Splitting India

[Armstrong]

Waisee I wonder why the same zeal isn't shown when asking the question - Whether India & Pakistan should've gain their freedom from the British to beginwith ?

53% of Indians & 49% of Pakistanis living below the Poverty Line, an embarrassingly low HDI of 136 (India) & 146 (Pakistan) & a myriad social problems to have besought both India & Pakistan ranging from female foetus infanticide to rape to communalism to sectarianism to rampant corruption, moral degradation, extremism, grave gender inequality ( India - 0.610 & Pakistan - 0.567), unemployment, income inequality etc. - Hardly lend any credence to Economic or Social Emancipation being the reason why we parted ways with the British !

Heck it might even be argued that, as the British changed their ways much...much sooner than we did & genuinely tackled the issues facing them, it might not be unreasonable to assume under the Brits we might even have progressed further ahead !

Or maybe at the end of the day its never about anything more than 'Popular Will & Want' - Its your land, your people & your future....you want it 'thus' - Take it....you don't have to justify anything !

' @Secur @jaibi @Hyperion @genmirajborgza786 @hinduguy @Dillinger @Ayush @third eye @p(-)0ENiX

 

[livingdead]

Waisee I wonder why the same zeal isn't shown when asking the question - Whether India & Pakistan should've gain their freedom from the British to beginwith ?

53% of Indians & 49% of Pakistanis living below the Poverty Line, an embarrassingly low HDI of 136 (India) & 146 (Pakistan) & a myriad social problems to have besought both India & Pakistan ranging from female foetus infanticide to rape to communalism to sectarianism to rampant corruption, moral degradation, extremism, grave gender inequality ( India - 0.610 & Pakistan - 0.567), unemployment, income inequality etc. - Hardly lend any credence to Economic or Social Emancipation being the reason why we parted ways with the British !

Heck it might even be argued that, as the British changed their ways much...much sooner than we did & genuinely tackled the issues facing them, it might not be unreasonable to assume under the Brits we might even have progressed further ahead !

Or maybe at the end of the day its never about anything more than 'Popular Will & Want' - Its your land, your people & your future....you want it 'thus' - Take it....you don't have to justify anything !

' @Secur @jaibi @Hyperion @genmirajborgza786 @hinduguy @Dillinger @Ayush @third eye

There was nothing in behaviour of british that would suggest they would indeed consider India as their home, and work for betterment of Indians. They will not be serving India's interst but interest of another country.

I have no issues british staying or ruling (an italian is ruling, so why not brit) if they agree to principle of equality.

BTW do you have data about poverty and malnutrition during british raj, I presume it was much worse. how can they allow famine to happen even though there was food grain available.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

Yes hindus would have fared better under British. They eliminated thugs who robed and killed millions in the name of Kali Mata. Almost eliminated sati practice and im pretty sure they would have eliminated practice of killing baby girls if they stayed longer. While muslim majority áreas was always neglected by them so every industry was setup in Hindu majority área becasue hindus were loyal to British.

 

[notsuperstitious]

Yes hindus would have fared better under British. They eliminated thugs who robed and killed millions in the name of Kali Mata. Almost eliminated sati practice and im pretty sure they would have eliminated practice of killing baby girls if they stayed longer. While muslim majority áreas was always neglected by them so every industry was setup in Hindu majority área becasue hindus were loyal to British.

And hence Sir Iqbal came up with the idea of Pakistan and Qaid E Azam was in secret correspondence with Churchill and joined western lobby right after partition with earnest . The fact that most Pakistani tribes were made ''martial tribes'' as reward for their loyalty to British in 1857 speaks volumes.

Yes sir!!!

But then there is no truth in any cr@p you post, its about re writing history and applying a balm to your identity crisis and taking potshots about india's social problems. The british indeed brough in modern changes in keeping with the times, they did not invent those.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

And hence Sir Iqbal came up with the idea of Pakistan and Qaid E Azam was in secret correspondence with Churchill

Yes sir!!!

Lip service by British, Iqbal should have rejected that title. Ground realities are totally different and it shows who was more loyal to British raj.

 

[Armstrong]

There was nothing in behaviour of british that would suggest they would indeed consider India as their home, and work for betterment of Indians. They will not be serving India's interst but interest of another country.

I have no issues british staying or ruling (an italian is ruling, so why not brit) if they agree to principle of equality.

BTW do you have data about poverty and malnutrition during british raj, I presume it was much worse. how can they allow famine to happen even though there was food grain available.

Aren't we basing all of our current talks on 'assumptions' & 'suppositions' as it is ? Therefore I suppose that the British who have reinvented themselves after the Colonial Age would've evolved much sooner that they presently did or we yet to have when it comes to social justice & economic emancipation !

