Splitting India

[KingMamba]

Well according to Census, Muslim population is 13.8% and Census is an statistical instrument which is most difficult to be gamed among all statistical instruments.

Politicians come begging for muslim vote because they vote en-mass and do it in name of mullah and allah. It is convenient for a politician as he would not have to provide any developmental services for muslims in exchange for their votes.

A lot of Indians say the census leaked 18 to 20 percent.

 

[anonymus]

A lot of Indians say the census leaked 18 to 20 percent.

I do not speak for every Indian.

Here:13.4% (2001)

Muslims need to have a decadal growth rate of 57% while everyone else having 4% growth rate to achieve that.

 

[Spring Onion]

And you believed him!! Darker sikhs have separate temples????? This is the most hilarious thing I have ever heard. Anyone and everyone is welcome in a gurudwara, I consider sikhism and buddhism to be the most egalitarian religions.

May be he used different word but there was an answer that Chamar Sikhs and Jats have different gurdwaras.

Never knew that Sikhs were also practicing cast based discrimination

 

[Spring Onion]

no,he has to accept himself as an indian

And for proving theirself an Indian they/he would have to tilt towards Hinduism.

wow

 

[Ayush]

And for proving theirself an Indian they/he would have to tilt towards Hinduism.

wow

never said that

 

[ExtraOdinary]

I think most people agree that Muslims are over 20% of India's Population and that Indian Censors lie about the Population because of Political reasons. This especially becomes evident at the Election time when these Politicians come begging for the votes.

Bengal and Assam are already exceeding 30% and climbing and once over 50% they may want AZADI just like the Kashmiris. Kerala exceeding 25% and Muslim Population growing by leaps and bounds must be keeping you awake at night.

If anybody be it Hindu or Muslim or any religion asks for Azadi, we know how to deal with them, you know that , so I am not that worried.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

At that time, they were a sovereign as they had the choice of not being part of India.

No.

Provide some sources otherwise.

 

[Chronos]

And for proving theirself an Indian they/he would have to tilt towards Hinduism.

wow

Wait, don't a lot of nations do this anyway? A lot of western nations with immigrants expect the immigrants to integrate into western societies. In the case of United states, a Judeo-Christian framework and increasingly in the case of Europe, a majority viewpoint of the irreligious.

India truly is a special case. You probably have to tilt towards a particular cast/sub-caste/linguistic/ethnic group. If you truly look at it, everyone is a minority in India. I think the true intent of the founding members of India or at least their vision was of an India and it's citizens swearing fealty to the constitution.

The problem with India is that handling of it's Muslim minority has been disjointed. On one hand, you have a visceral reaction towards the community from xenophobic elements within India. Which draws it's justification from a polity that cynically panders to Muslim interests in terms of electoral politics. You have people banning films, books and other literature solely based on hurting religious sentiments.

No one has actually come up with any long term sustainable solution, which is to educate women. Whether it be Muslim or Hindu. United nations reports have said, that empowering and educating Women drastically reduces poverty and other social ills associated with poverty.

That is why I have been saying that in order to solve the so called 'Muslim problem', educate Muslim owmen, empower them to be individuals and nurture their career ambitions. But we are missing that in our patriarchal discourse where the discussion seems to be focused on bruised egos. If at all Females or their rights are brought up by Pakistanis or Indians or minority rights, it is usually with disingenuous interests with lacking any concern for those groups. They are pretty much used to score cheap points.

 

[Chronos]

Why are you working so hard? People are in troll mode now.... No point in putting logic here any more....

Well, indians and Pakistanis are emotional people.


look at our movies.

 

[timetravel]

We are very loyal to our nation, our religion is the foundation of our nation, to most their country is their identity, to us our identity is our religion and our nation is representative of that identity.

How are we not loyal to our nation?, we may have problems but what nation doesn't, we are a very diverse nation, we may have differences but we are one we are Pakistanis all united.

Loyalty to religion exceeds loyalty to nation. So if religion demands you do something which is good for the religion then it would be done irrespective of whether its good for nation or not.

Also if Religion is a bigger uniting factor then Country, then shouldn't the nation's boundary be defined by religion rather then geography like South Asians etc?

