Was the 1947 partition of India a mistake?

[Savak]

Today the Muslim Population in India is close to 200 million. The population of Pakistan is 220 million. The population of Bangladesh is 165 million. The population of Kashmir is 13 million.

A total combined Muslim population and 600 million Muslims overall.

India now has around 1.1 million Hindus. Wouldn't 600 million Muslims have been a very significant number for the 1.1 million Hindus in India to bully around?

When the British first took over India in the 1700's, it was one of the most peaceful conquests ever where the British just came over and the Hindus and Muslims were content, laid back and did nothing about the colonization by the British and the British exploited this indifference.

Eventually the Hindus educated themselves, got close to the British and got a level where they were able to stand shoulder to shoulder and gather some level of respect and credibility in terms of being taken seriously by the British. The Muslims on the other hand did nothing to help themselves, they remained content in their low level status jobs and all they did was protest, cry about injustice by the British and the Hindus. It was Sir Syed Ahmed Khan who finally changed this persecution complex mindset and adopted the philosophy of "If you cant beat them, then join them" and that is exactly what he did by educating himself and trying to get into the system.

Yes come the 1920's to 40's, it was felt the Hindus were less sympathetic towards the Muslims and that Muslims as a group hadn't done well and were exploited by them. But was partition really necessary and the only solution in 1947? Couldn't time and persistence helped bridge the gap between the Hindus and the Muslims in India?

My personal view is that Gandhi was absolutely correct in his fears where post partition he envisioned years and generations of blood shed between the two countries. We have fought many wars i.e. 1947, 1965, 1971, Siachen, Kargill and many other border skirmishes, we have spent billions on Nuclear Weapons and are still spending, wasting billions on Defence Budgets over a stupid piece of Land which vested interest groups are interested in exploiting for their own benefit.

As it is India has excellent relations with the rest of the Arab and Muslim world. Its not like Muslims have not done badly in India, you see Muslims excelling in all fields. I am sure with a 600 million Muslim population in India today, there would have been solid accountability for massacres in Gujrat, Babri Masjid and Kashmir. Any inequity in terms of education, business opportunities could have been addressed.

This is just my personal view but i think the Partition of India was an error and not really needed

 

[Romali_rotti]

Partition was only a mistake due to the massacres that occurred during the partition and the present Kashmir issue. If the Kashmir issue was not driving a wedge between India and Pakistan, both countries would have been in friendly terms despite a few differences.

 

[PakLFC]

Never! 1947 was when liberation defeated oppression that has only happened a few times in history. If the creation of Pakistan was a mistake then the same can be said about how modern America came in to existence. You mention how many Muslims there are in India yet forget how many insurgencies there are as well. Had there been no Pak there would have been even more insurgencies in India today no doubt about it. It is not about quantity but quality of life of Muslim's living in Pak, India and Bangladesh. No Pakistanis I know has any regrets about independence at all. It is mostly Indian's who can't get over it.

 

[slipcatch]

Solve Kashmir issue and partition would not be an issue.

Rather you’ll see the living standard improving significantly in no time.

Back then it was Pakistani Army who needed kashmir’s conflict to stay relevant now it’s Bhakths.

 

[proud_pakistani]

With every passing day I realize it was the best decision.

India and Pakistan both lack in education hence the people become emotional very easily. Politicians would certainly have exploited all these things had partition not taken place both Hindus and Muslims would be radicalized and would constantly have conflicts.

Had the nations been more educated it might have been a different story.

 

[big_gamer007]

People of sub continent are very emotional and forget me for saying but dumb. They are easily manipulated and can be brainwashed into hatred. Britishers policy of divide and rule was perfect for them and they knew how to make sure sub continent never becomes a powerhouse.

In an ideal world india-pakistan should have flourished by having usa-canada or england-scotland type relations and both economies would have been doing extremely well by now.

However we have current situation where we have inept and corrupt politicians on both sides and power hungry army generals who use each other to fuel more hatred.

At the end of the day partition was right because the people of sub continent are not eveol ed enough to go over hatred and fight for real issues of a good standard of life. British knew this and made sure they kept fighting for atleast next 100 years.

