In hindsight who appears correct & triumphant, Mohandas Gandhi, Muhammad Ali Jinnah or someone else?

In hindsight who appears correct & triumphant regarding post independence conditions?

  • Mohandas Gandhi

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Subhas Chandra Bose

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Someone else

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    3

The Bald Eagle

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 25, 2023
Runs
8,798
Muhammad Ali Jinnah said in 1945, “Muslims who are opposing Pakistan will spend rest of their lives proving loyalty to India”

Mahatma Gandhi opined that "Hindus and Muslims were sons of the same soil of India; they were brothers who therefore must strive to keep India free and united."

While politicians like Vallabhai Patel and Nehru coerced Mohandas Gandhi to agree to a partitioned India for the sake of a strong federation while Subhas Chandra Bose offered to make Mr Jinnah the PM of United India in order to avert partition.

So bearing in mind the violence against minorities in the sub continent nations particularly India whose opinion do you find to be more prophetic and correct?
 
Muhammad Ali Jinnah said in 1945, “Muslims who are opposing Pakistan will spend rest of their lives proving loyalty to India”

Mahatma Gandhi opined that "Hindus and Muslims were sons of the same soil of India; they were brothers who therefore must strive to keep India free and united."

While politicians like Vallabhai Patel and Nehru coerced Mohandas Gandhi to agree to a partitioned India for the sake of a strong federation while Subhas Chandra Bose offered to make Mr Jinnah the PM of United India in order to avert partition.

So bearing in mind the violence against minorities in the sub continent nations particularly India whose opinion do you find to be more prophetic and correct?
I have not found any source for that quote by MA Jinnah. Do you know the source?
 
for the time being check this source https://www.nation.com.pk/23-Dec-2019/far-vs-short-sightedness, will eventually quote the proper or original source
I have that, but unable to find any primary source. But it was out of curiosity, and is irrelevant to the thread. MA Jinnah may or may not have said that, but in general he didn't agree to those muslims who opposed partition.

I will say that he saved pakistani muslims from Hindus. But he could not save pakistani muslims from pakistani muslims. Not his fault though. He turned them into a majority, and it is upto the pakistanis how they use their freedom.
 
I don't know much about this subject other than what I have learned here, but I did read that initially Jinnah did not advocate a separate state for Muslims. What was it that made him change his mind?
 
It basically started after the Nehru Report 1929 in which he backtracked from specific representation to Muslims in the federal legislative assembly at that time
I don't know much about this subject other than what I have learned here, but I did read that initially Jinnah did not advocate a separate state for Muslims. What was it that made him change his mind?
 
Muslim League had little role in fighting for the freedom from the Brits. So if Gandhi and Congress were not there, freedom was a non-existent concept even for Pakistanis. Muslims of the sub continent would have been proving their loyalty to the Queen. It was Congress and the revolt of British Indian Navy in 1946 that made it untenable for the Brits to continue their rule over the sub contient. Americans had made decolonizing a pre condition for post war funding to UK. Muslim League over the decades of its existence had time and time again were willing to help the British continue to rule over India. Infact even formed coalition with Hindu Mahasabha of all parties whenever Congress tried to disrupt British Raj.

So all those who love and admire Jinnah, remember he was time and time again ready to align with the likes of Hindu Mahasabha for the sake of power. The "Nazi" fascist inspired Savarkar and his RSS was with which Muslim League willingly aligned instead of fighting the Brits.
 
Muslim League had little role in fighting for the freedom from the Brits. So if Gandhi and Congress were not there, freedom was a non-existent concept even for Pakistanis. Muslims of the sub continent would have been proving their loyalty to the Queen. It was Congress and the revolt of British Indian Navy in 1946 that made it untenable for the Brits to continue their rule over the sub contient. Americans had made decolonizing a pre condition for post war funding to UK. Muslim League over the decades of its existence had time and time again were willing to help the British continue to rule over India. Infact even formed coalition with Hindu Mahasabha of all parties whenever Congress tried to disrupt British Raj.