I understood your point. It is ironic how those who question Pakistan's existence never question the need for independence from the British in the first place. There are plenty of reasons in my mind to justify Pakistan's existence apart from religion, although it's a known fact that religion was used to achieve independence. I agree with your analysis of the point Quaid-i-Azam was trying to make by questioning the British journalist regarding the desire to choose between freedom or economic prosperity. Freedom from the British was desired for a number of reasons, the most obvious of which is that no one desires to be ruled by a foreign power. No matter how honorable, noble, or just a foreign ruler is, most people would desire to be in charge of their own destiny, & that is essentially the crux of the matter. There were some good things during the British era that I have heard from others, one of them is the strict observance of law & order. For instance, it's said that a woman could travel alone from Lahore to Dhaka on train & no one would dare to bother her. The British also managed to reduce death rates in the Sub-Continent by introducing the vaccination for Small Pox, training local doctors in modern medical practices & treatments, & killing pests. Another thing to note is that Pakistan has great economic potential. It's just that nepotism, rampant corruption, extremism, & a lack of moral values, nationalism, & patriotism have to be eradicated. That is a difficult job, but it's definitely not impossible. Have you read the story of Lucretia? It's an interesting story of what led the Romans to struggle against a tyrannical King to form the Roman Republic.

We have the Songs like Vande Matram to unite the Indians. We pray for our country and consider it our Motherland. That is why we are united and loyal to our country.

What is the patriotic song of Pakistan comparable to vande Matram?

 

[ghilzai]

Mughals were Indian Emperors, they were not Turko-Afghan rulers of central Asia. The family was outsider to begin with but is no less than an Indian family like millions other families who also immigrated to the then rich India.

I think, the reinstated Mughal dynasty could have saved British India from being split into three parts.

I beg to differ, they will always will be outsiders.

 

[Chronos]

I beg to differ, they will always will be outsiders.

I beg to differ too. When a community views itself as an outsider, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. You will be viewed as an outsider.

When the civilized world is governed by science and rationality at what point do you become outsiders.

Western civilization reached it's zenith through the renaissance. Scientists and philosophers chipped away at Institutional Christianity when it held Europe in a vice like grip, pervasive in it's influence. Like Islam has in many countries.

The soultion to india's problem is not embracing Islam, nor embracing Hindutva, but embracing science and rational thought. Every religion that says it has the answer to all of life's problems is suspicious to me.

To me, the journey to discovering the truth is more illuminating than the truth itself. I am not interested in making life a living hell for those of the present for a possible seat in heaven. but rather improving the present to pass the baton to the future generations.

 

[timetravel]

Mughals were outsiders... but after being born here for 3-4 generations they very much became Indians.

But their successors cannot be made the rulers of Delhi. If they stand in elections and win I have no problems.

Now on Topic:

The combined Muslims population of Pak/Ban/Ind today is 180 Million (Pak) + 160 Million (Ban) + 200 Million (Ind. Considering 15% as a conservative estimate of Muslims in India out of 1300 Million Indians).

So the total is 540 Million Muslims and 1100 Million Hindus roughly.

Let me ask the Pak/Ban members, are Muslims so paranoid and weak compared to Hindus, that only 1100 Hindus subjugate and rule over 540 Muslims?

that's just a ration of 2.1 and not something like 8.1. To me it seems the Muslim League leaders were corrupt and incapable, who were too paranoid of Hindus and lacked self confidence in Muslims. I do not see Hindus outnumber Muslims too much like 8.1 or 10.1 ration so that they could subjugate them.

Yes what they would have done is ensure that EVERYONE has to live in secular laws and not under Islamic laws. So demanding separate Pakistan makes sense only if the Muslim League leaders were either:

1) Too fearful of Hindus and were incapable leaders.
2) Wanted to live in Islamic Country. But then again I think all along Jinnah said that he wanted Pakistan to be a modern Secular country where the Muslims would not treat the minority wrongly. So the second reason seems false.
3) Hindus could rule over Muslims in a secular state. I do not believe this as the Hindus do not outnumber the Muslims by a big margin. But still if anyone believes that Hindus would have dominated Muslims despite such narrow advantage (2.1) then it means he is labeling Muslims as weak. But I do not think so that Muslims are weak. So this reason is also debunked.

So the only reason for the break was, reason no 1. The Ineptness and over fearfulness of Muslim League leaders.

But the ineptness of ML leaders ended up actually doing good for India in the long run (my view)

Overall whether partition was good or not. I have the below viewpoint.

A) If Muslims could live happily under a Uniform Civil Code with Hindus, Sikhs, Christians and others then he partition was bad for Pak/Ban/Ind people everyone as together we would have been really strong and prosperous ( as I have already debunked that at 2.1 ration the Hindus would have dominated Muslims. it is not possible as I do not believe Muslims are so weak. Hell you cannot dominate Sikhs in India, they are not even 10% of population).

