Was partition of India inevitable?

[Nicky G]

Not inevitable but incomplete.

 

[utraash]

There 're many issues why Pakistan is facing such turmoil. Pakistani leadership is to be blamed for everything thats going wrong in their country, most of 'em were dictators (sometimes guised as democratically elected leaders); from Bhutto to ZuH to Musharraf and NS not one leader has his hands clean. Any decision which had religion stamped on it was never questioned by Pakistani populace.
I would be completely wrong if I assume partition happened for our good. What if muslim league had not gathered so much support (let me remind you muslim league did not get much support before the war ), and what if great Calcutta killings had not taken place? May be the hindu-muslim who were living peacefully till then would 've remained united for long.
Kashmir issue is the biggest proof that partition had pushed India and Pak into a perpetual war like state. We could've avoided partition for it was not required at all.

Mam when you mix religion with nationalism or with state, masses bound to be fantasized n misled by the ppl like in Pakistan....
Not everything can be blamed upon politicians of that time ...... Who voted to Bhutto to current Nawaz , Pakistani only naah..... Pakistan population are simply paying the price of it as we had during MMS regime.....
Muslim league gathered the support from same class of today extremist who migrate to other country n demands sharia n other Islamic laws ..... Sooner or later league n their sympathizers would have brought religious tailed demands with exemption from common laws imposed on rest of populace in undivided india if had not been partitioned....
Then why we even today advocating UCC for every citizens in our country?
Mam their(Muslim migrated) loyalty lies with religion not with motherland whereas those Muslim who still believed in the idea of India stayed back n now reaping the fruit of sustainable n matured democracy though we too have many issues here still on right track....
Peaceful coexistence is what Pakistan n its ppl need to learn else you know ....

I would've had no any problem with even league coming up with unjustifiable demands until no bloodshed however unfortunately that didn't happen ... N now certainly for same reason of avoiding more bloodshed I believe partitioned was a best possible solution for India n its future else our whole energy would have gone into keeping the nation united....

 

[Levina]

Mam when you mix religion with nationalism or with state, masses bound to be fantasized n misled by the ppl like in Pakistan....
Not everything can be blamed upon politicians of that time ...... Who voted to Bhutto to current Nawaz , Pakistani only naah..... Pakistan population are simply paying the price of it as we had during MMS regime.....
Muslim league gathered the support from same class of today extremist who migrate to other country n demands sharia n other Islamic laws ..... Sooner or later league n their sympathizers would have brought religious tailed demands with exemption from common laws imposed on rest of populace in undivided india if had not been partitioned....
Then why we even today advocating UCC for every citizens in our country?
Mam their(Muslim migrated) loyalty lies with religion not with motherland whereas those Muslim who still believed in the idea of India stayed back n now reaping the fruit of sustainable n matured democracy though we too have many issues here still on right track....
Peaceful coexistence is what Pakistan n its ppl need to learn else you know ....

I would've had no any problem with even league coming up with unjustifiable demands until no bloodshed however unfortunately that didn't happen ... N now certainly for same reason of avoiding more bloodshed I believe partitioned was a best possible solution for India n its future else our whole energy would have gone into keeping the nation united....

I see Pakistanis in the same light as I see punjabis in India, they're easy to provoke.
I dont know if they 're hard wired that way. Even if they had belonged to a different religion , the reaction would 've been the same.
I do believe that under Britishers ppl on the Indian sub continent had united to fight for a common cause called freedom, had there been no 2 nation theory, Indians (pre independence) would 've fought sectarian forces more fiercely. If there was no partition, may be we would've never required minority appeasement.

 

[Srinivas]

I see Pakistanis in the same light as I see punjabis in India, they're easy to provoke.
I dont know if they 're hard wired that way. Even if they had belonged to a different religion , the reaction would 've been the same.
I do believe that under Britishers ppl on the Indian sub continent had united to fight for a common cause called freedom, had there been no 2 nation theory, Indians (pre independence) would 've fought sectarian forces more fiercely. If there was no partition, may be we would've never required minority appeasement.