So all those who love and admire Jinnah, remember he was time and time again ready to align with the likes of Hindu Mahasabha for the sake of power. The "Nazi" fascist inspired Savarkar and his RSS was with which Muslim League willingly aligned instead of fighting the Brits.
LOL at congress' role in freedom.

MA Jinnah won freedom from British India, means from both British and Hindus.
 
Muslim League had little role in fighting for the freedom from the Brits. So if Gandhi and Congress were not there, freedom was a non-existent concept even for Pakistanis. Muslims of the sub continent would have been proving their loyalty to the Queen. It was Congress and the revolt of British Indian Navy in 1946 that made it untenable for the Brits to continue their rule over the sub contient. Americans had made decolonizing a pre condition for post war funding to UK. Muslim League over the decades of its existence had time and time again were willing to help the British continue to rule over India. Infact even formed coalition with Hindu Mahasabha of all parties whenever Congress tried to disrupt British Raj.

So all those who love and admire Jinnah, remember he was time and time again ready to align with the likes of Hindu Mahasabha for the sake of power. The "Nazi" fascist inspired Savarkar and his RSS was with which Muslim League willingly aligned instead of fighting the Brits.

I can't speak for what might have been the goals of the Muslim League, for all I know they might have been an organisation created by the Brits themselves. But your highlighted comment that Muslims of the subcontinent would be proving their loyalty to the Queen makes little sense. As I said in another thread, even the Indian posters on here have constantly mocked Muslims for failing to integrate abroad until it was pointed out to them how that actually reflected on hindus who lived abroad.

When it was Muslim rule that Brits overthrew to take control of India, why would Muslims want to prove loyalty to the Queen?
 
LOL at congress' role in freedom.

MA Jinnah won freedom from British India, means from both British and Hindus.
Lol, Muslim League couldn't even win elections in majority Muslim states of British India. Had the British Raj stayed, they would have be just sucking up to the crown for small favours. Congress had the mass public support and could subdue any future coup that took place in literally all former colonies after gaining Independence, while Muslim League was lacked the popular support and eventually Military took control which has not dissipated in over 75 years of independence.
 
I can't speak for what might have been the goals of the Muslim League, for all I know they might have been an organisation created by the Brits themselves. But your highlighted comment that Muslims of the subcontinent would be proving their loyalty to the Queen makes little sense. As I said in another thread, even the Indian posters on here have constantly mocked Muslims for failing to integrate abroad until it was pointed out to them how that actually reflected on hindus who lived abroad.

When it was Muslim rule that Brits overthrew to take control of India, why would Muslims want to prove loyalty to the Queen?
When I say Muslims, I kind of meant everyone in the sub continent because we would have remained a colony. The statement was mentioned in context of supposed quote from Jinnah.
When you are subjects of the crown, you have to prove your loyalty to the state isn't it? We would have been subjects of British Raj and hence either loyal to it or traitors as per the Crown. Its simple.
 
Muhammad Ali Jinnah said in 1945, “Muslims who are opposing Pakistan will spend rest of their lives proving loyalty to India”

Mahatma Gandhi opined that "Hindus and Muslims were sons of the same soil of India; they were brothers who therefore must strive to keep India free and united."

While politicians like Vallabhai Patel and Nehru coerced Mohandas Gandhi to agree to a partitioned India for the sake of a strong federation while Subhas Chandra Bose offered to make Mr Jinnah the PM of United India in order to avert partition.

So bearing in mind the violence against minorities in the sub continent nations particularly India whose opinion do you find to be more prophetic and correct?
If Jinnah said that, he is right. As long as Kashmir issue is burning, the loyalty of Muslims will always be in question.

