Role of Indian Muslims in partition

[Pakistani Fighter]

Man I wish Dehli and West UP had been given to Pakistan as quaid wanted. Situation would had been so different

 

[Cliftonite]

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

Countries are ruled by a collective psyche. By and large, Pakistan east of the Indus and North India are the most similar culturally in all of the subcontinent. But the horrors of partition and the Kashmir issue dealt such a strong blow to the collective psyches of both nations that now this huge divide lays between them.

 

[ChennaiDude]

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.

As riots spread to other cities and the number of casualties escalated, the leaders of the Congress Party, who had initially opposed Partition, began to see it as the only way to rid themselves of the troublesome Jinnah and his Muslim League.

In a speech in April, 1947, Nehru said, “I want that those who stand as an obstacle in our way should go their own way.” Likewise, the British realized that they had lost any remaining vestiges of control and began to speed up their exit strategy.

On the afternoon of February 20, 1947, the British Prime Minister, Clement Atlee, announced before Parliament that British rule would end on “a date not later than June, 1948.” If Nehru and Jinnah could be reconciled by then, power would be transferred to “some form of central Government for British India.” If not, they would hand over authority “in such other way as may seem most reasonable and in the best interests of the Indian people.”

In early June, Mountbatten stunned everyone by announcing August 15, 1947, as the date for the transfer of power—ten months earlier than expected. The reasons for this haste are still the subject of debate, but it is probable that Mountbatten wanted to shock the quarreling parties into realizing that they were hurtling toward a sectarian precipice. However, the rush only exacerbated the chaos.

Cyril Radcliffe, a British judge assigned to draw the borders of the two new states, was given barely forty days to remake the map of South Asia. The borders were finally announced two days after India’s Independence.

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

 

[Cliftonite]

Man I wish Dehli and West UP had been given to Pakistan as quaid wanted. Situation would had been so different

We should have gotten undivided Bengal and Punjab as they were rightfully Muslim majority. Many of the horrors of partition could have been averted.

 

[ChennaiDude]

Countries are ruled by a collective psyche. By and large, Pakistan east of the Indus and North India are the most similar culturally in all of the subcontinent. But the horrors of partition and the Kashmir issue dealt such a strong blow to the collective psyches of both nations that now this huge divide lays between them.

I would have preferred a shared governance for a period of 5 years and then figure out a way to work out a peaceful partition that would have been bloodless.

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

We should have gotten undivided Bengal and Punjab as they were rightfully Muslim majority. Many of the horrors of partition could have been averted.

How was the situation during partition in Bengal? Indian Punjab's Muslim population was wiped out and there are very less Muslims in Indian Punjab on contrary to West Bengal

 

[ChennaiDude]

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.

You still can make this a reality you are educated now and anyway have moved out of India- "Pursuit of Happiness"- Hopefully the land you now live on is also a Muslim ruled one!

 

[Mad Scientist 2.0]

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

First and foremost what you said has a hint of truth at that time majority muslims don't voted . However I am not convinced to the fact that muslims would be any better off today if the country were united. You missed the fact that the seeds of communalism were there the major political leaders supported that because after getting subjugated by both muslim rulers and britishers they need some glorious past to unite themselves and that is how the seeds of communalism has been seeded and with time it became firmer. Intelligent muslims saw that and they knew it won't end well. Jinnah who was once named champion of unity during 1916 congress season won't change his views so drastically over time. He knew what is there to come.

The facts remained that even if country is united the so called majoritarians won't leave the muslims remain as equal citizens given their vengeful mind they won't be satisfied until or unless they get the revenge for 1000 years muslim rule. You may counter muslims would be much more in population but that will be hardly 1/3 rd at max, two third will be in the hands of them so in this unequal scenario muslims would loose much more than to gain anything.

That is why even with glimmer of sadness I feel that due to Pak and Bd the light of Islam in subcontinent would not be vanished, in India within a few decades it would vanish . Call me pessimistic but that is how it is.Cause if it were united all would have perished together and there would not be any muslims left to light the candle. I guess that is what the best probable scenario even though we may or may not like it.

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

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

Many Muslims like Abul Kalam Azad and that Maulana which opposed Assam to join Pakistan

 

[xeuss]

It's been over 70 years. Move on from this topic and focus what to do now with the existential threat that we are facing.