It might take atleast 6-7 more generations on both side to understand the real problems someone faces in their lives and fight to resolve them.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Solve Kashmir issue and partition would not be an issue.

Rather you’ll see the living standard improving significantly in no time.

Back then it was Pakistani Army who needed kashmir’s conflict to stay relevant now it’s Bhakths.

Kashmir issue is the border with India, that is understandable as the religious divide is still too raw for much progress for either side. What is less understandable is how Pakistan has failed to make progress with other countries which share both borders and the same faith. Afghanistan and Iran for example.

 

[cricket4all]

Partition was never a mistake. What was a mistake was the cheating by the Border Commissioners and collusion in giving India more land which should have been in Pakistan including Kashmir, having a gap getting from East Pakistan and West Pakistan because having India in-between. All of this was a mistake which left scores of people killed from all communities, the Kashmir conflict, split of Pakistan and wars and tensions between Pakistan and India to date. I know other reasons contributed to all this but I think it was the way the partition was done that is the root. It was designed to leave conflict and break up Pakistan, which it has with the creation of Bangladesh.

 

[Mamoon]

In an ideal world, the Indian subcontinent should have been the U.S. of Asia.

India, Pakistan and Bangladesh should have been one massive superpower country.

However, Muslims of the subcontinent have always had problems with Hindu rule, so a United States of India would probably have been a basket case as well.

Eventually, a few states would have attempted a revolt and a natural partition would have eventually taken place anyway.

By the time the British were ready to leave, one can argue that partition was a necessity. There was too much bad blood for the whole region to coexist.

The British with their divide and rule policy were very successful in exploiting religion and creating rifts between communities.

Once the British were able to use the religion card, the turbulent future of the region was sealed. Any future partition was always going to be on religious grounds once it became Muslims vs Hindus, with the British pulling the strings from both ends.

Partition would have been successful if it would have been conducted on administrative grounds, but Pakistan was carved out of India because of religious hate.

Another major mistake was not diving the region into multiple countries. Ideally, North India should have absorbed into Pakistan and South India should have been a distinct country.

The East should have been merged with Bangladesh (or Bengal) as an independent country as well.

However, we must go back to Britain’s divide and rule policy - once it was established that partition will be done on religious grounds, forming several small countries was not possible anymore.

Since Pakistan is so much smaller than India, and it has not been able to step out of India’s shadow and form its own identity. Plus, because of its small size and it’s hateful foundation, the military has been able to maintain a very strong grip on the country and thus impeding it’s progress by interfering in politics and creating terrorist entities.

 

[cricket4all]

^^^ maybe you are right I think. Also, Nehru was sleeping with Mountbattens wife or something like that which helped India.

 

[nextover666666]

No . It was meant to be and the Muslims were meant to have a country of their own allahamdurrallh . I am rooting for Khalistan next May the Sikhs have their own land as well

 

[Rana]

^^^ maybe you are right I think. Also, Nehru was sleeping with Mountbattens wife or something like that which helped India.

I believe the Sir Cristopher Lee biopic of Mohammad Ali Jinnah focussed a lot on this as if Nehru got the better of the deal through his open relationship with Lady Mountbatten. Not using this as an academic standpoint as it is a personal matter between the two individuals but it does make one ponder about the strange dynamics that were involved in the crucial decision making for the lives of over 1 billion people.

 

[Khan12]

In an ideal world, the Indian subcontinent should have been the U.S. of Asia.

India, Pakistan and Bangladesh should have been one massive superpower country.

However, Muslims of the subcontinent have always had problems with Hindu rule, so a United States of India would probably have been a basket case as well.

Eventually, a few states would have attempted a revolt and a natural partition would have eventually taken place anyway.

By the time the British were ready to leave, one can argue that partition was a necessity. There was too much bad blood for the whole region to coexist.

The British with their divide and rule policy were very successful in exploiting religion and creating rifts between communities.

Once the British were able to use the religion card, the turbulent future of the region was sealed. Any future partition was always going to be on religious grounds once it became Muslims vs Hindus, with the British pulling the strings from both ends.

Partition would have been successful if it would have been conducted on administrative grounds, but Pakistan was carved out of India because of religious hate.