If India stays united there would have been riots and low intensity wars.

Muslims were silent in united India because the empire was in the name of Islam, Mughal.

They do not live under Kafir regime, you have no idea of Islam and the way these guys want to live. Partition was good idea but implementation was poor.

On one hand we have Islam who want to subjugate and achieve total dominance and other other hand we have people of liberal religious views, Hindus. If united India stays under democracy soon India would have been under riots, calling for sharia or autonomy. After that stealth Jihad, Sharia ...., No place for Kafirs in India, Jihad ..... etc...etc.....

 

[Levina]

If India stays united there would have been riots and low intensity wars.
Muslims were silent in united India because the empire was in the name of Islam Mughal.
They do not live under Kafir regime, you have no idea of Islam and the way these guys want to live.

Thats an assumption!
What if there was no muslim league or there was no 2 nation theory?
Remember it was it Iqbal who wrote the patriotic song "saare jahan se accha Hindoostan hamar" ?

 

[Srinivas]

Thats an assumption!
What if there was no muslim league or there was no 2 nation theory?
Remember it was it Iqbal who wrote the patriotic song "saare jahan se accha Hindoostan hamar" ?

Why is Pakistan do not have considerable Hindu population and the business of Hindus, Sikhs and other minorities taken over forcefully by aggressive bullying?

Why are Hindu girls abducted, raped and converted?

They have these patterns of how to dominate in the name of sharia, halal. Their prophet has demonstrated how it has to be done in Yatrib. They have these tactics of forcing the other religions in the name of Islam. Simply put together they will not sleep until the land becomes a part of Ummah, which is the same attitude we see in Pakistani army.

Sindh has considerable Hindu population today after 67 years of state sponsored conversion drive we see non of them left, those guys who are left are queuing up to get Indian visas and citizenship. These guys live under constant fear.

When they see Hindu temples or Kafirs they curse privately, when in majority they subjugate. This attitude is the result of intolerance taught by their books. Majority feel allergic to Kafirs.

The same Iqbal advocated for separate Muslims state to consolidate Muslims and gain strength. The idea is to conquer India after that.

These guys faltered in that process and now do these rants and wage asymmetric warfare. A clap happens when two hands co ordinate.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

@levina

Please read these two articles

Imagining Pakistan as an Islamic state

Creating a new Medina - The Hindu

 

[kalu_miah]

Ladies and gentlemen, thanks to you and to this forum for giving me the opportunity to share my thoughts.

I have been in this forum for a few years. I have had many interactions with people, sometimes pleasant, sometimes not so pleasant. But one thing positive has been that I have always learnt something new and the learning process goes on.

I presented some theories at one time in this forum and I still hold on to them. Unlike Lal Khan, I am not a Marxist. My theory is based on my own personal experience with the world and its people and it is my own idea not borrowed from any other sources or people. If you are curious, the gist of it are here in these posts:

kalu_miah's new world order, a road map for the future | Page 8
kalu_miah's new world order, a road map for the future | Page 8
kalu_miah's new world order, a road map for the future | Page 8

In the past I have had many discussions about reintegration of South Asia into its former state such as Asoka’s emipre, Delhi sultanate or Mughal empire. But the main road block has been the hatred Hindu’s felt towards their fellow Muslims in South Asia. There were two main reasons given for this hatred:

1. That Muslim barbarians, ancestors of some of today’s Muslims, massacred ancestors of today’s Hindu’s in the past
2. Muslims betrayed Mother India by splitting her in 3 parts, this is because when Muslims achieve some numerical superiority in any place (more than 50%), they try to form their own Muslim majority state to establish a purely Muslim ruled dominion

I think I do not need to go into debunking No. 1, as it is an oxymoron. First of all, medieval wars were brutal, it was the way business was done at that time. Other than formal wars, the medieval Muslim rulers were not lousy state builders, as both Delhi Sultanate and Mughal empire tried to unify the entire South Asia region, without which the idea of India or South Asia as a region would not exist today. But they were not the first ones to unify this region, that credit goes to Buddhist Asoka. Secondly, most of today’s South Asian Muslims ancestors were native South Asians, while only a small percentage have significant genetic input from foreign ancestors outside of South Asia.

