Role of Indian Muslims in partition

[Naofumi]

It's usually touted by Hindutvavadis that Indian Muslims voted for Muslim league but did not leave the land, on the other hand Pakistani side claim that Indian Muslims chose India because they thought it will secular. So, what's the truth?

1) Voting rights were based on wealth and property and were limited to a restricted population 3% could vote in the general elections and 13% in provincial ones. I believe that it was the Muslim part of this elite that decided partition by voting for the league and then they migrated to Pakistan too (Muhajirs).

2) Secondly, the literacy rate of Muslims was 6.4% at 1931 census (1941 was too unreliable), and assuming that literates were mainly those with voting rights, I conclude the illiterates can't understand what secular even mean or Islamic state or Hindu Rashtra, they were too ill-informed and were not masters of their fates, their fates were decided by those who leaved them to their fates.

@Joe Shearer @Nilgiri @Cliftonite @Pakistani Fighter @xeuss @AfrazulMandal @jamahir @Suriya @Soumitra @MayaBazar

 

[Cliftonite]

It's usually touted by Hindutvavadis that Indian Muslims voted for Muslim league but did not leave the land, on the other hand Pakistani side claim that Indian Muslims chose India because they thought it will secular. So, what's the truth?

1) Voting rights were based on wealth and property and were limited to a restricted population 3% could vote in the general elections and 13% in provincial ones. I believe that it was the Muslim part of this elite that decided partition by voting for the league and then they migrated to Pakistan too (Muhajirs).

2) Secondly, the literacy rate of Muslims was 6.4% at 1931 census (1941 was too unreliable), and assuming that literates were mainly those with voting rights, I conclude the illiterates can't understand what secular even mean or Islamic state or Hindu Rashtra, they were too ill-informed and were not masters of their fates, their fates were decided by those who leaved them to their fates.

@Joe Shearer @Nilgiri @Cliftonite @Pakistani Fighter @xeuss @AfrazulMandal @jamahir @Suriya @Soumitra @MayaBazar

I have some extended relatives in India. They live in old Delhi near Chandni Chowk. It simply wasn't feasible for many to move. My nana left his business in Delhi and moved to Pakistan, his sister and brother in law weren't willing to leave everything behind for a new country. They were patriotic Indians. One of their daughters married my uncle and came to Pakistan in the early 80s from Delhi and she still considered India her home country. Its only after these few years that she has started thanking her stars. She's living a well to do upper class life in Karachi, her brothers have gotten poorer and further ghettoized.

 

[Naofumi]

I have some extended relatives in India. They live in old Delhi near Chandni Chowk. It simply wasn't feasible for many to move. My nana left his business in Delhi and moved to Pakistan, his sister and brother in law weren't willing to leave everything behind for a new country. They were patriotic Indians. One of their daughters married my uncle and came to Pakistan in the early 80s from Delhi and she still considered India her home country. Its only after these few years that she has started thanking her stars. She's living a well to do upper class life in Karachi, her brothers have gotten poorer and further ghettoized.

It's about who decided partition, my ancestors didn't - they were poor and illiterate. Neither they decided to stay in India, they were too ill-equipped for that too.
And statistically, this story was much more prevalent as I pointed in the above stats.

 

[AfrazulMandal]

It's usually touted by Hindutvavadis that Indian Muslims voted for Muslim league but did not leave the land, on the other hand Pakistani side claim that Indian Muslims chose India because they thought it will secular. So, what's the truth?

1) Voting rights were based on wealth and property and were limited to a restricted population 3% could vote in the general elections and 13% in provincial ones. I believe that it was the Muslim part of this elite that decided partition by voting for the league and then they migrated to Pakistan too (Muhajirs).

2) Secondly, the literacy rate of Muslims was 6.4% at 1931 census (1941 was too unreliable), and assuming that literates were mainly those with voting rights, I conclude the illiterates can't understand what secular even mean or Islamic state or Hindu Rashtra, they were too ill-informed and were not masters of their fates, their fates were decided by those who leaved them to their fates.

@Joe Shearer @Nilgiri @Cliftonite @Pakistani Fighter @xeuss @AfrazulMandal @jamahir @Suriya @Soumitra @MayaBazar

This is a non issue.

