What's new

what if there was no partition?

Status
Not open for further replies.
damn it will take a lot of thinking. K first there would not be a bangladesh either :D and then no wars of 65,71 and blah blah. Peace for the whole sub continent but again wars would come from the inside i.e struggle for power between hindus and muslims? religious riots where ever hindus or muslims would be in minority. With time those internal problems would have eventually disappeared for the secular state where as issues like kashmir would may be never? And if the whole sub continent would have survived as a country it would have become a bigger threat to China? We would have more wars with them instead of just one lol. Who knows. Any way Pakistanis are happy with Pakistan and Indians are happy with India :) God bless both countries and oh bangladesh too

ha ha..good answer.. :cheers:
 
Can you guys think of both pros and cons if there was no partition of the subcontinent in 1947?

especially for the pakistani region of today, what would life be like? would it be better or worse?

What would have happened if British never invaded this region? :D

there are many "If" and answer of these questions would be just personal assumptions
 
To be a Muslim in India

By Aakar PatelPublished: January 31, 2013

The writer is a columnist. He is also a former editor of the Mumbai-based English newspaper Mid Day and the Gujarati paper Divya Bhaskar aakar.patel@tribune.com.pk

In India, the Muslim lives on sufferance. It is the Hindu who has freedom to attack India and its culture, its vulgarity. The Muslim who objects to something, no matter that it is obvious and visible, must qualify his argument.

Usually, the qualification demanded is that he show himself as patriotic. In India, this is a term which comes out of the negative sentiment. To be a patriotic Indian, one is not required to be taxpaying, law-abiding, well-meaning or philanthropic. Patriotism is demonstrated through hating a particular country. The reason the Indian Muslim lives on sufferance is also rooted in this.

You see, the Muslim is guilty of the original sin, by voting for Pakistan in the 1945-46 elections. He divided Mother India and his generations must carry this burden of Adam.

Shahrukh Khan said this: “I sometimes become the inadvertent object of political leaders who choose to make me a symbol of all that they think is wrong and unpatriotic about Muslims in India. I have been accused of bearing allegiance to our neighbouring nation rather than my own country. This, even though I am an Indian whose father fought for the freedom of India. Rallies have been held where leaders have exhorted me to leave and return to what they refer to as my original homeland.”

He should have prefaced his remarks (which I find ordinary, inoffensive and accurate) as follows: “I don’t like Pakistan. My fans are mostly Hindus, whom I love more than Pakistanis.”


Having said this, he would not have offended us, no matter what he then unburdened.

Like children who need a pacifier, the Muslim offering opinion on prejudice must hold out this lollipop to Indians, whose natural view of him is coloured by his religion. At all points, he must remember this and mumble an Apologia Pro Vita Sua.


In not doing this, and I’m surprised he didn’t because he should know a thing or two about Indian public opinion, Shahrukh Khan opened himself to an attack which goes in this fashion: “Aren’t you grateful, are you not satisfied, that we gave you — you Muslim! — such fame, such success? You didn’t whine about this then, did you? Now, the Pakistanis are lecturing us because of your remarks. You should be ashamed.”

The self-congratulatory assumptions we make about ourselves — secular nation! World’s largest democracy! — are not particularly reflected outside of the Constitution. We should think about that.

On Nidhi Razdan’s show on NDTV on the night of January 29, I was on a panel, discussing Narendra Modi as a prime ministerial candidate. In the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) corner was a woman called Meenakshi Lekhi. Midway through the discussion, she asked a soft-spoken man, Najib Jung, vice chancellor of Jamia Millia Islamia, if he thought Indian Muslims wanted Pakistan.
Why did she bring this up? I don’t know, and there was no occasion to. But it was dropped in casually because it’s the natural thing to say to a Muslim here — hey, are you guys Pakistan-lovers? Tell us the truth, now.

As a writer, I can imagine the pressure on Muslim writers who are aware of India and the space they operate in. MJ Akbar wrote an unthinking paean to the BJP’s idiocy after Pokhran, and I suspect that wasn’t because he’s a fan of nuclear weapons. It’s all quite frightening, or should be. It doesn’t surprise me at all.

In India, it has always mattered who says something. What is said depends not on the intellectual content but which side it has blown from.

How it is said is also always more important than what is said because the Indian is easily offended. Ashis Nandy shouldn’t have assumed that he could be subtle and clever only because it was the anglicised middle class he was speaking to at Jaipur.
They are cut of the same cloth as other Indians. Quick to emotion, barely literate about anything whether their own culture or the West’s, and powered on and on by an asinine media.

To be a Muslim in India – The Express Tribune
 
what if there was no partition?

A few things do come to mind:
  • There would be none of those exciting and fanatical Pakistan vs India cricket matches.
  • Zaid Hamid wouldn't be able to cook up those hilariously ridiculous R&AW conspiracy theories.
  • The comment threads under Youtube videos of the Pakistani national anthem and patriotic songs would be way cleaner.
  • There would be no Youtube videos of the Pakistani national anthem and patriotic songs.
  • People would abuse Manmohan S. instead of Tinda Shareef and Mr. 10%.
  • PDF would have way less trolls.
  • PDF would be IDF
  • People won't write stupid posts questioning historical events.
 
Partition was bound to happen

Since Pakistani were independent nature people and not bound to slavery or being ruled by minority for the most of there history.

Pakistan eventually never was a true part of india.we were just merged by foriegn invaders

we dont share any similarity.
 
:laughcry:

Yeah, right. Except for ethnicity, language, culture, physical traits, clothing, traditions, etc.

You forgot to mention food :D but then there will be fight over this

My language muslim language urdu

my language hindu lanaguge sansikrat/hindi

My dress Muslim dress salwar kameez

My dress hindu dress sari

my food Pakistani food including beef/meat

my food Indian/Hindu foods which is mostly vegetarians

My origin Islamic and goes back to arab and turkish/mughuls

My origin and ethnicity is as old as IVC

I am pakistani more fair and white :D

I am hindu who has black and white populations

you use my Hindi in ur urdu

You use my urdu in your hindi

and the list of things goes on for whom we argue to each others :P


I personally feel nothing was wrong with demand of partition but the way it happened was bad as people became animals and lost humanity in them after getting blind in anger and religious sentiment :)
 
Can you guys think of both pros and cons if there was no partition of the subcontinent in 1947?

especially for the pakistani region of today, what would life be like? would it be better or worse?

It is simple, we don't need Hindu Masters or government who tell us what to do in Indian life. The best thing we got is our own independently country and own people decisions, not Hindus. India is divided by half and lost beautiful lands.
 
why ashamed of your indian flag? you are still stuck 66 years behind in history, get real, world has moved on.

Can you guys think of both pros and cons if there was no partition of the subcontinent in 1947?

especially for the pakistani region of today, what would life be like? would it be better or worse?
 
@Aeronaut

do we need threads like this? seriously?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom