The British Raj in the sub-continent was a good thing for the muslims?

[Developereo]

It seems you don't know that there was a clause of "Lapse of Paramountcy" in Independence of India act which grant them right to become independent.

Let's look at the empirical evidence, which is all that matters.

After previous empires, the region fragmented into regional enclaves.
But, after the British colonial rule, it didn't.

Something changed in the Indian psyche after thousands of years of internecine wars.

What/what was responsible for that change in psyche. The only logical candidate is the British rule.

 

[INDIC]

Let's look at the empirical evidence, which is all that matters.

After previous empires, the region fragmented into regional enclaves.
But, after the British colonial rule, it didn't.

Something changed in the Indian psyche after thousands of years of internecine wars.

What/what was responsible for that change in psyche. The only logical candidate is the British rule.

It was mix of strong nationalism among people and visionary leaders. British were only interested in their divide and rule policy.

 

[Developereo]

They were not. That does not mean that most of the States did not want to.

But therein lies the crucial difference.

The default option was to remain with India. Breaking away required jumping through all sorts of hoops, like Pakistan had to do.

The force of inertia was to maintain the unity -- any breakaway sentiment would have to muster enough force to overcome that inertia.

That was the gift of the British.

Contrast this with what the colonialists did in Africa and the Middle East. There, they deliberately carved out the region into explicit separate political entities.

It was mix of strong nationalism among people and visionary leaders. British were only interested in their divide and rule policy.

That's what we are debating: the concept of a united Indian nation as a political entity. The concept that the landmass of India was a unified nation.

For thousands of years, that did not exist.

 

[Contrarian]

But therein lies the crucial difference.

The default option was to remain with India. Breaking away required jumping through all sorts of hoops, like Pakistan had to do.

The force of inertia was to maintain the unity -- any breakaway sentiment would have to muster enough force to overcome that inertia.

That was the gift of the British.

Au contraire.
These regions were already separate from the British India. They merely had to pay British a tribute and not keep any significant military, but for all practical purposes they were separate Kingdoms with separate laws and separate practices.

The force of intertia was that they remain as they are, and India remains as it is. It took an ingenious amount of effort on part of Indians to force these kingdoms to join modern India.

The default option, one with least effort was that Indians let go of these territories with the same preconditions the British had. It involved least threats, coercion, military use. Almost all the rulers of these kingdoms wanted it, and many within India who were tired of their struggles were also okay in accepting it.

It was not chosen.

Pakistan had to jump the hoops as majority of the areas now in Pakistan were under British India, not independent kingdoms. And so Pakistanis of the time were trying to breakup British India.

 

[INDIC]

That's what we are debating: the concept of a united Indian nation as a political entity. The concept that the landmass of India was a unified nation.

For thousands of years, that did not exist.

Most of the countries in the world weren't united thoughout history, you can name any Greece, Italy, Germany. So, why you so keen on insisting only on India. BTW I have some poems of Allama Iqbal, only common thing everywhere was Indian nationalism.

 

[scorpionx]

What is bhangi sardars?

After the first Afghan Invasion, under the leadership of Jassa Singh Aluwalia it was decided to divide Dal Khalsa into eleven Misls (Alike in Arabic) and Bhangi was one of those misls under Hari Singh of Panjwad. Their previous leader, Bhuma Singh was an addict of hashish. So, his misl got the name Bhangi Khalsa. It was one of the strongest sub branch of the Khalsa army, comprising almost ten thousand strong foots on ground.

This term has nothing had to do with the Sikh society as a whole and it's not a derogatory term to demean them as this name was given to a subgroup of their society just for their leader's addiction to bhang and nothing else..

 

[Developereo]

Most of the countries in the world weren't united thoughout history, you can name any Greece, Italy, Germany. So, why you so keen on insisting only on India. BTW I have some poems of Allama Iqbal, only common thing everywhere was Indian nationalism.

You are proving my point. The idea of India as a unified nation only existed because of the British.

For example, if the region had been divided into sizable colonial enclaves of British, French, and Dutch dominions, there would be no sense of a common Indian nation. That sense of commonality was a gift of the British rule.

(Set aside tiny spots like Goa, etc.).

These regions were already separate from the British India. They merely had to pay British a tribute and not keep any significant military, but for all practical purposes they were separate Kingdoms with separate laws and separate practices.

They were part of the British Dominion of India and, when the British left, the default option was to continue with the status quo, i.e. remain a semi-autonomous part of a unified political entity.

Regardless what some rulers might have wanted to do, the psyche of the masses had been altered to think in terms of a unified nation.

PS. See, the British could have done what they did all over Africa and Middle East: explicitly carved the region into tiny countries -- with a suitable admixed hostile ethnic and religious mix in each.

 

[Contrarian]

They were part of the British Dominion of India and, when the British left, the default option was to continue with the status quo, i.e. remain a semi-autonomous part of a unified political entity.