Another major mistake was not diving the region into multiple countries. Ideally, North India should have absorbed into Pakistan and South India should have been a distinct country.

The East should have been merged with Bangladesh (or Bengal) as an independent country as well.

However, we must go back to Britain’s divide and rule policy - once it was established that partition will be done on religious grounds, forming several small countries was not possible anymore.

Since Pakistan is so much smaller than India, and it has not been able to step out of India’s shadow and form its own identity. Plus, because of its small size and it’s hateful foundation, the military has been able to maintain a very strong grip on the country and thus impeding it’s progress by interfering in politics and creating terrorist entities.

Lot of rubbish as usual.

 

[srh]

Partition was only a mistake due to the massacres that occurred during the partition and the present Kashmir issue. If the Kashmir issue was not driving a wedge between India and Pakistan, both countries would have been in friendly terms despite a few differences.

thats what Jinnah envision like relations between USA and Canada; alas Kashmir issue consume the whole dream

 

[JaDed]

No . It was meant to be and the Muslims were meant to have a country of their own allahamdurrallh . I am rooting for Khalistan next May the Sikhs have their own land as well

Their population has reduced in Punjab by 1% due to massive migration, plus their holy sites are distributed across India from Himachal to Maharashtra to Bihar ...
Of course the Canadian and Brit ones could still want Khalistan and Brampton can easily be made that , hopefully in 10 years.

 

[Hitman]

Partition was only a mistake due to the massacres that occurred during the partition and the present Kashmir issue. If the Kashmir issue was not driving a wedge between India and Pakistan, both countries would have been in friendly terms despite a few differences.

Stole the words out of my mouth. It's the Kashmir issue that has been the root of all problems. The horrors of partition was over back in 1947 itself. But the Kashmir issue is what has been creating all sorts of problems.

When you speak of the 1965 war or the Kargil war, neither of them would have taken place if Kashmir were not an issue.

 

[Mamoon]

Lot of rubbish as usual.

Wonderful critical analysis.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

In an ideal world, the Indian subcontinent should have been the U.S. of Asia.

India, Pakistan and Bangladesh should have been one massive superpower country.

However, Muslims of the subcontinent have always had problems with Hindu rule, so a United States of India would probably have been a basket case as well.

Eventually, a few states would have attempted a revolt and a natural partition would have eventually taken place anyway.

By the time the British were ready to leave, one can argue that partition was a necessity. There was too much bad blood for the whole region to coexist.

The British with their divide and rule policy were very successful in exploiting religion and creating rifts between communities.

Once the British were able to use the religion card, the turbulent future of the region was sealed. Any future partition was always going to be on religious grounds once it became Muslims vs Hindus, with the British pulling the strings from both ends.

Partition would have been successful if it would have been conducted on administrative grounds, but Pakistan was carved out of India because of religious hate.

Another major mistake was not diving the region into multiple countries. Ideally, North India should have absorbed into Pakistan and South India should have been a distinct country.

The East should have been merged with Bangladesh (or Bengal) as an independent country as well.

However, we must go back to Britain’s divide and rule policy - once it was established that partition will be done on religious grounds, forming several small countries was not possible anymore.

Since Pakistan is so much smaller than India, and it has not been able to step out of India’s shadow and form its own identity. Plus, because of its small size and it’s hateful foundation, the military has been able to maintain a very strong grip on the country and thus impeding it’s progress by interfering in politics and creating terrorist entities.

Yes Muslims are saints and it’s all the fault of Hindus. Do you have any more fairytales for my entertainment?

And yes I am Indian. Congratulations on blowing my cover, in 7 years, no one was able to figure it out.

You can quite clearly see in your initial post that you aren't even subtle in suggesting that it is the Muslims who were full of hate and refused to be ruled by the Hindus. Not necessarily the case, the counter argument is that Muslims were in fact fearful that Hindus were intent on stripping Muslims of their status, even today we see what is happening in India where roads are being renamed, and mosques demolished.

Otherwise you make some reasonable points in your posts which are marred by your pro-Hindu bias.