I don't think the lack of universal suffrage was the issue. The vast majority of educated Muslims could see what Hindu rule meant - and they voted for those who promised to deliver them.

You cannot blame them, they decided based on the the facts that were out then.

In retrospect, cant say they were wrong either.

 

[Cliftonite]

It's about who decided partition, my ancestors didn't - they were poor and illiterate. Neither they decided to stay in India, they were too ill-equipped for that too.
And statistically, this story was much more prevalent as I pointed in the above stats.

It's simply fate who ended where. 72 years guzar gaye. We can think of alternative history of what could have been done better. I know some rich Indian Muslims, like my nana's sister who stayed back. OTOH my dada and dadi, both poor workers from UP migrated, that too at great peril to their life.

 

[Naofumi]

This is a non issue.

I don't think the lack of universal suffrage was the issue. The vast majority of educated Muslims could see what Hindu rule meant - and they voted for those who promised to deliver them.

You cannot blame them, they decided based on the the facts that were out then.

In retrospect, cant say they were wrong either.

Firstly, my post counters the Sanghi's claims that "Indian Muslims chose partition and still stay in India", majority had no say. Secondly, neither my ancestors knew anything about secularism or theocracy.

Now, coming to your point - they were too blame surely, they knew exactly that these regions would never go to Pakistan but they voted for it, why? Selfishness, they didn't cared what would happen to the rest of the population who would be inevitably left behind because they were sure that they will settle in Pakistan.

 

[Cliftonite]

Firstly, my post counters the Sanghi's claims that "Indian Muslims chose partition and still stay in India", majority had no say. Secondly, neither my ancestors knew anything about secularism or theocracy.

Now, coming to your point - they were too blame surely, they knew exactly that these regions would never go to Pakistan but they voted for it, why? Selfishness, they didn't cared what would happen to the rest of the population who would be inevitably left behind because they were sure that they will settle in Pakistan.

@Naofumi hanging onto the past will get you nothing. Say you got a chance to emigrate out of today's Islamophobic India, would you not take the chance? Many did the same in '47. You can be like those Jamaat e Islami folks and wax rhetoric about those old days or you know set up a contingency plan for the future.

 

[Naofumi]

Say you got a chance to emigrate out of today's Islamophobic India, would you not take the chance? Many did the same in '47.

The situation is not exactly comparable, they could have migrated Punjab/Sindh/Bengal or a different country altogether like Iran or west. And if I immigrate, then I am not going to make the life worse for those who can't by giving Hindu nationalists a political stick to beat them eternally. Secondly, It's not about past, many use these claims for political benefits (Sanghis) and self-gratification (you know who), hence the clarification.

 

[Cliftonite]

The situation is not exactly comparable, they could have migrated Punjab/Sindh/Bengal or a different country altogether like Iran or west. And if I immigrate, then I am not going to make the life worse for those who can't by giving Hindu nationalists a political stick to beat them eternally. Secondly, It's not about past, many use these claims for political benefits (Sanghis) and self-gratification (you know who), hence the clarification.

Again all of this is just 'what ifs'. I can sympathize with you a bit. India's beef with Pakistan and Kashmir does certainly add to more Islamophobia for Indian Muslims. But if it had not been that, then the damn H**dus would have found some other reason to bully you. Their hate doesn't even stop at Pakistan, the bhakts have started targetting GCC and Turkey too. They are basically cucked and butthurt over the fact that their Bharat Mata was ruled by Muslims for centuries and that's where the anger stems from. Thats why they renamed Allahabad as Prayagraj and all these Star Plus type antics. I'm surprised why you drank the kool aid and fell for their Hindu Muslim bhai bhai crap for 70 years. Look to the future and what can be done now.

 

[AfrazulMandal]

Ideally India should have reverted to a parliamentary Islamic Union

Now, coming to your point - they were too blame surely, they knew exactly that these regions would never go to Pakistan but they voted for it, why? Selfishness, they didn't cared what would happen to the rest of the population who would be inevitably left behind because they were sure that they will settle in Pakistan.

I think they just wanted to ensure that the Muslims who WOULD be free would be able to make their lives better without Sanghi terror.

These were great sacrifices. They voted so that generations in Pakistan and Bangladesh can eat what they want without worry. Knowing fully well that they would not be able to move.

@xeuss

 

[Naofumi]

that they would not be able to move.