If Gandhi said that, he is obviously on some good stuff. He is right in the fact that Hindus and 99% of Indian Muslims are brothers from the same mothers. But he conveniently forgets that once you become a Muslim, you cannot have an idolator as your brother. Regarding keeping India united, which true Muslim believes that they can live under Kafir rule? I am sure Gandhi knew this. But he is too drunk on his own fantasies of brotherhood utopia.
 
After Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan, ML was hijacked by new comers. But lol how come you called it lacking support. They literally carved the Pakistan out of the 1946 elections.
Lol, Muslim League couldn't even win elections in majority Muslim states of British India. Had the British Raj stayed, they would have be just sucking up to the crown for small favours. Congress had the mass public support and could subdue any future coup that took place in literally all former colonies after gaining Independence, while Muslim League was lacked the popular support and eventually Military took control which has not dissipated in over 75 years of independence.
 
After Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan, ML was hijacked by new comers. But lol how come you called it lacking support. They literally carved the Pakistan out of the 1946 elections.
It was timing bhai. Its a kinda lengthy argument if we can remain objective enough would love to share that gradually.
To say ML got hijacked is a cope out, nothing else. ML was the most popular muslim party but didnt have the mass support that 75 years of Pakistan history will have you believe. Here are my points to support that argument:
1. till 1937, Muslim League could win only 1 seat in Punjab. Half of it is modern day Pakistan. It was almost half of congress in Bengal and United Provinces (which is modern day Uttar Pradesh)
2. Something rarely discussed is death of Sikandar Hayat Khan in 1942, his party was the dominant party in Punjab. Unionist party collapsed after his sudden death
3. 1946, Muslim League indeed almost swept through Muslim votes but it was not as comprehensive as people might project it to be. Congress still swept NWFP of all places Imagine that. How many non-muslims do you find in NWFP?
4. Pakistan idea found powerful support in the 1940s, once it became evident that British Raj will not be able to continue (This is purely a Congress achievement and not others). Muslim League was able to fear monger the idea of supposed "Hindu Raj" while themselves were willing to align with the likes of Hindu Mahasabha.
5. Muslim League had the majestic political timing of 1946 when Brits were forced to hurry for Indian independence for their own post war reconstruction. Marshal Plan was contingent on decolonization.
5. After Independence, sub continent was stuck in shambles, India infact worse in economy but Congress enjoyed true support of the masses while Pakistan despite relative economic prosperity just lived under the military thumb.
6. Muslim League got hijacked easily because it lacked an actual long term vision apart from separating from India.
 
It was timing bhai. Its a kinda lengthy argument if we can remain objective enough would love to share that gradually.
To say ML got hijacked is a cope out, nothing else. ML was the most popular muslim party but didnt have the mass support that 75 years of Pakistan history will have you believe. Here are my points to support that argument:
1. till 1937, Muslim League could win only 1 seat in Punjab. Half of it is modern day Pakistan. It was almost half of congress in Bengal and United Provinces (which is modern day Uttar Pradesh)
2. Something rarely discussed is death of Sikandar Hayat Khan in 1942, his party was the dominant party in Punjab. Unionist party collapsed after his sudden death
3. 1946, Muslim League indeed almost swept through Muslim votes but it was not as comprehensive as people might project it to be. Congress still swept NWFP of all places Imagine that. How many non-muslims do you find in NWFP?
4. Pakistan idea found powerful support in the 1940s, once it became evident that British Raj will not be able to continue (This is purely a Congress achievement and not others). Muslim League was able to fear monger the idea of supposed "Hindu Raj" while themselves were willing to align with the likes of Hindu Mahasabha.
5. Muslim League had the majestic political timing of 1946 when Brits were forced to hurry for Indian independence for their own post war reconstruction. Marshal Plan was contingent on decolonization.
5. After Independence, sub continent was stuck in shambles, India infact worse in economy but Congress enjoyed true support of the masses while Pakistan despite relative economic prosperity just lived under the military thumb.
6. Muslim League got hijacked easily because it lacked an actual long term vision apart from separating from India.
Agree to the extent that post independence strategy was not chalked out much by Jinnah as his sole priority was independence.

