What if the Subcontinent was ONE country?

[Kakaspai]

United sub continent and china more than half of population.imagine the silk road.

 

[Joe Shearer]

In most other colonized countries ( Example - Algeria, Egypt ), the leaving of the occupying colonizers led the way to socialists/communists coming to power, immediately or slightly later.

I wonder why that didn't happen in the Indian Subcontinent.

@Joe Shearer

First, the CPI (as it was to start with) was too derivative; all the successful communist parties were nationalized versions. Much more so with the socialist (the social democratic Nordics, the Austrians) parties. Instead, we had Rajani Palme Dutt managing the Indian party, we had the famous deputation to Stalin by a prominent Communist, and his shocked assimilation of Stalin's advice to cooperate with the bourgeois INC, we had the split between Russian and Chinese factions in the 60s, and so on. Even the Naxalite movement aped the CCP's early activities in certain respects.

Second, Lenin pointed to the harmful potential of 'economism'; he could have been forecasting the decline and fall of the Indian leftists.

Third, instead of their class character, look at the caste character of most Indian communist leaders. Hint: in Bengal politics, the same three major castes have been in power, whether under the Congress, or the Communists, or the Trinamool.

We could go on, but these three are the worst factors in the fall of the Communists.

 

[jamahir]

One was the British Indian army. one of the Strongest and most disciplined Army in the Underdeveloped Regions. That in turn gave rise to Indian and Pakistan Armed Forces which were completely loyal to their Federation and never allowed any such uprising anywhere in both India and Pakistan.

Agreed.

Though the Pakistani military had the attempted coup d'etat called "Rawalpindi Conspiracy" which was soon crushed.

The Indian military did not have a coup d'eat attempt of any sort. The ideology of the Indian military commanding officers is a centrist one.

Am I right here, @Joe Shearer ??

Second was the Personality Cult of Jinnah and Gandhi both of them were revered by one side and their Clearly Non-Communist Views. Mahatma of India and Quid e Azam of Pakistan were more then just people. they were symbols of their Respective Republics even after their short lived lifespans in post independent Subcontinent.

Correct.

Third and the most important in my view were the staunch Religious Believes of the People. Both Hindus and Muslims would never accept a Godless Communism. See how easily Mustafa Kamal Secularized the Turks? And how easily the Secular Arab Nationalism swept Syria, Egypt, Libya, Iraq etc.
But compare it to the Secularization effort of Indian Subcontinent and Afghanistan. Compare it to Marxism and then you will find your answer.

Yes.

If we include Afghanistan in the Subcontinent then it has been the only place where socialism has been in central government.

Other than that, the Communist movement has seen power in India in three states - Tripura ( Northeastern India ), Bengal/West Bengal ( Eastern India) and Kerala ( Southern India ).

Even so, the communists in government in West Bengal state in the 70s and 80s were in conflict with the Mao-ist communist rebels ( also known as Naxalites ) who are still fighting the Indian establishment from the jungles in a few states.

Again in Pakistan, there were groups like the Al Zulfikar Organization.

Even today people of India and Pakistan are most conservative in the world comparing to level of education and economic developement in this region.

Yes, even when formal education is high among us ( Indians and Pakistanis ) and economic development is relatively high, we are the most conservative peoples.

Third, instead of their class character, look at the caste character of most Indian communist leaders. Hint: in Bengal politics, the same three major castes have been in power, whether under the Congress, or the Communists, or the Trinamool.

I see. I didn't know that.

 

[Zhukov]

Communism is also not a bad ideology.

There is nothing called bad or good ideology. For some a theocratic state is bad for some communism is bad simple.

I didn't even commented about Communism being Good or Bad brother. Why are you Interpreting my views without me even saying anything about them

 

[TMA]

Sindh wal Hind just as prophet Muhammad saws described in hadith. The two being based on Indus and Ganges, respectively.

Islam does transcend racial, ethnic, cultural, and geographic lines, but this does not mean we forget our ethnic, cultural heritage (as long as it does not conflict with Islam.)

Hazrat Moinuddin Chisti was a great man, may Allah bless him. We have our own such legends as well like Data Jee Ali Hajweri RAA.

Islam does transcend racial, ethnic, cultural, and geographic lines, but this does not mean we forget our ethnic, cultural heritage (as long as it does not conflict with Islam.)

Agree.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Is this reply even relevant to our discussion of why Communism failed to hold grasp in Subcontinent after British?
Or is it just you are trigerred by simply reading the word "Pakistan" And don't even bother to read the actual post and spoil the thread by deviating it?

Some people just come here to troll.

 

[PakSarzameen5823]

I can accept one country united of the subcontinent under Pakistani national flag!

Mughal Empire part 2! Imran Khan can be the Sultan lol!



