What have we done to ourselves?

[vsdoc]

The Partition has rendered 550 Million Muslims totally Ineffective
even though they have two countries under their control

Equally astute.

1/3rd of the global Muslim population resides in Indic blood.

And the only Muslim nuclear power as well.

 

[GURU DUTT]

Equally astute.

1/3rd of the global Muslim population resides in Indic blood.

And the only Muslim nuclear power as well.

well its really funny and even to some extend realli comical and disturbing to see that so called true martial race muslims like iranies, turks , arabs and even central asians still first call themselfs as arbas/turks/persians/kurds first and still use there traditional names and cultuar to some extend while the so called "mixed dicesndants of turks& iranaians and arabs" use the names of there victors like they dont use the sub continetal names but the names of turks , arabs , persians , kurds and other central asians and feel like an insult to be influenced by there native cultar .. what will you say on that

 

[Stephen Cohen]

Equally astute.

1/3rd of the global Muslim population resides in Indic blood.

And the only Muslim nuclear power as well.

Why do Pakistanis still debate partition

The never ending debates and discussions about Partition
are just a symptom of How Pakistani Muslims
look at " What have we LOST " in Partition
rather than what they have gained
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please read this excerpt which shows the reason for these Partition debates in Pakistan
Did Ahimsa lead to partition?

Though Pakistan is the homeland for the Muslims, almost all Muslim major religious-cum-civilizational symbols are in India, e.g. Taj Mahal, Red Fort, Qutub Minar, Jama Masjid, etc. Pakistan has hardly any Muslims symbols of this class. Rather, it has some famous Sikh and Hindu shrines, like Nankana Sahib and Katasraj Temples.

The Deoband Muslim seminary is in India, and so are the world reputed Muslim shrines like Ajmer Sharif and Nizamuddin Aulia. The cradle of Pakistan was the Aligarh University which is in India. The Muslim tehzeeb(culture) is the Lucknavi tehzeeb of India. Lahore culture is akin to Jullundur Punjabi culture, ‘balle-balle, shava-shava, sohinye te kuriye’ (a Punjabi saying which cannot be translated); Urdu is primarily a language of the Muslims and it is mostly spoken in UP of India. In Pakistan, Punjabi is spoken in Punjab, Sindhi in Sindh and Pashto in NWFP — Urdu is in a limbo.

Pakistan is (justifiably) proud of the Muslim kings and emperors who ruled (Hindu) India for some 600 years. These include names like Aibak, Khilji, Akbar and Aurangzeb. All of them lie buried in India in a series of tombs in the Delhi–Agra belt. Most ‘alams and adils’ (authors and poets) of Muslim literature like Mirza Ghalib, Malauna Hali lie interned in India. So is Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, the chief sponsor of Pakistan. Homeland is where the bones of your ancestors are interned; that is why the homeland is also called the fatherland or motherland. It is the bones of the ancestors which beckon and inspire the youth for great sacrifices for the motherland.

 

[Bang Galore]

So you are essentially saying that the Muslims were a lost cause (for us) and about 15% is all a nation can manage in terms of a Muslim populace if it is to thrive democratically and secularly and not implode?

We have a very poisoned history in this country of ours, doc, there is no running away from it. This is not just about Hindus & Muslims, it is the poisoned chalice of history that we drink from that makes this the way it is. We can, of course, not be prisoners to history but that takes a far greater effort than we so frequently see ourselves doing. I don't know if the magic number is 15%, 25% or 35% but I do think that the risk of our country failing would have been infinitely higher with a larger percentage of that population in conjunction with the proposals that Jinnah wanted signed off on. We could have theoretically managed if a normal democratic dispensation had been agreed on but that was not what was on offer & not what the OP suggests that we should have agreed to. In the circumstances of that condition being the basis of the union, I tend to believe we ran a huge risk of failure & that we got lucky with the arrangement that we ended up with.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

We have a very poisoned history in this country of ours, doc, there is no running away from it. This is not just about Hindus & Muslims, it is the poisoned chalice of history that we drink from that makes this the way it is. We can, of course, not be prisoners to history but that takes a far greater effort than we so frequently see ourselves doing. I don't know if the magic number is 15%, 25% or 35% but I do think that the risk of our country failing would have been infinitely higher with a larger percentage of that population in conjunction with the proposals that Jinnah wanted signed off on. We could have theoretically managed if a normal democratic dispensation has been agreed on but that was not what was on offer & not what the OP suggests that we should have agreed to. In the circumstances of that condition being the basis of the union, I tend to believe we ran a huge risk of failure & that we got lucky with the arrangement that we ended up with.