And on it being a non comprehensive victory, I don't know if this isn't comprehensive then what would be

1720027352422.png
 
Agree to the extent that post independence strategy was not chalked out much by Jinnah as his sole priority was independence.

And on it being a non comprehensive victory, I don't know if this isn't comprehensive then what would be

View attachment 144995
1. NWFP is a serious anomaly in this result, which I hope you agree.
2. There was already a separate electorate, so Muslims voted only for Muslims candidates. In that scenario, when Muslim League couldn't have complete win all the Muslim seats, it shows the support for ML was not complete as its made out to be.
3. ML was infact more popular in Muslim minority states where their propaganda of fear mongering worked well. In Muslim majority states, Muslims were confident enough to see through the tactics of ML.
4. This was the first and the only Election that Muslim League won anything of note even among Muslims. Hence, my assertion that Muslim League had no role in Independence from the British. It was an opportunistic party that got lucky and were able to partition British India. It was just a power grab.

A man who collaborated with Savarkar and his Hindu Mahasabha for the sake of little power under the white Imperialist talking about Muslim identity is kind a joke of the century.
It might be blunt, Modi is just a teeny successor of the dumb ideas of Savarkar with whom Jinnah willingly aligned. Think about it.
 
1. NWFP is a serious anomaly in this result, which I hope you agree.
2. There was already a separate electorate, so Muslims voted only for Muslims candidates. In that scenario, when Muslim League couldn't have complete win all the Muslim seats, it shows the support for ML was not complete as its made out to be.
3. ML was infact more popular in Muslim minority states where their propaganda of fear mongering worked well. In Muslim majority states, Muslims were confident enough to see through the tactics of ML.
4. This was the first and the only Election that Muslim League won anything of note even among Muslims. Hence, my assertion that Muslim League had no role in Independence from the British. It was an opportunistic party that got lucky and were able to partition British India. It was just a power grab.

A man who collaborated with Savarkar and his Hindu Mahasabha for the sake of little power under the white Imperialist talking about Muslim identity is kind a joke of the century.
It might be blunt, Modi is just a teeny successor of the dumb ideas of Savarkar with whom Jinnah willingly aligned. Think about it.
Interesting thoughts bro, but to say that Muslim League had no role in independence looks farcical tbh. I would be amazed even if indians here could agree with it.

And well it seems so have a very high standard as 82%, 86% and 95% votes share in Muslim majority states does not seem comprehensive to you. And in NWFP they had majority share.
 
Interesting thoughts bro, but to say that Muslim League had no role in independence looks farcical tbh. I would be amazed even if indians here could agree with it.

And well it seems so have a very high standard as 82%, 86% and 95% votes share in Muslim majority states does not seem comprehensive to you. And in NWFP they had majority share.
Yaar, just explore history in depth. Till 1940s, like Hindu Mahasaba, Muslim League was party of the elite landlords of their community begging for any chance at power. Both had always been subservient to the British. They had only one enemy : Congress. Both Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League had attempted to sabotage the freedom struggle multiple times. History might have been cleansed by Muslim League in Pakistan since its inception , same is being done here now with white washing of actions of Savarkar by Modi in the last 10 years.

Till World War 2, Muslim Majority states had their own Muslim parties representing them. Muslim League was left to the fringes. They adopted the Nazi tactics to rise to power. I have already mentioned and it shows ML was strong among Muslims in states where they were minority, because in those states their fear mongering could work.
 
Isn't it unfair even after 75 plus years?
Definitely unfair. Overwhelming majority will be loyal and brotherly with fellow Indians. A small percentage will be anti-national. But when the population of Muslims in India is 17 crores, even 1 or 2 percent runs into millions. It is an unfortunate and inconvenient fact.
 
