Was partition of India inevitable?

[genmirajborgza786]

with some modification & assurance's to the Muslims of Stronger representation in the ARMY, Civil services & Government , yes I believe Partitioned could have been avoided

 

[ashok mourya]

Indias partition done way before 1947 with partition of bengal in 1905 by British on the basis of religion
Partition of Bengal (1905) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bongbang]

Indias partition done way before 1947 with partition of bengal in 1905 by British on the basis of religion
Partition of Bengal (1905) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was undone in 1911. If Bengal reunification never happened, Pakistan may never born. India could be united today.

 

[ashok mourya]

It was undone in 1911. If Bengal reunification never happened, Pakistan may never born. India could be united today.

How?...

 

[Bang Galore]

I often wondered was it not perennial to Indian societies? The 11th century Arabian accounts repeatedly tell how least receptive were Indians to any foreign ideas, theological and scientific beliefs, for whom there was just one land, one belief (belief that encompasses hundred sister philosophies) and one science those were of theirs. Those who adopted the foreign faith, did not immediately became an alien even if he was of this land by birth? The penetration of radical fundamentalism was a comparatively recent phenomenon compared to the much older repelling national prejudice, isn't?

Absolutely. Always has been. Inherent in the Hindu caste system since time immemorial, what to talk of foreigners. However while the caste system could eventually be defeated as an idea because plenty of people of all castes recognised it as a morally repugnant thought whose time was past , there is no such thinking even today with how Muslim see other religions.

 

[bongbang]

How?...

That answer is in that link you provided. Hindus thought British wanted to divide and weaken Indian stronghold Bengal. Also they had an agenda to keep power in Calcutta. So they revolted against British from 1905 to 1911. But on the other side East Bengal Muslims thought Hindus want to undermine Muslims and they will be always backward under Hindu rule. That created a rift among the community. Which is the root cause of 1947 partition. This is totally a matter of Economy, merely religious. Bengal Muslims thought for power transfer in Dhaka.

In 1909, separate elections were established for Muslims and Hindus. Before this, many members of both communities had advocated national solidarity of all Bengalis. With separate electorates, distinctive political communities developed, with their own political agendas. Muslims, too, dominated the Legislature, due to their overall numerical strength of roughly twenty eight to twenty two million. Nationally, Hindus and Muslims began to demand the creation of two independent states, one to be formed in majority Hindu and one in majority Muslim areas.[8]

In 1947, Bengal was partitioned for the second time, solely on religious grounds, as part of the Partition of India following the formation of the nations India and Pakistan.[9] In 1955, East Bengal became East Pakistan, and in 1971 became the independent state of Bangladesh after a successful war of independence with West Pakistan.[10]

The partition left a significant impact on the people of Bengal as well as the political scene of the Indian Subcontinent. After the annulment of the partition, the people of East Bengal were immersed into disappointment and anger. This event also created a sense of political awareness among the Muslims of East Bengal. To mollify the people of East Bengal, Lord Curzon declared that a university as a center of excellence would be established in Dacca (which would later be named as University of Dhaka) and formed a committee in this regard consisting Khwaja Salimullah, A. K. Fazlul Huq and others. The decision was severely criticized by some Hindu leaders in West Bengal. The most significant impact of this event was greater communal dissonance between the Hindus and Muslims of Bengal.

 

[Levina]

This is not a creation of the 20th century, the differences between Muslims & Hindus existed throughout history and the idea of keeping Muslims away from Hindus was an idea that found widespread acceptance in the Ulema. Nowhere was this better explained than in the arguments developed by the top Sunni theologian Shah Waliullah who lived in the 18th century and is regarded by most Muslims of the sub continent as one of the top most Islamic scholar and whose teachings are widely followed.. He urged Muslims to separate themselves from Hindus even going on to urge them to live so far that they not even see the light of Hindu homes.

Muslim League demands were an outcome of such thought, not the reason for partition by itself.

Flash back: 1905, Bengal.
Lord Curzon decided to partition Bengal into two entities, which resulted in a Muslim majority in the eastern half, and a Hindu majority in the western half. This would 've ostensibly produced administrative efficiency, but Indians were outraged as they felt the britishers who were famous for turning the native population against itself in order to rule, had the sown the seed of hatred among hindus and muslims (and it did!). Mind you there was so much uproar against it that Britishers decided to reunite bengal by 1911.
1905- Indians united against partition of Bengal.
1947- India is partitioned.
What changed in these 42 years???

How can you forget that it was not just hindus and muslims who had differences but also the north and south, the divide was so visible.
Why did we not opt for Balkanisation of India instead of partitioning it on religious grounds?

@levina is trying to avoid partition because she is mourning for the loss of the land of our forefathers.

Am I right or am I right??

Land???
Do you think i would mourn for a piece of land? Lol
Partition happened 6 decades ago but it could 've been avoided thats all I meant.

 

[Dash]

@levina

The British wanted it, the Hindus wanted it so the Muslims.

Tell me how it could have been avoided ?

 

[ashok mourya]

@levina

The British wanted it, the Hindus wanted it so the Muslims.

Tell me how it could have been avoided ?

Muslims wanted it, british facilitate this and hindus always oppose this.

 

[scorpionx]

Absolutely. Always has been. Inherent in the Hindu caste system since time immemorial, what to talk of foreigners. However while the caste system could eventually be defeated as an idea because plenty of people of all castes recognised it as a morally repugnant thought whose time was past , there is no such thinking even today with how Muslim see other religions.

But it was not an universal experience. Abbasids, Sasanids, the house of the Umayads always opened their doors for foreign ideas, science and philosophies. Even today, a number of West Asian states like Egypt, Syria, Turkey maintained good record in keeping religious harmony like any liberal democracy of the West Europe with enviable consistency.

 

[Dash]

Muslims wanted it, british facilitate this and hindus always oppose this.

Perhaps you are unaware of the facts about British but they wanted it covertly. Muslims wanted it more than Hindus but Hindus did want else Gandhi would have been alive today.

 

[Levina]

@levina

The British wanted it, the Hindus wanted it so the Muslims.

Tell me how it could have been avoided ?

Read my post above yours and then answer this
1905- Indians united against partition of Bengal.
1947- India is partitioned.
What changed in these 42 years???

 

[definitelynotIndian]

Yes it was inevitable because Mr. Jinnah wanted separate constitution for Muslims. 1 nation can not have 2 constitutions. If not partition then it would have led to balkanization of India.

 

[unbiasedopinion]

It does not matter, if there was a single entity or partition countries as today. Common man is still struggling for food, inflation, quality living, bad roads, etc etc.. Same story both sides.

 

[Bang Galore]

How can you forget that it was not just hindus and muslims who had differences but also the north and south, the divide was so visible.
Why did we not opt for Balkanisation of India instead of partitioning it on religious grounds?.

North & South have no irreconcilable differences, certainly no theological ones. Indians (especially Hindus) have always recognised the entity of Bharat (even if only spiritually) even if they had been under different rulers. The concept of any of the states as ruled held no nationalistic/emotional fervour in the same manner that the concept of Muslims being a separate nation did for Muslims. Certainly there was no overwhelming negative reaction to the idea even if there was no great positive attraction either.

Muslim & Hindu differences existed and sometimes were backed with theological arguments. My argument is not that it could not have been overcome but to believe that it was a completely new idea introduced by the Muslim league would be naive. The Muslim League position touched a chord with many of those who supported it because they could also tap into 100's of years of religious thinking. The position of the INC & later of the Indian state based on secularism was the real radical thought in Indian history.