Regardless what some rulers might have wanted to do, the psyche of the masses had been altered to think in terms of a unified nation.

My friend the default option was to stay independent rulers of nations and give nominal nod to India.
Not join India, become an equal, lose all privileges.

Patel and GoI had to fight tooth and nail to get this done.
We went against the inertia, against the easiest course of action, against the cheapest course of action.

And I would be happy to discuss the issue of psyche with you as well.

 

[Developereo]

My friend the default option was to stay independent rulers of nations and give nominal nod to India.
Not join India, become an equal, lose all privileges.

Patel and GoI had to fight tooth and nail to get this done.
We went against the inertia, against the easiest course of action, against the cheapest course of action.

And I would be happy to discuss the issue of psyche with you as well.

Please read my PS in that post about what the British could easily have done: carved the region into explicitly separate political entities. A dozen Pakistans.

 

[INDIC]

You are proving my point. The idea of India as a unified nation only existed because of the British.

For example, if the region had been divided into sizable colonial enclaves of British, French, and Dutch dominions, there would be no sense of a common Indian nation. That sense of commonality was a gift of the British rule.

(Set aside tiny spots like Goa, etc.).



They were part of the British Dominion of India and, when the British left, the default option was to continue with the status quo, i.e. remain a semi-autonomous part of a unified political entity.

Winston Churchill used to say India is not one nation, so you concluded British had a role. BTW, there is always an ancient basis for nationalism, for us that came from the historical idea of Bharat/Hindustan/India. During last 200 years nationalism had been sweeping all across the world, infact Greece, Italy or Germany were only recently been united.

 

[Developereo]

Winston Churchill used to say India is not one nation, so you concluded British had a role. BTW, there is always an ancient basis for nationalism, for us that came from the historical idea of Bharat/Hindustan/India.

You are talking about the Hindu version of the ummah.
And we all know how well that works out in real life without a political union to back it up.

 

[Contrarian]

Please read my PS in that post about what the British could easily have done: carved the region into explicitly separate political entities. A dozen Pakistans.

They could not have done it.
Remember the times when Independence was granted.
British did not give Independence out of the goodness of their hearts. They gave it because they were forced to.
Do you think Gandhi would have allowed British to make a dozen other nations from the existing ones?
Indian Nationalism was high, people were not listening to the British Govt, they had to strike deals with Indian leaders each time they wanted to get something done.

They did maximum damage they possible could. They left hundreds of small nations when they left India. It was upto Indians to pick up the pieces. We did. Just Pakistan remained.

 

[Developereo]

They could not have done it.
Remember the times when Independence was granted.
British did not give Independence out of the goodness of their hearts. They gave it because they were forced to.
Do you think Gandhi would have allowed British to make a dozen other nations from the existing ones?
Indian Nationalism was high, people were not listening to the British Govt, they had to strike deals with Indian leaders each time they wanted to get something done.

They did maximum damage they possible could. They left hundreds of small nations when they left India. It was upto Indians to pick up the pieces. We did. Just Pakistan remained.

As much as I respect Gandhi, I don't think the British were constrained by his wishes. Else they wouldn't have let Pakistan go in the first place.

The British, quite simply, could have formally carved out the dominion into explicit countries called Gujarat, Hyderabad, Bengal, TN, Kerala, UP, etc. To make sure that no one entity was strong enough to dominate militarily and unite the remaining pieces.

The regional rulers would mostly have welcomed it, and it would have been Gandhi's headache to rally the masses to rejoin in a federation.

 

[INDIC]

You are talking about the Hindu version of the ummah.
And we all know how well that works out in real life without a political union to back it up.

We don't have Hindu version of Ummah.

 

[Black Widow]

I was using tribal in the sense of regional groupings. Assign whatever label you want.

The fact is that the various subdivisions in the subcontinent were invading and conquering each other's territory for thousands of years.

And there is no reason why this would have stopped in the modern age.

A unified country was the British's gift to Hinduism. Without the British, modern India would not exist.

Again you are wrong, Castism is 2000 year old phenomenon. Indian culture is 15000-30000 year old civilization. Since History start from 6th century, You will not agree to it....

Maurya Dynasty was not Rajput/Kshatriya by birth, so does Gupta and Nanda Dynasty.. There was no regional grouping as well from Himalya to Kanyakumari It was India/Hindusthan/Aryavrat/Bharat.. There were kingdom, but there was a country.. It was like United States of America, Though there were many state, there was one country...

LOL There was not much your visionless leader (or leaders) could do to prevent partition and you make it sound like they agreed to partition out of generosity. The muslims wanted their own country and we got it and there was nothing the hindus could have done to stop us

Islam is not Indian religion, So this Land can not be yours. Your land is where your reliogion was born..