The number 2 reason is also a myth, because it was not just Muslims who wanted Pakistan, but without Hindu leaders actions, partition would be impossible to achieve as is shown in the OP of this thread and confirmed by some Indian posters (@levina) . In any narrative, the responsibility of a result usually goes to the dominant entity and so it is quite logical that Hindu leaders held the upper hand in making the decisions that had the most influence in the ultimate outcome. Of course Jinnah and Muslim League leaders played an important role, but partition could not have happened without any role from Hindu leaders.

Now a days, we hear justification for the partition, that it was the greatest thing, but the fact remains that this region is not in peace, India is nervous about Bangladesh and India is in a direct nuclear stand-off with Pakistan and in a perpetual arms race. Pakistan as a 7 times smaller state cannot compete by itself alone, so naturally they bring in powers from outside the region to balance the threat. It used to be the US, now increasingly it is China.

And then from Pakistani's and Bangladeshi’s we hear that we cannot go back under Hindu hegemony, they will kill us like they did in Gujarat. The fallacy in that statement is that we are already living under Hindu hegemony, not from within the border at least in case of Pakistan, but from just outside the border. The only possible way South Asian Muslims can hope to balance the threat is by having a bigger say and influence in the decision making in Delhi, and what is the best possible way to achieve this?

From Indian Hindus we hear that these Muslims are extremists and terrorists, their real loyalty is either in Mecca or in Qom.

According to the large systems hypothesis, now that we created our own Muslim majority space in Pakistan and Bangladesh, the next logical step that follows is that we will integrate these states with other Muslim regions. Pakistan can join with Iran, Turkey and Central Asia and perhaps the Arab world, when they get their act together, while Bangladesh can join Muslim dominated ASEAN or be allied with it. I actually explored a little to see what are the chances that these outcomes will become true. My findings are that there is very little chance that any of this will happen. Mainly because both Pakistan and Bangladesh have no major history with these regions, the only connection is that we have similar religion, that is all. But Iran’s Shia religion is not even similar to Sunni majority Pakistan, so that is another big stumbling block. And for Bangladesh, I can just mention how the Rohingya’s are treated by Myanmar people, just as a sample of how non-Muslim South East Asians feel about South Asians.

So what is our alternative then, should we forever remain pawns of other powers to maintain our sovereignty to keep these Muslim majority spaces? Is this going to help the future well being of our people?

If the answer is no, then the people of all 3 states must acknowledge the folly of partition and try to undo this in the future. This is because we tried partition and it is not working, I think it is time we try the alternative. If our ancestors made a mistake, we should not perpetuate that mistake and forever doom our future and the well being of our future generations. If we are to live as honorable and dignified people on the face of this earth in a well developed peaceful region, we must overcome our fears, we must acknowledge our mistakes and work towards a future that will be for the common good for the future generations of all of us.

All great deeds start from a little seed, I hope people here can take away that seed of hope for the future and plant that seed in their consciousness.

Thank you for your kind attention.