B) If Muslims cannot live in Unform Civil Code and Shariah is the first and last thing in their mind, then Partition was the singular best thing to have happened to India in last 5000 years since Muslims started invading India. Since partition Hindus, Sikhs, Christians. Buddhists everyone is living peacefuly and happily in a secular arrangement.

So what exactly is the true answer out of A and B.

After having seen the situation in Pakistan, Egypt and other countries with High percentage of Muslims population MY PERSONAL opinion (but only my opinion and does not include others and they can decide for themselves) is that Muslims are inherently unable to live in secular environment. So I feel option B and hence partition was right.

But ideally situation A would have been best. But the ball lies in the court of the Muslims. Whether they could live in Uniform Civil Code or not?

Seeing the situation and how radicalism has spread in Pakistan and how blasphemy laws have been implemented in Pakistan. If India had remained united, these same people would have been called as Indians and these very people would be roaming freely in Delhi, Mumbai, Hyderabad, Punjab. I think its a fearful and precarious scenario to see these radicals roaming freely in Indian streets with Indian passports.

So time and again I wish and hope that India/Pak/Ban had remain united and Hindus/Muslims and others had lived happily as brothers and equal citizens of India. But seeing the situation and the reality I am inclined to believe that the separation was good.

Non separation would have brought more misery and pain and bloodshed if the Muslims had become radicalized and started demanding Islamic laws and Shariah to be imposed in India after few years/decades of 1947. Also thinking that Saudi/Qatar/UAE would have funded extremist ideology in Indian Muslims (like what they have already done in Pakistan) increases the chances of Radicalization of the Indian Muslims. I do not know if Indians (specially Indian Muslims) would have been strong enough to counter or negate this influence. The evidence (situation of Muslims in Pakistan and their strong Islamic radicalization) again points to the fact, that later if not sooner the Muslims would have been radicalized and started demanding Shariah and Islamic rule and Jizia from Indians. This would have been a scary prospect for the Indian Union of today for sure.

think of Hafiz Sayed doing a rally and asking Muslims to break free from Hindus rule in Punjab. All hell would break out in India. Think of people like Hafiz being called Indians and having freedom to move to any part of India. Scary prospect. Think of LET bombing schools in Delhi and Punjab demanding Shariah.

And to top it all think of 50% army consisting of Muslims when India is in such a state of civil war.

Think of Zia Ul Haq (and his kind) being the commanders of several units of Indian Army.

and the worst thing is think of inept and radical Muslim League leaders occupying top political positions in India.

tell me if partition was wrong?

 

[HRK]

The combined Muslims population of Pak/Ban/Ind today is 180 Million (Pak) + 160 Million (Ban) + 200 Million (Ind. Considering 15% as a conservative estimate of Muslims in India out of 1300 Million Indians).

So the total is 540 Million Muslims and 1100 Million Hindus roughly.

Let me ask the Pak/Ban members, are Muslims so paranoid and weak compared to Hindus, that only 1100 Hindus subjugate and rule over 540 Muslims?

that's just a ration of 2.1 and not something like 8.1.

Well 540 million Muslims (as per your own estimate) in south Asia have two sovereign states and 1100 Million Hindus (I think you have added up Christians and Sikhs too in this figure) have one so by the ratio of 2:1 which community is in more benefit ......

BTW in this way Muslim league leaders are proved to be more visionnary than Congress .......

 

[timetravel]

Well 540 million Muslims (as per your own estimate) in south Asia have two sovereign states and 1100 Million Hindus (I think you have added up Christians and Sikhs too in this figure) have one so by the ratio of 2:1 which community is in more benefit ......

BTW in this way Muslim league leaders are proved to be more visionnary than Congress .......

I am not counting no. of nations.

I said 1100 Million Hindus (including sikhs,christians also) cannot dominate 540 Million Muslims in a single country. So Muslim league leders were incompetent and too paranoid of Hindus in thinking that the majority Hindus would crush the minority Muslims in a purely secular country without special rights to Muslims.

and to answer your question, 1100 are in benefit as they are united. but the 540 are divided into three groups. Thanks to the inept Muslim League

Muslims League saved India from a potential civil war in future although that was not the intention for which they demanded partition. Also instead of consolidating Muslims or making Muslims secular (intention and vision of Jinnah for Pakistan) it failed in both its objectives.

Muslims were not consolidated - but divided into three groups.

Muslims did not become secular - they became more radicalised in Pak/Ban. Ironically the Indian Muslims are more secular and progressive minded compared to the other two.