Who was responsible for the partition of India and creation of Pakistan?

[kazaki]

Did you see the video?

Hindu intellectuals interviewed in the video state very clearly that Hindu intellectuals in Kolkata and elsewhere were equally if not more convinced about splitting Bengal into two entities, given the numbers of Muslim leaders and their intellectual leadership in undivided Bengal at that time (led by Sher-e-Bangla and Suhrawardy), which they could not dare challenge at the time. If Bengal remained undivided, Muslims would have become way too powerful in it, leading to the sidelining of Hindu leadership and eventually leading entire WB (including part of Bihar and Jharkhand to have become part of Muslim majority East Pakistan. That was to be avoided at any cost by Hindu leadership.

That is exactly why Congress leaders (including Shyamaprasad Mukherjee of the Hindu Mahasabha/RSS splinter group) wanted the division of Bengal and supported the creation of Pakistan. More so than Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq and Suhrawardy did.

Alongside the division of Bengal, Hindu Mahasabha leaders (Savarkar especially) pushed for splitting Punjab along with Bengal, for similar reasons.

The fact that Jinnah was a deft politician and well-informed negotiator was gravy on the side, and helped the Muslim league's cause for Pakistan. But Jinnah ultimately negotiated badly, most of Muslim majority areas of Assam was given to India.

I don't think you watched the video - give it some due time.

Two nation theory propagated by muslim leaders was the main reason for partition of india , don't try to shift responsibility on others , no hindu leader demanded partition of india .

 

[Bilal9]

Two nation theory propagated by muslim leaders was the main reason for partition of india , don't try to shift responsibility on others , no hindu leader demanded partition of india .

Dude - watch the video again.

These claims are being made by Hindu intellectuals themselves, and some heavy hitters at that.

Truth is truth, you cannot keep it muzzled forever.

Too bad it pours cold water all over the Hindutvas "akhand Bharat" and "Ghar wapsi" ideas now......

 

[bluesky]

Two nation theory propagated by muslim leaders was the main reason for partition of india , don't try to shift responsibility on others , no hindu leader demanded partition of india .

it was not exactly what happened in 1947. Yes, the Muslim leaders demanded partition of India where majority Muslim Provinces in the east and NW would form Pakistan.

However, it was Hindu political leaders who demanded also the partition of Bengal and Punjab. Dr. Shyama Prasad famously uttered, "Bengal must be divided even if India is not".

By the way, a few old districts were also divided. Sylhet, Dinajpur and Nadia. Karimganj, west Dinajpur and west Nadia remained in India. Sylhet, east Dinajpur and Kushtia districts in east Pakistan.

 

[SaadH]

The inherent inability of the Hindu majority to live like a tolerant and gracious majority. From the time of eradication of Buddhism and expulsion of Buddhist to the modern times, whenever Hindus were given an opportunity to rule they managed to subject the minority populations under them to genocidal subjugation.

 

[Falconless]

Punjab and Bengal shouldn’t have been partitioned, either they should have been given full independence or allowed to chose between Pakistan and India.

 

[El Sidd]

Please watch this very interesting video in its entirety on the causes and circumstances of creation of Pakistan and the movers and shakers at that time (1905 to 1948). And THEN (ONLY THEN) please comment. There are English subtitles.

These are very learned and well read historians commenting from Bangladesh and India, both Hindu and Muslims.

Also talks about the role of the extreme views of Shyamaprasad Mukherjee in all this (who was the founder of the the Hindu Mahasava, the predecessor to the RSS). There are views of current RSS supporters too (a few folks). You can clearly see the common RSS falsehoods being floated (Hindus are being tortured in Bangladesh, Muslims from Bangladesh infiltrating India etc.).

Makes you think deeply about why Hindu leaders at that time supported the creation of Pakistan.

Explanation in Bengali:

শুরুতে ড.মুখার্জি ভারত বিভাজনের তীব্র বিরোধী ছিলেন। ১১ ফেব্রুয়ারি ১৯৪১ সালে তিনি বলেন, মুসলিমরা যদি ভারত বর্ষের বিভাজন চায় তবে ভারতের সকল মুসলিমদের উচিত তাদের তল্পিতল্পা গুটিয়ে পাকিস্তান চলে যাওয়া। পরবর্তীকালীন সময়ে লর্ড মাউন্ট ব্যাটেন এর বাড়িতে ভারত বিভাজন ও বাংলা বিভাজন নিয়ে আলোচনা হয়। সভায় সিদ্ধান্ত হয় সংখ্যাগরিষ্ঠ মুসলিম ও হিন্দু জেলা প্রতিনিধি দের নিয়ে দুটি আলাদা সভা হবে এবং সবার মতামত নেয়া হবে। একটি সভার ফলাফলও যদি বাংলা ভাগ এর পক্ষে যায়, তবে বাংলা ভাগ হবে। মুসলিম সংখ্যাগরিষ্ঠ এর সভায় বাংলা বিভাজনের বিপক্ষে বেশি ভোট পড়ে। কিন্তু হিন্দু সংখ্যাগরিষ্ঠদের সভায় বাংলা বিভাজনের পক্ষে ভোট পড়ে। ড.মুখার্জী এখানে বড়সড় ভূমিকা পালন করেন। ব্রিটিশদের ভারত ছাড়তে হবে- এ কথা তারা ১৯৪৫ সাল নাগাদ পুরোপুরি বুঝে গিয়েছিল। তখনকার ব্রিটিশ সরকারের পরিকল্পনা অনুযায়ী, ১৯৪৮ সালের ৩০শে জুনের আগেই ভারতবর্ষের ক্ষমতা হস্তান্তর করতে হবে। সেজন্য ১৯৪৬ সালের মার্চ মাসে কেবিনেট মিশন নামে একটি প্রতিনিধি দল পাঠানো হয়েছিল ভারতের স্বাধীনতার প্রক্রিয়া নিয়ে আলোচনা করতে। এর কয়েক মাস পরেই জওহরলাল নেহেরুর নেতৃত্বে অন্তর্বর্তী সরকার গঠন করা হলেও মুসলিম লীগ প্রথমে তাতে যোগ দেয়নি।

In the beginning Dr. Mukherjee was strongly opposed to the partition of India. On February 11, 1941, he said that if the Muslims wanted the partition of India, then all the Muslims of India should leave for Pakistan. Later, in the house of Lord Mount Batten, the partition of India and the partition of Bengal were discussed. It was decided in the meeting that there would be two separate meetings with the majority of Muslim and Hindu district representatives and everyone's views would be taken. If the result of a meeting also goes in favour of the partition of Bengal, then Bengal will be divided. In the Muslim-majority meeting, there were more votes against the partition of Bengal. But in the meeting of the Hindu majority, the vote was in favour of the partition of Bengal. Dr Mukherjee played a major role here. By 1945, the British had to leave India – they had fully understood this. According to the plan of the then British government, the power of India should be transferred before June 30, 1948. Therefore, in March 1946, a delegation called the Cabinet Mission was sent to discuss the process of India's independence. A few months later, an interim government was formed under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru, but the Muslim League did not join it at first.

Got to admire the propaganda of assumption that India was a homogenous country and somehow Pakistan was created from it. Pakistan came into being before India, no historical revision can deny this.

There were more than 1500 princely states in the subcontinent subjugated to live under colonial rule by the British empire. In essence Pakistan became the first ever country born out of democratic principles owing itself to the political struggles of a political movement aptly called Pakistan movement.

Two nation theory propagated by muslim leaders was the main reason for partition of india , don't try to shift responsibility on others , no hindu leader demanded partition of india .

India was never partitioned. British colony in the subcontinent was divided and distributed.

India took form through brutal subjugation of around 1000 princely states by military means.

 

[BananaRepublicUK]

it was not exactly what happened in 1947. Yes, the Muslim leaders demanded partition of India where majority Muslim Provinces in the east and NW would form Pakistan.

However, it was Hindu political leaders who demanded also the partition of Bengal and Punjab. Dr. Shyama Prasad famously uttered, "Bengal must be divided even if India is not".

By the way, a few old districts were also divided. Sylhet, Dinajpur and Nadia. Karimganj, west Dinajpur and west Nadia in India. Sylhet, east Dinajpur and Kushtia districts in east Pakistan.

Thank god Pakistan was created.

Otherwise we would be in the same miserable position as Indian Muslims.

Look at the latest ADB report and stupendous export growth.

Two nation theory clearly vindicated further by the creation of Bangladesh.

Bangladesh has provided a safe haven for Hindus from caste discrimination.

Despite NRC/CAA Hindus are voting with their bellies by staying in Bangladesh.

 

[kingQamaR]

It did not seperate from india.

It gained indepdence from British India, a much larger land mass that was divided up into myanmar, ceylon, pakistan ,India and a plethora of princely states and allied states.

 

[Wergeland]

I don't know of any country which partitioned the land of a single ethnicity, such as Punjabi, Kashmiri and Bengali, purely because of a difference in religion. Northern Ireland is separate from Ireland because the former wanted to be with the United Kingdom, while Israelis and Palestinians do not consider each other the same ethnicity.

In India and the subcontinent, Muslims are natives. The Roaring Lions of Faith emblem of India [Hindustan] belongs to my ancient Vihari Deva/Shareef ancestry, which is of Abrahamic faith descending from Prophet Ibrahim and Kethura. So, I am in my Vihari ancestral faith as a Hindustani Muslim. My ancient caste ancestry moved from the Indus toward the Ganges approximately around 1000 BCE. The ruling caste was the top Vedic caste on the Indus. Ancient Ayodhya [Awadh] and Maurya, and medieval Delhi and Mughal empires, were Indian empires based on the Hindustani ruling caste.