Jinnah was ONLY interested in taking the Whole of Punjab ; Bengal Assam and Kashmir

Partition was about LAND under one's control

The quick and early partition didnt give them time to
ehnically cleanse all the above mentioned areas ; while " remaining " inside India
under the GARB of Cabinet Mission Plan

Partition was INEVITABLE ; if not in 1947 then it would have happened
LATEST by 1967

Jinnah wanted a MOTH EATEN INDIA

We gave him a MOTH EATEN PAKISTAN

 

[SrNair]

That is what I have assumed too. it is time we all should accept realities and one of these realities is the partition, the other realities include the fundamentalism and extremism existing on both sides.



We are far better off with partition. Today's India is hostage to Hindu Taliban aka Saffron brigade. It was not different even before partition where likes of Godse can kill Gandhi merely for not agreeing with Hindu extremism.


You are nobody to claim anything on behalf of Pakistanis.

@Spring Onion When the UPA was in the power they used vote bank politics/psuedo secularism/ minority appeasement for their own interest in politics.Now some NDA allies uae that for their own purpose .
We Indians know a lots about our politicians and media.They will do anything for their advantage .But that is just another thing in our diversified nation.Common Indians dont have any time to spend on it .
And if Shiva Sena is opposing your citizens then that is their chpice .After all noon e India dares to opposing them when they field the matter of 26/11.But common Indian irrespective of their religion is still very happy because of partition.

 

[third eye]

Still Ahmedis are not opting for India. Period.

What is meant by ' not opting for India "

Do they have a choice of opting ? They have no option but to live as de islamised humans in Pakistan.

 

[scorpionx]

The entire point of this article is NOT peace between the two countries BUT the only point or argument the author holds is that if Subcontinent was NOT divided and if it was UNITED INDIA then there would not have been any religious fundamentalism on both sides.

just an imagination

I think that was not the point of the article. Islamic fundamentalism or Hindu extremism had always been a sad reality of undivided India's national life right from the days of the early Mughals to the last days of the British and one has to be too naive to believe that a Shiv Sena hooliganism or a Sipah e sahaba sectarian violence could not have happened had partition not taken place.

What the author tries to pursue, in my opinion is an idea of an India, divided into three zones A, B and C where zone B and C comprising Sindh, Punjab, Baluchistan, KPK (in the West), Bengal, Assam (in the East) as autonomously administered provinces where the Muslim majority could enjoy their basic rights without the fear of intervention from a Hindu majoritarian rule. This imagination, if materialized could have avoided the appalling bloodbath of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs who lived in areas as minority in those respective provinces.

Further, the Muslim working class scattered all over India, who had neither means nor resources to move to a far away alien land on such a short notice would have had ample time to move if they wished and felt their religious sentiments are being hurt by a Hindu majoritarian rule in province A. Thus, there would been little or no scope for abuse of one's individual liberty threatened by the socio-cultural or religious interests by the ruling majority. Akhlaqs could eat fearlessly whatever they wanted to or the secular bloggers and Taslima Nasrins in India could enjoy their freedom of expression, sitting in Calcutta. Thus, the uneasiness, the fear of being challenged on the grounds of one's religious beliefs or political inclinations could have been evaded.

Nope more than that , IMHO , it could actually have been a possibility

After all Russia ,Canada , Australia , Brazil etc's are all successful federations , Centrism doesn't necessarily equates Unity , & federalism Doesn't necessarily equates Separatism

Gen Sahib, if those are the successful realities of federalism, there had been monumental failures also. Czechoslovakia the only democratic country curved out from a chunk of Western, Eastern and central Europe came to the verge of extinction when large part of its ethnic minorities decided to cede away on slightest provocation from the west despite repeated guarantee of autonomy. A Czech experience is much more apt to compare with an Indian scenario, in my honest opinion.

 

[Norwegian]

All Indians are equally to blame, including former Indians such as Pakistanis and bangladeshis

 

[Bang Galore]

What the author tries to pursue, in my opinion is an idea of an India, divided into three zones A, B and C where zone B and C comprising Sindh, Punjab, Baluchistan, KPK (in the West), Bengal, Assam (in the East) as autonomously administered provinces where the Muslim majority could enjoy their basic rights without the fear of intervention from a Hindu majoritarian rule. This imagination, if materialized could have avoided the appalling bloodbath of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs who lived in areas as minority in those respective provinces.

...but condemn Sikhs & Hindus to live as minorities under Muslim majoritarian rule.

Further, the Muslim working class scattered all over India, who had neither means nor resources to move to a far away alien land on such a short notice would have had ample time to move if they wished and felt their religious sentiments are being hurt by a Hindu majoritarian rule in province A.

...and move where exactly. What about those Hindus/Sikhs in zone B&C? Where do they go?