They moved - the Muhajirs. You missed the entire point by missing this fact.

I think they just wanted to ensure that the Muslims who WOULD be free would be able to make their lives better without Sanghi terror.

There was no Sanghi terror then, in fact Muslims were overrepresented at that time - 33% of Army and 40% of UP police force. All these guys voted for league and migrated.

 

[jamahir]

@Naofumi, like @Cliftonite said, I think it's time to move on from the actually unnecessary tragedy called the Partition.

I have an article pending for management editing in the new magazine section. The article is my take about how to bring peace between India and Pakistan.

But I know of a Bollywood film called Mammo which is about people caught between the India-Pakistan divide. This is the YouTube copy.

 

[Naofumi]

@Naofumi, like @Cliftonite said, I think it's time to move on from the actually unnecessary tragedy called the Partition.

I have an article pending for management editing in the new magazine section. The article is my take about how to bring peace between India and Pakistan.

But I know of a Bollywood film called Mammo which is about people caught between the India-Pakistan divide. This is the YouTube copy.

I have already explained the intention behind this post.

It's not about past, many use these claims for political benefits (Sanghis) and self-gratification (you know who), hence the clarification.

​

 

[Cliftonite]

Muslims from Hindu majority provinces had no power to decide whether Pakistan will be formed or not. It was the Muslim majority provinces like Bengal, Punjab, Sindh who forced the British and Congress to accept partition. And population exchange was not part of the partition plan. Nobody even thought about it in their negotiations. If population exchange were to considered then Muslim League would have never accepted the Congress demand of bifurcating Muslim majority provinces of Bengal and Punjab. Muslim League would have remain steadfast at securing whole Bengal and Punjab to accommodate vast Indian Muslim population living as a minority. As this did not happened and Congress managed to divide Bengal and Punjab, accommodating that large number of Indian Muslims became impractical for moth eaten Pakistan. So Indian Muslims are very much inseparable part of their country and they need no apology to offer for their decision to stay in India. The riot laden population fleeing that happened after the partition was totally evil, monstrous and nobody in top leadership wanted that. Those were criminal acts and those who advocate total transfer of Hindus to India and Muslims to Pakistan are criminal. Current Hindutva scums are criminal too for propagating such hate filled theory.

I believe India, Pakistan and Bangladesh should come into terms and rectify that injustice somewhat by allowing the Hindus and Sikhs(and their descendants) who were forced to flee to India to return to their original places in Pakistan and Bangladesh as much as possible and Muslims and their descendants to India as well. Not many partition victims will be able to do that but it's option should be remain open to heal the wounds. Partition do not need to be an affair of ethnic cleansing of minorities. What do you think @Joe Shearer ?

The partition could have been less messy if they adopted a 2-3 year timeframe like Brexit. But alas what's done is done.

 

[ChennaiDude]

I have some extended relatives in India. They live in old Delhi near Chandni Chowk. It simply wasn't feasible for many to move. My nana left his business in Delhi and moved to Pakistan, his sister and brother in law weren't willing to leave everything behind for a new country. They were patriotic Indians. One of their daughters married my uncle and came to Pakistan in the early 80s from Delhi and she still considered India her home country. Its only after these few years that she has started thanking her stars. She's living a well to do upper class life in Karachi, her brothers have gotten poorer and further ghettoized.

Today, both India and Pakistan remain crippled by the narratives built around memories of the crimes of Partition, as politicians (particularly in India) and the military (particularly in Pakistan) continue to stoke the hatreds of 1947 for their own ends.

“It is well past time that the heirs to Nehru and Jinnah finally put 1947’s furies to rest.” But the current picture is not encouraging. In Delhi, a hard-line right-wing government rejects dialogue with Islamabad. Both countries find themselves more vulnerable than ever to religious extremism. In a sense, 1947 has yet to come to an end.

Two or three years after the 1947 Partition, it occurred to the governments of India and Pakistan to exchange their lunatics in the same manner as they had exchanged their criminals. The Muslim lunatics in India were to be sent over to Pakistan and the Hindu and Sikh lunatics in Pakistani asylums were to be handed over to India.

It was difficult to say whether the proposal made any sense or not. However, the decision had been taken at the topmost level on both sides.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/06/29/the-great-divide-books-dalrymple