Yaar, just explore history in depth. Till 1940s, like Hindu Mahasaba, Muslim League was party of the elite landlords of their community begging for any chance at power. Both had always been subservient to the British. They had only one enemy : Congress. Both Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League had attempted to sabotage the freedom struggle multiple times. History might have been cleansed by Muslim League in Pakistan since its inception , same is being done here now with white washing of actions of Savarkar by Modi in the last 10 years.

Till World War 2, Muslim Majority states had their own Muslim parties representing them. Muslim League was left to the fringes. They adopted the Nazi tactics to rise to power. I have already mentioned and it shows ML was strong among Muslims in states where they were minority, because in those states their fear mongering could work.
You are largely correct, yes landlords were part of the ML but when it comes to their post 1940s rise you are mistaken there. As ML won because of their demand for Pakistan which was acceptable and appealing to Muslim's overwhelming majority and bro you are also incorrect on Hindu Mahasaba as they did allied with ML in some provinces but you can search it yourself that they come into being in opposition to Muslim's demand for reservation and specific representation share in legislative assemblies.
 
Lol, Muslim League couldn't even win elections in majority Muslim states of British India. Had the British Raj stayed, they would have be just sucking up to the crown for small favours. Congress had the mass public support and could subdue any future coup that took place in literally all former colonies after gaining Independence, while Muslim League was lacked the popular support and eventually Military took control which has not dissipated in over 75 years of independence.
Congress had mass public support and Muslim League lacked popular support. Ok.

Then how come Muslim League walked away with a new country either side of the indian border? What cowards were congressis that they succumbed to someone who didn't have popular support?


Logic and congressis:ROFLMAO:
 
You are largely correct, yes landlords were part of the ML but when it comes to their post 1940s rise you are mistaken there. As ML won because of their demand for Pakistan which was acceptable and appealing to Muslim's overwhelming majority and bro you are also incorrect on Hindu Mahasaba as they did allied with ML in some provinces but you can search it yourself that they come into being in opposition to Muslim's demand for reservation and specific representation share in legislative assemblies.
The rise and tactics deployed by Muslim League are very much what the Hitler and Nazis did in the 1930s in their rise of power.
1. Muslim League actively collapsed other Muslim party provincial govts.
2. Death of Sir Sikander Hayat Khan in 1942 was critical for Muslim League's rise else imagine a Pakistan demand without Lahore and Punjab.
3. Muslim League was propped up by the Brits to counter Congress, I hope that fact remains without dispute.
4. Till 1929 Lahore declaration of "Poorna Swaraj" by Congress, Muslim League was literally a non-entity in Indian elections. Brits introduced appeasement policies to give little mogrels of power to Muslim League under their rule which they happily accepted.
5. In 1930s, my main point is how can these two parties (Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League) ever Ally. They did this to give a middle finger to the actual Pan-India party Congress who was actually demanding complete Independence for the people. These two power hungry parties would stoop to anything to get any power even allying with their own "ideological devils".

There would have been no Independent India or Pakistan without the Congress, with the likes of Jinnah and Savarkar we would still remained colonies of the British. Jinnah's ideological analogue is Savarkar, not Gandhi.
 
Congress had mass public support and Muslim League lacked popular support. Ok.

Then how come Muslim League walked away with a new country either side of the indian border? What cowards were congressis that they succumbed to someone who didn't have popular support?


Logic and congressis:ROFLMAO:
When you learn to read the detailed history that just headlines you would know. I have not once voted for Congress in my life and have been a BJP voter mostly. But that doesn't mean I have to turn blind to real facts of history.
 
When you learn to read the detailed history that just headlines you would know. I have not once voted for Congress in my life and have been a BJP voter mostly. But that doesn't mean I have to turn blind to real facts of history.
Well, I have never voted for BJP either.

You said ML didn't have popular support, and Congress enjoyed popular support. So how come ML got their demands met and Congress had to concede everything they asked for? What bargaining chip did they hold?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, I have never voted for BJP either.