Although, he is a Pathan, so maybe it should be the Durrani Empire part 2?

@ahmadnawaz22 @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Salamu Alaikum

Your thoughts?

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Mughal Empire part 2! Imran Khan can be the Sultan lol!



Although, he is a Pathan, so maybe it should be the Durrani Empire part 2?

@ahmadnawaz22 @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Your thoughts?

Lol. We have no need for India for the foreseeable future, except to keep them out of Afghanistan and stop killing Kashmiris.

Let’s concentrate on our country and build ourselves. They are in decline and we are on the rise.

Let Hindutva come to its inevitable conclusion and tear India to pieces. We can come pick up with Islamic rule after they collapse.

This is how Ghazwa tul Hind will happen.

Imran Khan is not a Sultan, but he is a visionary and founder like Quaid e Azam and Allama Iqbal who can shape the destiny of our nation for the future.

 

[Zhukov]

Mughal Empire part 2! Imran Khan can be the Sultan lol!



Although, he is a Pathan, so maybe it should be the Durrani Empire part 2?

@ahmadnawaz22 @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Salamu Alaikum

Your thoughts?

Na, he is a Niazi.
Even Pashtuuns are not a United race anymore. Afghan Pashtuuns and even these Pashtuun Nationalists of Pakistan like ANP and Chadar wali Anti Sab-kuch-kha-chakzai call Niazis as Punjabi Pathans and Slaves.
Anyways we are more then happy that people of this region, OUR region are Self ruling without the difference of being a Pathan Baloch Sindhi or Punjabi? Ask any common Pishawari Pashtuun (Except ANP Followers) about what he thinks about Afghans and you will know what Pakistani Pathans thinks about Afghani Pathan
Do you want an Afghan Ruler on us again
Durranis and Their Legacy is Rotting in Afghanistan being the most unstable region of the world. They still have wet dreams of the greater Pashtunistan From Kabul to Indus River including Jalalabad Kabul Pishawar etc.
Before these Ultra Nationalist Pashtuuns reach India they will Face Pakistani Pashtuuns that are pretty much all of them indoctrinated into Pakistani Nationalism and will never let these expansionists take hold. Fun Fact is Pakistan Army was Initially Led only By Pashtuun Generals. General Zia ul Haq was the First Non-Pashtuun Cheif of Army Staff of Pakistan almost after 30 years of indipendence in 1976 before him all Chief of Army Staffs were Pashtuuns, General Ayub Khan, General Musa Khan, General Yahya Khan, General Gul Hassan Khan, General Tikka Khan.

 

[PakSarzameen5823]

Do you want an Afghan Ruler on us again

Ahmed Shah Durrani was born in Multan (as per some sources), was a Pashtun (2nd largest ethnic group in Pakistan), and his descendants have held quite prominent positions in our military (e.g Asad Durrani). Most importantly, he was a proud Muslim and came from a time prior to the establishment of the Durrand line. To equate him with the current rulers of Afghanistan is laughable.

 

[Zhukov]

Ahmed Shah Durrani was born in Multan (as per some sources), was a Pashtun (2nd largest ethnic group in Pakistan), and his descendants have held quite prominent positions in our military (e.g Asad Durrani). Most importantly, he was a proud Muslim and came from a time prior to the establishment of the Durrand line. To equate him with the current rulers of Afghanistan is laughable.

What are you talking about man? He was born in Herat, Afghanistan and Died in Kandhar. Pure blood Afghan. no connection at all with these lands we and our forefathers dwell now. Neither any connection with our Pashtuun tribes in Pakistan.
Ahmad Shah Abdali was an invader from Afghanistan. He invaded Muslim Ruled India and muslim Ruled Iran. He was no different then other similar MUSLIM WARRIORS like Mir Taimur and Nadir Shah who only Occupied Muslim lands 90% of time to expand their dynasties.
His forces Invaded and Occupied Peshawar he Defeated Shahnawaz Khan (A Muslim and a Khan) at Battle of Shahdara. His forces were decimated at Battle of Sirhand Where Mughal Governer Qamarudin Khan died Defending his lands against the Invader. Abdali lost the battle. Then he returned again and clashed with Mughal Empire at Lahore against Mir Mannu (Successor of Qamaruddin), Mughal Emperor Ahmad Shah Bahadur sent reinforcements from Delhi to support and defend lahore against Afghan Invasion. Mir Mannu was Defeated by Ahmad Shah Abdali at Lahore and Mughals Then Gave Punjab to Afghan Invader Ahmad Shah Abdali. Mughals lost India to Durrani. Durrani Sacked Delhi and Looted the Pride Capital of Once great Mughal Muslim Empire similar to Mir Temur and Nadir shah(MUSLIM WARRIORS) Before him. Just to Loot Wealth of Mughal Empire.
Infact This was the end of mughal Rule on Punjab and Peshawar regions. This Abdali was the reason how sikhs became so strong afterwards. Mughals have been fighting Sikhs for long time. After Abdali decimated Mughal power in Modern day Pakistan Region, Nobody could have stopped Rise of Sikhs and Ranjit singh afterwards.