 

[Cliftonite]

How was the situation during partition in Bengal? Indian Punjab's Muslim population was wiped out and there are very less Muslims in Indian Punjab on contrary to West Bengal

It was not nearly half as bad. Neither was the migration to and from Sindh. Much of the violence inflicted during partition was one sided on the Muslims by the Sikhs and Hindus, mainly in the Punjab and Western UP/Delhi.

Many Muslims like Abul Kalam Azad and that Maulana which opposed Assam to join Pakistan

Which Moulana?

 

[Naofumi]

First and foremost what you said has a hint of truth at that time majority muslims don't voted . However I am not convinced to the fact that muslims would be any better off today if the country were united. You missed the fact that the seeds of communalism were there the major political leaders supported that because after getting subjugated by both muslim rulers and britishers they need some glorious past to unite themselves and that is how the seeds of communalism has been seeded and with time it became firmer. Intelligent muslims saw that and they knew it won't end well. Jinnah who was once named champion of unity during 1916 congress season won't change his views so drastically over time. He knew what is there to come.

The facts remained that even if country is united the so called majoritarians won't leave the muslims remain as equal citizens given their vengeful mind they won't be satisfied until or unless they get the revenge for 1000 years muslim rule. You may counter muslims would be much more in population but that will be hardly 1/3 rd at max, two third will be in the hands of them so in this unequal scenario muslims would loose much more than to gain anything.

That is why even with glimmer of sadness I feel that due to Pak and Bd the light of Islam in subcontinent would not be vanished, in India within a few decades it would vanish . Call me pessimistic but that is how it is.Cause if it were united all would have perished together and there would not be any muslims left to light the candle. I guess that is what the best probable scenario even though we may or may not like it.

1) Muslims were not marginalised like now as I said

33% of Army and 40% of UP police force.

2) Not only population matters but the representation does, today Muslims form minority in nearly every district, so legislative representation suffers. Not so was the case pre-1947.
3) Rise of Sangh as inevitable is disputed according to me as it have reactionary elements too.
4) This post was more of a clarification about a historical myth.

Many Muslims like Abul Kalam Azad and that Maulana which opposed Assam to join Pakistan

It's comical that NW frontier was the only province where ML lost.

 

[Mad Scientist 2.0]

1) Muslims were not marginalised like now as I said

2) Not only population matters but the representation does, today Muslims form minority in nearly every district, so legislative representation suffers. Not so was the case pre-1947.
3) Rise of Sangh as inevitable is disputed according to me as it have reactionary elements too.
4) This post was more of a clarification about a historical myth.


View attachment 633397

It's comical that NW frontier was the only province where ML lost.

It would be same ,systematic exclusion step by step.

 

[MayaBazar]

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

Of course Only the rich Muslims had the voting rights and they had the resources to migrate & start a life fresh.

So majority of the people who migrated to Pakistan are rich Muslims and majority of the people who stayed back are the poor Muslims, with the exception of the border states.

Now it is debatable if the Muslims who stayed back in India were forced to stay back due to lack of resources or they stay backed because they wanted to continue to live in India. No one wants to leave their birth place. And for Muslims in the south, the difference in language and culture was a big barrier. Also, except for some border areas like in Punjab & Bengal, the relations between Hindus and Muslims were not bad at all in other parts of the country.

But there are many rich Muslims who stayed back too, prominently the family of Jinnah.

Also, you need to consider that India-Pak relations were not bad in the initial years. Heck, Indo-Pak border was not even closed until the war of 1965. People were moving back and forth across the border until then with no visas.

 

[AfrazulMandal]

1) Muslims were not marginalised like now as I said

2) Not only population matters but the representation does, today Muslims form minority in nearly every district, so legislative representation suffers. Not so was the case pre-1947.
3) Rise of Sangh as inevitable is disputed according to me as it have reactionary elements too.
4) This post was more of a clarification about a historical myth.


View attachment 633397

It's comical that NW frontier was the only province where ML lost.

100% from Madras voted for ML.

@ChennaiDude Muslims then knew you could not be trusted even in 1946!!!

I don't mean 'you' as you, of course. General society.