You said ML didn't have popular support, and Congress enjoyed popular support. So how come ML got their demands met and Congress had to concede everything they asked for? What bargaining chip did they hold?
History padhlo , which can be more detailed than high school history books.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
History padhlo , which can be more detailed than high school history books.
Sure, recommend the history books which prove your fact. That despite ML having no public support, and Congress having huge public support, how were ML able to get all their demands met and Congress had to concede everything they asked for.

You just need to recommend some books.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am not even asking you to make an argument. Just name the book(s) from where you got your information.

Do you think I will actually read that book and come back with my dissection?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am not asking you to explain anything to me, because I have low IQ.

I am only asking you to name the book from where you got that information. That's it. Not demanding any argument or debate. Just name a book.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Muhammad Ali Jinnah said in 1945, “Muslims who are opposing Pakistan will spend rest of their lives proving loyalty to India”

Mahatma Gandhi opined that "Hindus and Muslims were sons of the same soil of India; they were brothers who therefore must strive to keep India free and united."

While politicians like Vallabhai Patel and Nehru coerced Mohandas Gandhi to agree to a partitioned India for the sake of a strong federation while Subhas Chandra Bose offered to make Mr Jinnah the PM of United India in order to avert partition.

So bearing in mind the violence against minorities in the sub continent nations particularly India whose opinion do you find to be more prophetic and correct?
Just another different point, what about the Ahmadiyya and their rights. They were the biggest supporter of the idea of Pakistan. How are their rights in Pakistan?
What about intense anti-Shia violence that has plagued Pakistan for decades?
Even for Muslims Pakistan has not be a paradise.

What about the loyalty tested for Muslims of East Pakistan in 1970 by West Pakistan? You literally have breakdown in the concept of Pakistan whatever Jinnah thought of, failed long long ago with a permanent demise in 1971.
Idea of India continues to survive from 1947 and unless BJP manages to usurp the Constitution completely and make Hinduism as a state religion, Gandhi and Congress' vision has sustained and grown.
 
Muhammad Ali Jinnah said in 1945, “Muslims who are opposing Pakistan will spend rest of their lives proving loyalty to India”

Mahatma Gandhi opined that "Hindus and Muslims were sons of the same soil of India; they were brothers who therefore must strive to keep India free and united."

While politicians like Vallabhai Patel and Nehru coerced Mohandas Gandhi to agree to a partitioned India for the sake of a strong federation while Subhas Chandra Bose offered to make Mr Jinnah the PM of United India in order to avert partition.

So bearing in mind the violence against minorities in the sub continent nations particularly India whose opinion do you find to be more prophetic and correct?
I think history has proven that neither were completely right.

Gandhi was wrong in the sense that it's almost inevitable that in the long run, a majority religion/community will assert it's power and hegemony. Hindus took a while to get around to it in India but under Modi, there's definitely a strong tilt.

Jinnah was wrong that such a tilt would be so bad that it would be better to live in a single religion country than a multi-cultural, multi-religion country. Some might argue that it's a co-incidence that Pakistan has gotten so bad. I would argue that it was built into the deign - a feature not a bug so to say.

Single religion countries are almost doomed to following religious principles and rules and religious principles and rules are not conducive to a modern country's success.
 
Just another different point, what about the Ahmadiyya and their rights. They were the biggest supporter of the idea of Pakistan. How are their rights in Pakistan?
What about intense anti-Shia violence that has plagued Pakistan for decades?
Even for Muslims Pakistan has not be a paradise.

What about the loyalty tested for Muslims of East Pakistan in 1970 by West Pakistan? You literally have breakdown in the concept of Pakistan whatever Jinnah thought of, failed long long ago with a permanent demise in 1971.
Idea of India continues to survive from 1947 and unless BJP manages to usurp the Constitution completely and make Hinduism as a state religion, Gandhi and Congress' vision has sustained and grown.
On the whole, I think neither side is too unhappy with the partition.