I've no available figures for the British Era but the present looks hardly any better & I've also read that India's Poverty Figures grew from '47 for the first two decades before decreasing from the '70s on wards - At any rate 1 out of 2 Indians & Pakistanis being below the Poverty Line is hardly anything to be elated about !

Perhaps the British who really have changed in a plethora of ways would've brought about a better performance under them !

But if anecdotal evidence is anything to go by - Most of the old timers tell us that poverty & income inequality wasn't as rampant as it is right now....not nearly as rampant as today ! No one was committing suicides because of a lack of food or clothing or housing.

But thats all 'if & buts' init ?

And remarkably like we have the tendency of discussing the current topic !

 

[livingdead]

Aren't we basing all of our current talks on 'assumptions' & 'suppositions' as it is ? Therefore I suppose that the British who have reinvented themselves after the Colonial Age would've evolved much sooner that they presently did or we yet to have when it comes to social justice & economic emancipation !

I've no available figures for the British Era but the present looks hardly any better & I've also read that India's Poverty Figures grew from '47 for the first two decades before decreasing from the '70s on wards - At any rate 1 out of 2 Indians & Pakistanis being below the Poverty Line is hardly anything to be elated about !

Perhaps the British who really have changed in a plethora of ways would've brought about a better performance under them !

But if anecdotal evidence is anything to go by - Most of the old timers tell us that poverty & income inequality wasn't as rampant as it is right now....not nearly as rampant as today ! No one was committing suicides because of a lack of food or clothing or housing.

But thats all 'if & buts' init ?

And remarkably like we have the tendency of discussing the current topic !

If british had stayed back they would have faced general election and have little change of getting elected.
They would still be powerful through their position in industry and may be burocracy. Like any other class, such a class would have taken care of themselves first.


South Africa is one country where they decided to stay back , did the fact that they stayed, change the fortune of blacks greatly? I dont think so.

people have tendency to say these 'oh those were the days when it used to be so nice', without statistic, I wont rely on them.
The very fact that we used to have massive famine where thousands used to die is an indicator of the inefficiency of Raj, or rather they had no accountability.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

Waisee I wonder why the same zeal isn't shown when asking the question - Whether India & Pakistan should've gain their freedom from the British to beginwith ?

53% of Indians & 49% of Pakistanis living below the Poverty Line, an embarrassingly low HDI of 136 (India) & 146 (Pakistan) & a myriad social problems to have besought both India & Pakistan ranging from female foetus infanticide to rape to communalism to sectarianism to rampant corruption, moral degradation, extremism, grave gender inequality ( India - 0.610 & Pakistan - 0.567), unemployment, income inequality etc. - Hardly lend any credence to Economic or Social Emancipation being the reason why we parted ways with the British !

Heck it might even be argued that, as the British changed their ways much...much sooner than we did & genuinely tackled the issues facing them, it might not be unreasonable to assume under the Brits we might even have progressed further ahead !

Or maybe at the end of the day its never about anything more than 'Popular Will & Want' - Its your land, your people & your future....you want it 'thus' - Take it....you don't have to justify anything !

That's an interesting point of view, but at the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most people desired independence from the British.

There aren't many nations that have enjoyed being ruled by foreigners. Even Queen Boudica of the Britons led a rebellion against the Romans for freedom.

Besides, it was next to impossible for the British to retain control of the Sub-Continent after World War 2 due to a variety of factors including the shortage of revenue. So freedom was eminent in any case.

 

[Armstrong]

If british had stayed back they would have faced general election and have little change of getting elected.
They would still be powerful through their position in industry and may be burocracy. Like any other class, such a class would have taken care of themselves first.


South Africa is one country where they decided to stay back , did the fact that they stayed, change the fortune of blacks greatly? I dont think so.

people have tendency to say these 'oh those were the days when it used to be so nice', without statistic, I wont rely on them.
The very fact that we used to have massive famine where thousands used to die is an indicator of the inefficiency of Raj, or rather they had no accountability.

Little Chance of getting elected is irrelevant for aren't I talking about the same 'perceptions' & 'attitudes' ?

They seem to have instituted a quasi socialistic policy that borrows from capitalism on one hand & the nordic model from the other, it would not be unreasonable to assume that with nearly 1.5 billion of us with them they would've responded much sooner which means that plutocracy would've given way to egalitarianism much sooner !

And in South Africa it was the Dutch !

Heres a statistic for you - More than 3000 children die in India everyday of hunger ! I'm sure that stats in Pakistan would be similar.

Heres another stat for you - More than 82 million Pakistanis live below the Poverty Line in absolute terms & more than 612 million Indians live below that same line & if by some measure we take up the $2 a day Poverty Line as opposed to the current one....its going to be...much....much more !