The only reason some of our Pakistanis try to Glorify him is that he defeated the Marathas in Battle of Panipat. As anything MUSLIM Vs NONMUSLIM is a hot sell in our country.
But have you ever thought what was the reason of that battle?
Because the Marathas were given space by the same Ahmad Shah Abdali who destroyed Mughal Power and Took Pakistan(At that time) From Mughals. Marathas who were fighting Mughals for Ages now had their man foe from Delhi Rendered Powerless. They occupied everything upto Peshawar i.e they occupied the land that was previously sacked by Durrani so Durrani Marched into India again defeated the Marathas and Restored hi rule.
Not for Islam or Indian Muslims.
His Empire was then kicked out of Pakistan by Maharaja Ranjit Singh who was born in Gujranwala and defeated these Afghans Upto Kabul (What goes around Comes Around). If you want to read history then be unbiased and don't take religion of the rulers. They were all the Same. Rulers and Kings fighting for Supremacy Not For Islam.
Ahmad Shah Durrani was the Last Nail in the Coffin of Mughal Muslim Empire of India after whom Sikhs and Marathas Took what they could and it was never restored afterwards

 

[PakSarzameen5823]

What are you talking about man? He was born in Herat, Afghanistan

Some sources state he was born in Multan, and even if you don't believe that he was still raised there and his maternal family did live there.

Neither any connection with our Pashtuun tribes in Pakistan.

Again, not true. There are plenty of Durranis in Pakistan.

an invader from Afghanistan.

He had plenty of Pashtuns and Baloch from Pakistan in his military.

He invaded Muslim Ruled India and muslim Ruled Iran. He was no different then other similar MUSLIM WARRIORS like Mir Taimur and Nadir Shah who only Occupied Muslim lands 90% of time to expand their dynasties.

I don't really care for the Iranian dynasties who ever since the Safavids tried to force Shiism down everyone's throats. As for the Mughal Empire, they were in decline and couldn't handle the Marathas or the Sikh Empire. Durrani's invasion was a necessary step, he crushed the Marathas and kept the Sikh Empire under control for a little longer.

As for Tamerlane, the Tughlaq dynasty was failing during the time of his invasion. His attacks allowed for Muslims to continue ruling the region under the Sayyid and Lodi dynasties, without Tamerlane, Muslim rule over India would have probably had a huge gap between the Tughlaqs and the Mughals. I don't like Nader Shah though, that much I can agree with you on.

Maharaja Ranjit Singh who was born in Gujranwala

Oh please that swine desecrated our Masjids and his empire earnt the hatred of Muslim Punjabis such as Mukarrab Khan and Ahmed Khan Karral who fought against them their whole lives.

If you want to read history then be unbiased and don't take religion of the rulers. They were all the Same. Rulers and Kings fighting for Supremacy Not For Islam.

I don't believe in this revisionist nonsense, it's merely a product of the ethno-nationalistic surge across the Muslim world. The majority of these rulers identified as Muslims first and foremost. They fought for Islam/Muslims, very few of them didn't value their religion. Ahmed Shah Durrani himself even thought about invading China to help the Muslims suffering there (but was unable to muster the manpower for such an endeavour).

 

[Ajaxpaul]

Yes, Patel was willing to let Pakistan take Kashmir if India got Hyderabad and Junagadh. Mountbatten too was okay with it. Nehru, however, was not much interested in the offer.

Liaquat Ali Khan failed us.

As for Jinnah, he was a lawyer. He proposed an outright exchange of Kashmir for Junagadh as both states were mirror image of each other in many ways. Kashmir was a Muslim majority state whose Non Muslim ruler had acceded his state to India. Junagadh was a Non Muslim majority state whose Muslim ruler had acceded his state to Pakistan. Jinnah argued that as Junagadh had become a part of Pakistan legally, he being the governor general of Pakistan, had the right to discuss the future of the state with India. But as the ruler of Hyderabad had not acceded his state to Pakistan, he had no right to discuss the future of the state or coerce the ruler of Hyderabad to accede his state to India against his will.

We ended up losing all three because of our incapable leadership, the naked Indian aggression, and refusal of the then Commander in Chief of Pakistan Army to obey Jinnah's orders of military action against Indian offensive. Rest is history

One of the most accurate posts in PDF. Heard the ruler of junagadh ran away to Pakistan which enabled India to take over the state with no resistance. Hyderabad was literally surrounded and threatened to join india. Nizam had no choice ?

