here, imagine if it was an iranian forum, just imagine. this shows pakistanis are multiple times more open minded than iranians. narrow mindedness will lead iran your country no where, capesh? now continue with all BS and nonsense no one bothers u ppl now.

adeos

You are wright, they feel that central asia, afghanistan, and parts of pakistan is theirs.

Afghans and most central asians people are connected to what is now pakistan, punjabis and other pakistani ethnic groups carry turkic afghan blood. This started when the afghan and turks pushed toward what is punjab and other areas.

To so say a pakistani punjabi is only different in religion from an indian one is wrong. They are very different.

Only unification will be of pak afghania, indians like to give out this warm smile of tolerance and equality, however muslims are persecuted, mosques burnt, even christians attacked by dominant extreme hindus. look at partys like bjp and their policies to know what really india is about.

There was a reason for pakistan, its fine the way it is for time being, no connection with indic people but alot with turckic afghans, so only unification will be with that side.

young khan what its the weirdest thing i have ever heard putting all damn central asia and afghanistan with pakistan, how will you feed these people and control them, its the dumbest scenarios ever presented. why people worry about pakistan link it to afghanistan, iran india and even central asia is beyond imagination. though linkage with india is some what sensible as majority od pak population share ethnicity with them.

 

[jinxeD_girl]

@Abi

There certainly will not be any political reunification like the German unification in the sub-continent. The most we can expect is strengthening of the SAARC type institution which would function like a south Asian EU of sorts. By the 1940s events were such that partition had to take place. And there are plenty of evidence of direct and indirect involvement of the British officials. It is no longer a matter of trying to reunite the subcontinent. What should be done is to look forward and work towards a regional co-operative council where external countries (outside south asia) don't interfere in the relations of neighboring countries.


And of course according to many Indian leaders including Gandhi, Abdul Gaffar Khan and Maulana Azad, the partition was considered to be not in the best interests of muslims or of India as a whole as it would stunt the growth of either. Especially because the basis of the partition was not some geographical or ethnic groups but religious which has only be used in the case of Israel.

There is an excellent book In the Shadow of the Great Game by the N.S. Sarila where he outlines from British and American declassified documents how the partition plan, including the fine details as which district will go where had already been drawn up by 1942 much before it was presented to the public. Pakistan was to be an ally of the British and the US against the USSR moving into the middle east and the perceived communist leaning India. If you look at the history of the past 50 years, Pakistan has been of the highest recipient of western military aid second only to Israel. Recently the same role has been taken up by China as well.

Please don't compare us with Israel.... Unlike Israel... Muslims of North Western Provinces are NATIVE to their lands (not imported from Russia or Germany) and were in majority (only those areas were given to Pakistan where muslims were >80%) and are living there for thousand of years... so it is for us to decide whatever we want to do with our lands..

Having said that the partition movement was started by elite Indian Muslims and Bengalies for the most part... (not people from North Western state who already had a muslim majority and were not threatened by Hindus)... last time i checked both Jinnah and Gandhi were from Indian Gujarat.. am i right?

 

[jinxeD_girl]

Of course. Dividing countries was Britain's specialty. The Kashmir issue was also done by the British to stop the unification of India and Pakistan.

It was not British conspiracy... although they did fuel the fire on Hindu-Muslim relationship...

Muslims were ruling India for thousand of years... when British came... they defeated the Muslim rulers i.e. Mughals.. because of that Muslims of India refused to learn english language and started opposing everything British.. On the other hand... for Hindus it was just a change of power from Muslims to British.. they started taking all the opportunities offered by British.. and by the end of the century the gap between Hindus and Muslims have increased dramatically... And that was the reason for creating a separate homeland for Muslims.. even now... Hindus are better educated as compared to Muslims of Pakistan, India or Bangladesh...

I don't know if I worded all of the above correctly... but it is written very nicely by a Bengali Muslim... I will post the article whenever I have time...