At any rate my purpose wasn't to establish whether India & Pakistan should've gone for Independence from the British or not but simply to highlight that Pakistan's existence as being 'worth it or not' is so definitively traded with despite all the arguments based on the same 'suppositions' as the one above !

So maybe a few moments of introspection by us would be nice !

 

[Armstrong]

That's an interesting point of view, but at the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most people desired independence from the British.

There aren't many nations that have enjoyed being ruled by foreigners. Even Queen Boudica of the Britons led a rebellion against the Romans for freedom.

Besides, it was next to impossible for the British to retain control of the Sub-Continent after World War 2 due to a variety of factors including the shortage of revenue. So freedom was eminent in any case.

Absolutely ! My intent wasn't to advocate for the Royals or anything like it but simply to explore the irony with which people question Pakistan's need to exist or not or whether the decision made in '47 was correct or not & even go a step further to extrapolate everything that has happened in the past 65 years back to '47 & yet never....ever think to ask themselves 'Oiii....whether there was a need for British India to become Pakistan & India, to beginwith or not ?' because somehow in our collective consciousness that was unequivocally the right decision....in fact it was so right that one doesn't even need to talk about it !

What is this ? Don't we do the 'Pakistan - To be or not to be, critiques' on the same suppositions ?

And I agree with you ! I was reading, the other, an interview of the Quaid in which the interviewer had asked him that some have commented that Pakistan would be economically weak or unfeasible (I can't recall what the exact thing was) & so maybe it shouldn't be created & the Quaid asked a counter question in turn to the British Journalist 'Would you want to live in a economically weak, independent Britain or an economically strong Britain under Germany ?' & naturally the guys reaction was as it was expected to be ! The point I think that the Quaid was making was that the aspirations of the People can't be weighed in such petty quantifiable things because that unsaid qualitative aspect that compels a people to root for a cause & then achieve it is justification enough for it to happen because after all who is answerable to whom for what one does in one's own land, to one's own family in aspiration for one's own future, irrespective of how one defines it to be !

I've always been fascinated by that discourse where one is a fact beyond reproach while the other requires or is presumed to require justifications one way or the other !

' @Secur @Hyperion

 

[livingdead]

Little Chance of getting elected is irrelevant for aren't I talking about the same 'perceptions' & 'attitudes' ?

They seem to have instituted a quasi socialistic policy that borrows from capitalism on one hand & the nordic model from the other, it would not be unreasonable to assume that with nearly 1.5 billion of us with them they would've responded much sooner which means that plutocracy would've given way to egalitarianism much sooner !

And in South Africa it was the Dutch !

Heres a statistic for you - More than 3000 children die in India everyday of hunger ! I'm sure that stats in Pakistan would be similar.

Heres another stat for you - More than 82 million Pakistanis live below the Poverty Line in absolute terms & more than 612 million Indians live below that same line & if by some measure we take up the $2 a day Poverty Line as opposed to the current one....its going to be...much....much more !

At any rate my purpose wasn't to establish whether India & Pakistan should've gone for Independence from the British or not but simply to highlight that Pakistan's existence as being 'worth it or not' is so definitively traded with despite all the arguments based on the same 'suppositions' as the one above !

So maybe a few moments of introspection by us would be nice !

ok, my bad they were dutch.. that makes my argument totally invalid..

The reason I said they would not have made difference is, they were too few to make any difference in democracy.
The statistics look really bad, but we have not contrasted against terrible statistics of that time.


So they would have created a class among themselves (like they do here) and taken care of their own interest. The amazing institution and society that you see in Uk and rest of europe happened organically over certain period, planting a few europeans among you wont change things much.

I have a question for you... what is the reason of our poverty?

 

[Armstrong]

ok, my bad they were dutch.. that makes my argument totally invalid..

The reason I said they would not have made difference is, they were too few to make any difference in democracy.
The statistics look really bad, but we have not contrasted against terrible statistics of that time.


So they would have created a class among themselves (like they do here) and taken care of their own interest. The amazing institution and society that you see in Uk and rest of europe happened organically over certain period, planting a few europeans among you wont change things much.

You completely missed my point !

Go to Trafalgur Square & dance butt-naked to 'I'm so lonely' being played as background music - As punishment !

' @HRK Bhai aaap bhiii meriii above two posts pei kuch tubsaraa kareiiin !

 

[livingdead]

You completely missed my point !

Go to Trafalgur Square & dance butt-naked to 'I'm so lonely' being played as background music - As punishment !

'@HRK Bhai aaap bhiii meriii above two posts pei kuch tubsaraa kareiiin !

and your point is?
write in a single sentence as an assertion not a question.

 

[Armstrong]

and your point is?
write in a single sentence as an assertion not a question.

What is your name ?

 

[livingdead]

What is your name ?

that is a question... try again...