India would've been a country with 60-35-5(other) mix of religions. Much tougher for the Hindu majority to assert dominance as they're trying to do now.

Most Pakistanis now feel it would be impossible for them to live in a country not governed on (near) Islamic principles.

Bangladesh dislikes both India and Pakistan and feel themselves well setup as a country with a single culture, language and religion.

And purely practically, would it be possible to effectively govern a 2 Billion strong population with so much diversity effectively? Modern India itself chaotically ungovernable at times.
 
I think history has proven that neither were completely right.

Gandhi was wrong in the sense that it's almost inevitable that in the long run, a majority religion/community will assert it's power and hegemony. Hindus took a while to get around to it in India but under Modi, there's definitely a strong tilt.

Jinnah was wrong that such a tilt would be so bad that it would be better to live in a single religion country than a multi-cultural, multi-religion country. Some might argue that it's a co-incidence that Pakistan has gotten so bad. I would argue that it was built into the deign - a feature not a bug so to say.

Single religion countries are almost doomed to following religious principles and rules and religious principles and rules are not conducive to a modern country's success.

So if Pakistan had religious diversity it would be successful? Then the Pakistanis just need to import more hindus and their country will see more success. What an idea.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
On the whole, I think neither side is too unhappy with the partition.

India would've been a country with 60-35-5(other) mix of religions. Much tougher for the Hindu majority to assert dominance as they're trying to do now.

Most Pakistanis now feel it would be impossible for them to live in a country not governed on (near) Islamic principles.

Bangladesh dislikes both India and Pakistan and feel themselves well setup as a country with a single culture, language and religion.

And purely practically, would it be possible to effectively govern a 2 Billion strong population with so much diversity effectively? Modern India itself chaotically ungovernable at times.
Honestly, agree on that.
But since we are talking hypotheticals, maybe we could have gone the European route but a more centralized way. A truly federal structure. South Asia could have avoided wastage of billions and billions on defense and multiple wars.
This united entity would have taken up a permanent seat at Security Council too.
 
I think QA was partially correct. We still see that Muslims in India have to prove their loyalty today but I feel their situation was much better before the current Hindu extremist govt, with the exception of occupied Kashmir. I think before the current ruling party took over things were better for Muslims hence my view he was partially correct.

Gandhi was also partially correct because sensible Hindus and Muslims do live at least like distant cousins if not like brothers in India. But it’s a delicate relationship.


Bottom line is we are just gauging the situation on simply these two quotes from the two leaders. There is perhaps a much larger and convoluted debate required on the overall concept of partition. In a lot of ways the two nations are alike … mostly when it comes to their negative qualities. I believe at heart we are very racist, narrow visioned, intolerant and rigid. And we are still slaves to the colonial way of doing things to a large extent.
 
Honestly, agree on that.
But since we are talking hypotheticals, maybe we could have gone the European route but a more centralized way. A truly federal structure. South Asia could have avoided wastage of billions and billions on defense and multiple wars.
This united entity would have taken up a permanent seat at Security Council too.
Would adding 500 million to a population of 1.5 billion get you a permanent seat at the Security Council? I don't think so. We would be seen as a bigger threat by China on it's borders and would get constantly vetoed.

The same money we spent on fighting each other we could've been spending on defending from and fighting China.

As you say it's all hypothetical. A truly federal structure in a deeply chauvinistic and religious society like ours (as Stewie pointed out) encouraged by world powers who'd perceive us as a threat could've led to us breaking up into a dozen countries at some point.
 
Would adding 500 million to a population of 1.5 billion get you a permanent seat at the Security Council? I don't think so. We would be seen as a bigger threat by China on it's borders and would get constantly vetoed.

The same money we spent on fighting each other we could've been spending on defending from and fighting China.