If possible kindly verify this.

 

[313ghazi]

Its just a assumption no need to get serious or dive into pointless debates, we all know thats never going to happen.

It would be a fictional place, like Narnia or Mordor or Camelot.

The closest thing to such an entity existed was under the occupation of the British.

There were a few empires that came close;

https://www.mapsofindia.com/history/mauryan-empire.html
https://www.mapsofindia.com/history/tughlaq-dynasty.html
https://www.mapsofindia.com/history/tughlaq-dynasty.html

But this is maybe a total of 300 odd years.

The truth is the only people who kept that land mass under 1 monarch the longest were the British. Other than that it has always been a patchwork of kingdoms.

 

[Zhukov]

Some sources state he was born in Multan, and even if you don't believe that he was still raised there and his maternal family did live there.



Again, not true. There are plenty of Durranis in Pakistan.



He had plenty of Pashtuns and Baloch from Pakistan in his military.



I don't really care for the Iranian dynasties who ever since the Safavids tried to force Shiism down everyone's throats. As for the Mughal Empire, they were in decline and couldn't handle the Marathas or the Sikh Empire. Durrani's invasion was a necessary step, he crushed the Marathas and kept the Sikh Empire under control for a little longer.

As for Tamerlane, the Tughlaq dynasty was failing during the time of his invasion. His attacks allowed for Muslims to continue ruling the region under the Sayyid and Lodi dynasties, without Tamerlane, Muslim rule over India would have probably had a huge gap between the Tughlaqs and the Mughals. I don't like Nader Shah though, that much I can agree with you on.



Oh please that swine desecrated our Masjids and his empire earnt the hatred of Muslim Punjabis such as Mukarrab Khan and Ahmed Khan Karral who fought against them their whole lives.



I don't believe in this revisionist nonsense, it's merely a product of the ethno-nationalistic surge across the Muslim world. The majority of these rulers identified as Muslims first and foremost. They fought for Islam/Muslims, very few of them didn't value their religion. Ahmed Shah Durrani himself even thought about invading China to help the Muslims suffering there (but was unable to muster the manpower for such an endeavour).

O bhai Tamur Lane Invaded and Captured Sultan Bayazid Yaldrim the Caliph of Muslims from the gate of Constantinople when Turks were this close to capture byzantine Empire Capital. He Attacked from Behind and Captured our Holy Respected Khalifa. He Massacred Delhi and looted the whole city. Idealized the Mongol Horde and his forefather Chengis Khan What are you talking about man???
When Mongols Attacked Baghdad and Slayed Abbasid Caliph, Burke Khan (the Mongol Khan who Accepted Islam, Leader of Golden Horde) Rebelled against his own Brothers on this disrespect of Caliph by them. This was the status of Caliph amoung muslims. and this Jerk Temur Lane Attacked The Muslim Arrmies at that Critical Time of War and Imprisoned the Brave Warrior Khalifa Sultan Bayazid Yaldram for life in his Prison.
You differentiate between Mir Temur and Nadir Shah only by their Sect? thats your basis of Hate and Like? And not by the Havoc Both of them Wreck on Innocent Muslims under their Rule? they Both Idealized Great Mongol Khan the Chengis Khan. Why Indus and Ganga Lands? Why not send their armies to Hijaz and Istambul Instead to Strengthen the Islamic Caliphate Wars against Christian Europe? Why these Maggots Kept on Coming to Our Indus Lands? Because of its Wealth. Just to Loot My Friend not for Islam.
What Revisionism. This is what happened in reality. Dynasties Fighting for Superiority Crushing Common Folk all around. Right from the Times of Cyrus and Alexander Till Medieval Ages then Colonial Powers finally slowing down somewhat after World War 2.
Power Struggles and Warfare of Kings cannot be hidden behind the name of Religion. This is Treason with the blood of those who suffered on the hand of Blood lust of these fools through out the history.
I mentioned Ranjit Singh to be Born in Gujranwala only because you were trying to make a connection with Ahmad Shah Abdali because of his supposed Birthplace in Multan (Which is not the Case).
History is Cruel and Grey my friend. Unfortunate and Sad but True. Its never Black and White. The Lines between Right and Wrong cannot be drawn this easily by simple categorization like Religion, Race, Region etc.
Mughals also came to India as Invaders But they Settled. Loved the people. Created a great Empire. Loved by their People.were Respected and recognized by everyone. Unlike these maggots who came to conquer Looted the Fertile Lands on Indus River Basin and Went back to there homeland with riches. There is no difference between these people and Mongol Hords led by the kinds of Chengis khan and Halagu Khan