 

[Pakistani till death]

Yes it was as the muslims always had a concept of a separate homeland since the times of sir syed ahmad khan. Various muslim leaders hinted at that idea while at the same time muslims were slowly becoming second class citizens. The main reason was the arrogance of hindus who wanted 'revenge' for a 1000 years of slavery and we saw that during congress rule 1939. Muslims were not a minority but still were treated like one and were not getting its share and so since the fall of the mughals till 1947 we drifted apart. Even if Jinnah had accepted the cabinet mission plan our unit would have been fully separate from the rest of the country and any harm to that could have again resulted in demands for pakistan

 

[Srinivas]

The number 2 reason is also a myth, because it was not just Muslims who wanted Pakistan, but without Hindu leaders actions, partition would be impossible to achieve as is shown in the OP of this thread and confirmed by some Indian posters. In any narrative, the responsibility of a result usually goes to the dominant entity and so it is quite logical that Hindu leaders held the upper hand in making the decisions that had the most influence in the ultimate outcome. Of course Jinnah and Muslim League leaders played an important role, but partition could not have happened without any role from Hindu leaders.

Yes there are leaders like Nehru who wanted partition and then there are leaders like Gandhi and Azad who opposed it.
Then there are ulemas from Muslims who opposed the partition because they thought Muslims can dominate Hindus. And Hindustan is going out of Ummah which is not desirable to them.

Now a days, we hear justification for the partition, that it was the greatest thing, but the fact remains that this region is not in peace, India is nervous about Bangladesh and India is in a direct nuclear stand-off with Pakistan and in a perpetual arms race. Pakistan as a 7 times smaller state cannot compete by itself alone, so naturally they bring in powers from outside the region to balance the threat. It used to be the US, now increasingly it is China.

Yes Partition is a good idea., because a united India would have become another Pakistan or in a state of low intensity civil war. Muslims who wanted to stay united wanted autonomy for their majority regions, how is that possible?
Leaders like Nehru and other wanted to have a one country, reason why partition took place.

Even if the autonomy part is agreed, the Govt. will not function because a single country has to be governed by single system. There will always be a tensions among the two communities.

The first thing what Pakistanis did after getting their country was religious indoctrination and spread hatred towards Hindus. How can they act differently even if they live in single country?

Regarding Nuclear threat, the threat works both ways. If Pakistan tries nuke weapons India ensures Pakistan will not remain. Regarding China and USA's role in S.Asia. Even if Majority muslims live under single rule Major powers can use Muslims to arm twist India Govt and make it dysfunctional. The argument is not valid.

And then from Pakistani's and Bangladeshi’s we hear that we cannot go back under Hindu hegemony, they will kill us like they did in Gujarat. The fallacy in that statement is that we are already living under Hindu hegemony, not from within the border at least in case of Pakistan, but from just outside the border. The only possible way South Asian Muslims can hope to balance the threat is by having a bigger say and influence in the decision making in Delhi, and what is the best possible way to achieve this?

How can a minority have a greater say in Democracy?
The two countries Pakistan and Bangladesh breed with out any control and one of the main reason for economic backwardness. If these countries join In India these guys will cause more harm that good to India, add to that the radical elements in Pakistan, who are self destructive and enemies of Kafirs.
The projection is even after 50 years India remains Hindu Majority country. I have no idea if Islam will be as strong as today, seeing the things in the middle east. So Muslim population is never a threat to India based on the current happenings.

From Indian Hindus we hear that these Muslims are extremists and terrorists, their real loyalty is either in Mecca or in Qom.
According to the large systems hypothesis, now that we created our own Muslim majority space in Pakistan and Bangladesh, the next logical step that follows is that we will integrate these states with other Muslim regions. Pakistan can join with Iran, Turkey and Central Asia and perhaps the Arab world, when they get their act together, while Bangladesh can join Muslim dominated ASEAN or be allied with it. I actually explored a little to see what are the chances that these outcomes will become true. My findings are that there is very little chance that any of this will happen. Mainly because both Pakistan and Bangladesh have no major history with these regions, the only connection is that we have similar religion, that is all. But Iran’s Shia religion is not even similar to Sunni majority Pakistan, so that is another big stumbling block. And for Bangladesh, I can just mention how the Rohingya’s are treated by Myanmar people, just as a sample of how non-Muslim South East Asians feel about South Asians.