As you say it's all hypothetical. A truly federal structure in a deeply chauvinistic and religious society like ours (as Stewie pointed out) encouraged by world powers who'd perceive us as a threat could've led to us breaking up into a dozen countries at some point.
India was offered UNSC permanent seat multiple times during Nehru's time. He declined. A single entity as vast as India Pakistan and Bangladesh would have been too hard to ignore and rightfully taken a place at the high table. China was not even in UN till 1971. China was barely anything in the first 2 to 3 decades of its existence. It would have been in no position to challenge a united India for any of the border issues.
 
India was offered UNSC permanent seat multiple times during Nehru's time. He declined. A single entity as vast as India Pakistan and Bangladesh would have been too hard to ignore and rightfully taken a place at the high table. China was not even in UN till 1971. China was barely anything in the first 2 to 3 decades of its existence. It would have been in no position to challenge a united India for any of the border issues.
Any primary source for this claim? Nehru was offered permanent seat at UNSC, that too, multiple times.

You run away when asked to show the sources.
 
One thing's for sure though, we'd have had some amazing cricket teams.
Such a low bar. Only those who don't have empty stomachs will count having more talent pool for a sport as a benefit.

It would be a loss for cricket too. So many talented cricketers would miss out, and a sport which is already has a few members will have fewer members, also loss of rivalry which is the oxygen for sports.
 
:hamster: :nonstop: :runaway:
I hope this clarifies :snack:
That is the standard behavior of many people when their long held beliefs are challenged, and they don't want to come to terms with the fact that they had been believing in a lie.

But for your own sake, go and find the primary sources for this absurd claim that Nehru was being offered UNSC seat multiple times.
 
That is the standard behavior of many people when their long held beliefs are challenged, and they don't want to come to terms with the fact that they had been believing in a lie.

But for your own sake, go and find the primary sources for this absurd claim that Nehru was being offered UNSC seat multiple times.
:nonstop: :hamster: :nonstop:
Just trying to replying your language saaaar! Its a new language for meeee, I will try get better gradually :shocked
 
:nonstop: :hamster: :nonstop:
Just trying to replying your language saaaar! Its a new language for meeee, I will try get better gradually :shocked
Hope you get better in critical thinking. Learning is easy. Unlearning is difficult.

There is no record of Nehru being offered UNSC seat, not even once. Yes, permanent members have been doing lip service that India should be considered for the permanent seat, they do it even now. It is enough to make indians feel better.

Just like how every visiting ex cricketer would be asked who is the best batsman by indian journalists, and they would say Sachin. And every body would go back home happy.

India was never getting the permanent seat and is never going to get it. Power is earned, not given as a charity.
 
Jinnah was right.

I look in the mirror, and at my family, and see evidence of it every day.

Will leave you guys to debate the history and tear it apart.
 
If Jinnah said that, he is right. As long as Kashmir issue is burning, the loyalty of Muslims will always be in question.

If Gandhi said that, he is obviously on some good stuff. He is right in the fact that Hindus and 99% of Indian Muslims are brothers from the same mothers. But he conveniently forgets that once you become a Muslim, you cannot have an idolator as your brother. Regarding keeping India united, which true Muslim believes that they can live under Kafir rule? I am sure Gandhi knew this. But he is too drunk on his own fantasies of brotherhood utopia.

I was always told that Indian Muslims were very patriotic Indians, if anything they got angry at Pakistan more than their Hindu compatriots. They were cross-marrying, had leading roles in Bollywood films which made Pakistanis jealous of their success. The amount of times I would hear Pakistanis complain that they had practically become hindus themselves and were barely Muslims any more.

Now we have the era of the BJP and we are seeing the fault lines appearing again. Do you think there might be a connection?
 
There would have been no Independent India or Pakistan without the Congress, with the likes of Jinnah and Savarkar we would still remained colonies of the British. Jinnah's ideological analogue is Savarkar, not Gandhi
Would just say this for now, this view is not historically and factually true. About Savarkar you are spot on.
 
Back
Top