What If Attlee Hadn’t Partitioned India?

[Armstrong]

Hello @KingMamba93 - Kiya haaal haiii jigaaar kaaa ?

 

[scorpionx]

People of FYROM(former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) too raise question about Greek identity . They claim that Alexander the Great was not Greek and 'ancient' Macedonians were not Greeks.

Exactly my point. Even the Greeks from south of Mt.Olympus never considered the Macedonians as Greeks.Ironically Alexander the Great became the National emblame of Greek History

 

[IND151]

Partitioned was for good, the Muslim League leadership were incompetent and the constituent assembly of Pakistan was dissolved in the lifetime of Liaquat Ali Khan.

The worse thing was Jinnah was not there when Pak needed him most

Nehru was PM for 17 years and despite his wrong decisions, his rule gave stability to India which is crucial for any nation in early post independence years

 

[KingMamba]

On religious point of view,their belief was similar.In fact it was the oracle of Delphi that permitted Phillip II to be part of Hellenic group which the Macedonians were formerly rejected.But it is not my point. So could be the case of India.For thousands of years this vast piece of land was dominated by Hindu customs and culture which interweaved people from different ethnicity together. I just simply do not understand why people constantly mention that there was no Indian Culture ever.

I don't think people doubt there was any culture in the Indian subcontinent in fact far from that history tells us there was an abundance of culture. What we doubt is the notion that said culture was always united and/or was one culture whether in kashmir or as far away as travancore which is put forth by some Indians as history tells us the only times the subcontinent was united physically was by force and there is nothing that tells us cultures ever aligned even to this day. Sure a compromise has been made to look past differences for the sake of the Republic.

 

[IND151]

On Topic> There would have been chaos in subcontinent had the partition not happened

The non partitioned India would have been weak and fragile, due to ever increasing muslim-hindu tensions

 

[KingMamba]

Exactly my point. Even the Greeks from south of Mt.Olympus never considered the Macedonians as Greeks.Ironically Alexander the Great became the National emblame of Greek History

Alexander the Great considered himself a Greek and so did Macedonians. When did Indians ever consider themselves Indians historically? Only outsiders called people of subcontinent Indian and that too is debatable as to who exactly they were referring to.

 

[KingMamba]

Hello @KingMamba93 - Kiya haaal haiii jigaaar kaaa ?

Good brother and you?

 

[scorpionx]

I don't think people doubt there was any culture in the Indian subcontinent in fact far from that history tells us there was an abundance of culture. What we doubt is the notion that said culture was always united and/or was one culture whether in kashmir or as far away as travancore which is put forth by some Indians as history tells us the only times the subcontinent was united physically was by force and there is nothing that tells us cultures ever aligned even to this day. Sure a compromise has been made to look past differences for the sake of the Republic.

First bolded part: You have mentioned names of two places. Interestingly, in 9th Century one saint from Kerala traveled to Kashmir for the sake of religion itself. The spoken language definitely differ but not the Sanskrit texts or hymns chanted in the holy sites across entire India.

Second bolded part: The British did not unite us.In fact they left no attempt to put us in the state of differentiating each other in terms of ethnicity or religion. The only person who holds the credit to some extent is Gandhi.Had he not raised his doctrine of non violence and protest in an organized form our Independence was far from being materialized.

 

[KingMamba]

First bolded part: You have mentioned names of two places. Interestingly, in 9th Century one saint from Kerala traveled to Kashmir for the sake of religion itself. The spoken language definitely differ but not the Sanskrit texts or hymns chanted in the holy sites across entire India.

Second bolded part: The British did not unite us.In fact they left to attempt to put us in the state of differentiating each other in terms of ethnicity or religion. The only person who holds the credit to some extent is Gandhi.Had he not raised his doctrine of non violence and protest in an organized form our Independence was far from being materialized.

First part I agree but that is one example in one century whereas the history of the land encompasses many a century. Secondly despite how the British went out at the end, for two hundred years they ruled the subcontinent as one unit which did give a sense of solidarity and identity to the people. Yes, Gandhi did his part as well.

 

[INDIC]

I doubt Indians actually called themselves Indians or any other name given to them by outsiders.

Indians called their land as Bharat and Greeks called their land as Ellada.

Greece or Yunan are foreign origin names like India, Hind, Hindustan. The Persian and Arabic name Yunan originated from Ionia which is now in Western Turkey.

 

[Android]

as history tells us the only times the subcontinent was united physically was by force and there is nothing that tells us cultures ever aligned even to this day.

same history also tells us most of the glorious period subcontinent has been through was mostly during the time it was united under a strong central government not when it was ruled by many small kingdoms where it was prone to foreign invasions or either local rulers were busy plundering neighbouring kingdoms

 

[INDIC]

First bolded part: You have mentioned names of two places. Interestingly, in 9th Century one saint from Kerala traveled to Kashmir for the sake of religion itself. The spoken language definitely differ but not the Sanskrit texts or hymns chanted in the holy sites across entire India.

@KingMamba93 Adi Shankaracharya was born in Kerala, he opened the Southern Gates of Sharda Peeth in Kashmir now in Neelum Valley.

 

[KingMamba]

same history also tells us most of the glorious period subcontinent has been through was mostly during the time it was united under a strong central government not when it was ruled by many small kingdoms where it was prone to foreign invasions or either local rulers were busy plundering neighbouring kingdoms

That is not the question though. I never said it was not a glorious period when united.

@KingMamba93 Adi Shankaracharya was born in Kerala, he opened the Southern Gates of Sharda Peeth in Kashmir now in Neelum Valley.

That does not mean kashmiri culture and keralite culture are identical.

 

[INDIC]

That does not mean kashmiri culture and keralite culture are identical.

Similarities in culture always existed, I agree with the word identical, we Indians has historical identity both as Indian and our regional identity just like Greeks, Italians or Germans.

 

[scorpionx]

Alexander the Great considered himself a Greek and so did Macedonians. When did Indians ever consider themselves Indians historically? Only outsiders called people of subcontinent Indian and that too is debatable as to who exactly they were referring to.

Not before the cunning Philip was granted an honorary place in the Amphictyonic council. They were looked down upon by the rest of the Greeks for the unique way of Macedonian life,governance and unusual dialect.

First part I agree but that is one example in one century whereas the history of the land encompasses many a century. Secondly despite how the British went out at the end, for two hundred years they ruled the subcontinent as one unit which did give a sense of solidarity and identity to the people. Yes, Gandhi did his part as well.

Yes,they ruled political India.But does that deny the Indians the right to be weaved in a identical cultural thread?