Here you are advocating Muslim states should join together, as a last option you look towards India. If the intention is good the first option would have been India.

Simply put together, there is a global war going on against Islam and the ideology is getting hits because of the propaganda and mudslinging. If Islam is the basis for the formation of these states My friend Based on the war result your problem will be solved, if west wins then there will be no Islam so no issues in S.Asia, If Islam wins then you can form a united Ummah excluding India.

Either way your problem will be solved with Time. Considering you care about people of BD not Islam.

There are enough experiences and events through out History to know how forward muslims are and what happens to non muslims.

But one thing is sure, With the rise of India the countries who are having trade relationship will also benefit greatly.

 

[K.P.K]

Jinnah was a secular and a kind person. He felt bad for the Hindus.

Some of us Muslims are easy to fool. Look how so many Indian Muslims still vote for parties like AAP, COngress,SP etc. When they have a genuine leader if the form of Owaisi saheb

Btw Bangladeshis are welcome in India. . Last time checked more 60 million live in here.

Jinnah was just a lawyer for the cause of the Muslim people, he won he did his job well that's it, there are others who laid the foundation of Pakistan such as chowdry Rehmat Ali.

Did India wanted to keep the Previous Afghan lands aswell and have a united India on what grounds racial, religious?.

Pakistanis don't share race, culture with Indians why would they have wanted to be part of United India?.

Before someone mentions a bastardos called ghaffar khan just remember he was irrelevant.

Sure lets undo the partition on one condition that we will start from where we left off the Mughal Regime.

Getting rid of Bangladesh was the best thing, they were racially and culturally very different.

 

[ZYXW]

She should be. Draupadi had 5 husbands.

LOL in that case, let's live a little

 

[Levina]

Why is Pakistan do not have considerable Hindu population and the business of Hindus, Sikhs and other minorities taken over forcefully by aggressive bullying?

Why are Hindu girls abducted, raped and converted?
They have these patterns of how to dominate in the name of sharia, halal. Their prophet has demonstrated how it has to be done in Yatrib. They have these tactics of forcing the other religions in the name of Islam. Simply put together they will not sleep until the land becomes a part of Ummah, which is the same attitude we see in Pakistani army.

Sindh has considerable Hindu population today after 67 years of state sponsored conversion drive we see non of them left, those guys who are left are queuing up to get Indian visas and citizenship. These guys live under constant fear.

When they see Hindu temples or Kafirs they curse privately, when in majority they subjugate. This attitude is the result of intolerance taught by their books. Majority feel allergic to Kafirs.



These guys faltered in that process and now do these rants and wage asymmetric warfare. A clap happens when two hands co ordinate.

You're talking of the present, while I was talking of the past. In the past there were no such issues in this region. So had there been no partition then ppl would 've carried on with their lives sans any communal violence.
And lets not pull a blanket statement on everyone in Pakistan or a muslim. Misinterpretation of religious scriptures is prevalent in every part of the world. And the reason why Islam sounds stricter than other religions is because its inception happened at a place which was known for barbarism.

The same Iqbal advocated for separate Muslims state to consolidate Muslims and gain strength. The idea is to conquer India after that.

Yes, I know about it too.
From Iqbal's case it is clearly evident that hatred towards hindus was not inherent in ppl of Pakistan unless somebody decided to take advantage of the hindu-muslim divide.

@levina

Please read these two articles

Imagining Pakistan as an Islamic state

Creating a new Medina - The Hindu

Thanks for the links!
Those 're good articles, both based on the book of Venkat Dhulipala. It reinforces my belief that pre-partition somebody had decided to sow the seed of hatred among hindus and muslims for their own selfish reasons.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

@levina

Did you read the two articles I posted in this thread addressed to you

What is your take on them

 

[Levina]

@levina

Did you read the two articles I posted in this thread addressed to you

What is your take on them

Read my post above your's