Today, there are over two million Muslims in Spain proving the idiocy of what Christian Spain did. In Arab Muslim ruled Spain, there were plenty of Christians and Jews, probably the majority. Christian Europe had centuries of religious persecutions, anti Jewish pogroms, religious inquisitions and Christian religious wars. They are called the Dark Ages by the Westerners themselves.

Christian Spain persecuted and expeled Spanish Muslims and Jews. There was no United Nations. Now countries are obliged by International law to protect all people in their states, regardless of religion and ethnicity, thus no state is a people dumping ground for another state. Westerners went through Enlightenment which brought to the forefront the philosophy of human rights, something which all people today, including Europeans, need to focus on.

In reference to my post.

What i said is my observation of the results.

Nations often seem to be divided on either ethnic or religous lines. Often both, given enough time.

Not saying its a good thing tho.

- Burma — > Bamar majority —> Buddhist majority

- Bangladesh —> Bengali majority —-> Muslim majority

- Thailand - Thai majority —-> Buddhist dominated

England - English majority —> Vhristian majority

Greece —- Greek majority —> Christian majority


many more examples like this
thats just the way it is.

I believe it has to do with similairity and unification of a nation and its state policies.
Simpler for ruler to implements policies when most people belong to same “vision” and “outlook”.

Is it morally right ? …. thats up for discussion

 

[ThunderCat]

This is a nonsensical claim that has no historical basis. The fact and irony is that "India" as a political entity and "Indian" as an identity are all products of the British. The British were an instrument of forceful amalgamation of a continent (which is what led to the creation of India) with far greater diversity than either Europe or the Middle-East , not the opposite as you claim.

They also created "Hinduism" in the 1800s.

But to show the maps of the Durrani Empire as "Afghanistan" is somewhat inaccurate since the Durrani Empire precedes Afghanistan.

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

In reference to my post.

What i said is my observation of the results.

Nations often seem to be divided on either ethnic or religous lines. Often both, given enough time.

Not saying its a good thing tho.

- Burma — > Bamar majority —> Buddhist majority

- Bangladesh —> Bengali majority —-> Muslim majority

- Thailand - Thai majority —-> Buddhist dominated

England - English majority —> Vhristian majority

Greece —- Greek majority —> Christian majority


many more examples like this
thats just the way it is.

I believe it has to do with similairity and unification of a nation and its state policies.
Simpler for ruler to implements policies when most people belong to same “vision” and “outlook”.

Is it morally right ? …. thats up for discussion

Myanmar, Thai, Bengali, English, and Greek are ethnicities. Greece and England stayed the same countries transitioning from pre-Christanity to Christianity. Iran is the same country going from Parsi to Sunni to Shia. Egypt went from Pharaonic religion to Christian rule to Sunni to Shia to Sunni rulers; this didn't mean everyone in the country had the same religion. Thailand and Burmese are majority Buddhist, yet they aren't the same country. Buddhism isn't even an indigenous religion to them. What binds them is their ethnicity. Myanmar ethnics particularly hate Rohingya Muslims because of their different ethnicity. Their monks use religion as a tool of hate.

 

[BananaRepublicUK]

In reference to my post.

What i said is my observation of the results.

Nations often seem to be divided on either ethnic or religous lines. Often both, given enough time.

Not saying its a good thing tho.

- Burma — > Bamar majority —> Buddhist majority

- Bangladesh —> Bengali majority —-> Muslim majority

- Thailand - Thai majority —-> Buddhist dominated

England - English majority —> Vhristian majority

Greece —- Greek majority —> Christian majority


many more examples like this
thats just the way it is.

I believe it has to do with similairity and unification of a nation and its state policies.
Simpler for ruler to implements policies when most people belong to same “vision” and “outlook”.

Is it morally right ? …. thats up for discussion

Multicultural and/or ethnic societies are failures because inevitably the minorities are treated like shite.

US is a great example of this failure.

Blacks to this day are treated like slaves. And still fighting for the right to vote. Whilst the natives suffered a genocide and then put into reservations. Sort of plans Modi has for Indian Muslims.

Nations should be small and nimble but cooperate on a rules based system.

The EU is a great example.

 

[Wergeland]

The challenge of British India and its break up, is that modern nation state is a European invention. The Westphalian system with its geographical defined nationhood, suited Europe because of the special circumstances there.

British Raj was colony, that tried to become a European style nation after breakup, but lacked the circumstances of european nations.

Historically Islamic nations were defined by a ideological and not geographical statehood.

In my humble opinion, modern day India is a remnant of British India. It will likely disintegrate further into various regional power centers as the time goes.