Thus, there would been little or no scope for abuse of one's individual liberty threatened by the socio-cultural or religious interests by the ruling majority. Akhlaqs could eat fearlessly whatever they wanted to or the secular bloggers and Taslima Nasrins in India could enjoy their freedom of expression, sitting in Calcutta. Thus, the uneasiness, the fear of being challenged on the grounds of one's religious beliefs or political inclinations could have been evaded.

Seriously? Taslima Nasreen could have sat in Calcutta in a Muslim majoritarian province & had her freedom of expression?

 

[Stephen Cohen]

I think that was not the point of the article. Islamic fundamentalism or Hindu extremism had always been a sad reality of undivided India's national life right from the days of the early Mughals to the last days of the British and one has to be too naive to believe that a Shiv Sena hooliganism or a Sipah e sahaba sectarian violence could not have happened had partition not taken place.

What the author tries to pursue, in my opinion is an idea of an India, divided into three zones A, B and C where zone B and C comprising Sindh, Punjab, Baluchistan, KPK (in the West), Bengal, Assam (in the East) as autonomously administered provinces where the Muslim majority could enjoy their basic rights without the fear of intervention from a Hindu majoritarian rule. This imagination, if materialized could have avoided the appalling bloodbath of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs who lived in areas as minority in those respective provinces.

Further, the Muslim working class scattered all over India, who had neither means nor resources to move to a far away alien land on such a short notice would have had ample time to move if they wished and felt their religious sentiments are being hurt by a Hindu majoritarian rule in province A. Thus, there would been little or no scope for abuse of one's individual liberty threatened by the socio-cultural or religious interests by the ruling majority. Akhlaqs could eat fearlessly whatever they wanted to or the secular bloggers and Taslima Nasrins in India could enjoy their freedom of expression, sitting in Calcutta. Thus, the uneasiness, the fear of being challenged on the grounds of one's religious beliefs or political inclinations could have been evaded.



Gen Sahib, if those are the successful realities of federalism, there had been monumental failures also. Czechoslovakia the only democratic country curved out from a chunk of Western, Eastern and central Europe came to the verge of extinction when large part of its ethnic minorities decided to cede away on slightest provocation from the west despite repeated guarantee of autonomy. A Czech experience is much more apt to compare with an Indian scenario, in my honest opinion.

So you are endorsing the Cabinet Mission plan

Do you have any idea how IMPRACTICAL it was
and India would have simply IMPLODED into many parts because India would have been
ungovernable under the CMP

Secondly have you ever considered why Jinnah and Muslim League
were supporting the CMP

What was their ulterior motive ?

 

[scorpionx]

...but condemn Sikhs & Hindus to live as minorities under Muslim majoritarian rule.

Yes, but if they ever felt their liberty both as an individual and as community is under threat they could migrate to part A. It could have costed them their traditional places of worship to the worst, but they could retained their religious freedom.

...and move where exactly. What about those Hindus/Sikhs in zone B&C? Where do they go?

In the heartlands of Indo-Gangetic plains.

Seriously? Taslima Nasreen could have sat in Calcutta in a Muslim majoritarian province & had her freedom of expression?

You caught me there. But given Calcutta was a considerable Hindu majority area, chances were slim that it could go to C zone if Congress fought hard.

So you are endorsing the Cabinet Mission plan

Do you have any idea how IMPRACTICAL it was
and India would have simply IMPLODED into many parts because India would have been
ungovernable under the CMP

Secondly have you ever considered why Jinnah and Muslim League
were supporting the CMP

What was their ulterior motive ?

I am not endorsing anything here. Just trying to understand what was in the author's mind when he wrote this article.

 

[farhan_9909]

At the end of the day,Both Pakistanis and Indians are happy about partition

this is my conclusion

 

[Stephen Cohen]

Yes, but if they ever felt their liberty both as an individual and as community is under threat they could migrate to part A. It could have costed them their traditional places of worship to the worst, but they could retained their religious freedom.

In the heartlands of Indo-Gangetic plains.

You caught me there. But given Calcutta was a considerable Hindu majority area, chances were slim that it could go to C zone if Congress fought hard.

Every thing that you have written here is impractical ; unworkable
and HARMFUL to Hindus

The basic idea behind Jinnah's support to the Cabinet Mission plan
was to BUY TIME to clean up Punjab ; Bengal Assam and Kashmir
and then declare independence

Your suggestion that Calcutta would not go to the C zone is ABSURD

Calcutta would have been the capital of a UNITED Bengal
which would have been Muslim Majority province

Similarly you have NO QUALMS about suggesting
Hindus and SIkhs to migrate from the Punjab province to the A zone
THERE BY handing over ENTIRE Punjab to Muslims
on a PLATTER

 

[Winchester]

Classic Bharti circle jerk....