 

[Pak Warrior]

The partition was a mistake if you think about how much land pakistan got was too small and undeveloped. God allowed partition to happen, nothing happens without his will. So I dont think anyone can say it was mistake. The more and more I see the modern day hindu extremists, the more I thank the almighty that we dont live with and under a hindu leadership. Long live Pakistan!

 

[JaDed]

The partition was a mistake if you think about how much land pakistan got was too small and undeveloped. God allowed partition to happen, nothing happens without his will. So I dont think anyone can say it was mistake. The more and more I see the modern day hindu extremists, the more I thank the almighty that we dont live with and under a hindu leadership. Long live Pakistan!

Its Gods will for rise of Hindu extremism,Its Gods will for destruction happening in South Asia, please accept his/her will and ask Pakistan to stop talking about Kashmir coz Hari Singh ceded to India, Gods will he signed

 

[Syed1]

If partition was a mistake for you, you are most welcome to do an Adnan Sami. For the rest of us Pakistanis we are forever indebted to Mr. Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Had it not been for that great man, today Pakistanis would constantly have to prove their allegiance to the Hindu majority. Also no beef burgers.

 

[Hitman]

We Indians are happy with the partition, Pakistanis are happy with their identity and living in their own country. Don't think it was a mistake.

 

[Khan12]

Wonderful critical analysis.

Thank you. It was nothing more then what i stated.

 

[Pak Warrior]

Its Gods will for rise of Hindu extremism,Its Gods will for destruction happening in South Asia, please accept his/her will and ask Pakistan to stop talking about Kashmir coz Hari Singh ceded to India, Gods will he signed

Sounds like you support extremism, You will also reap the consequences of it. Extremism of any type is wrong, regardless whether hindu or Muslim or anything

 

[JaDed]

Sounds like you support extremism, You will also reap the consequences of it. Extremism of any type is wrong, regardless whether hindu or Muslim or anything

Naw Im mocking your will statement, sounds like your statement means everyone who died in partition at hands of extremism and blind religious bigots was coz Gods will.

So now God supports extremism? Because if it was my will it wont be happening for sure.

 

[cricket4all]

If partition was a mistake for you, you are most welcome to do an Adnan Sami. For the rest of us Pakistanis we are forever indebted to Mr. Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Had it not been for that great man, today Pakistanis would constantly have to prove their allegiance to the Hindu majority. Also no beef burgers.

Well said. Thanks to Pakistan and MA Jinnah offcourse there is Azad Kashmir as well.

 

[Pak Warrior]

Naw Im mocking your will statement, sounds like your statement means everyone who died in partition at hands of extremism and blind religious bigots was coz Gods will.

So now God supports extremism? Because if it was my will it wont be happening for sure.

You clearly missed my point

 

[cricket4all]

Its Gods will for rise of Hindu extremism,Its Gods will for destruction happening in South Asia, please accept his/her will and ask Pakistan to stop talking about Kashmir coz Hari Singh ceded to India, Gods will he signed

Yeah but it's God's will also Pakistan and Kashmiris talk about an independent Kashmir or one that fully joins Pakistan.

 

[JaDed]

Yeah but it's God's will also Pakistan and Kashmiris talk about an independent Kashmir or one that fully joins Pakistan.

haha exactly my point.. what is Gods will then??

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

haha exactly my point.. what is Gods will then??

God's will is everything you said, and everything he said. Only the omnipotent sees the bigger picture.

 

[ElRaja]

im not even religious and im glad partition happened.

given the access to natural resources, lower population density, geographical location, more pleasent sounding (subjective i know) languagues, and cross cultural confluence Pakistan was in a splendid position to develop. the country was subsequently mismanged spectacularly, but that doesnt detract from the opportunity that pakistan was.

doesnt take a detective to realise the indian national narrative is definitely started to strongly tilt towards hindu nationalism, and when muslims who live thousands of miles away from pakistan have to make a concerted effort to cow toe every mainstream opinion whilst simultaneously lagging behind non-muslims in every socio-economic metric to avoid being labelled pakistanis you know regardless of your leanings, your muslim background would have determined where u stood in that society.

the only mistake was not giving the bangalis there own country from the start.

 

[mustang]

Today the Muslim Population in India is close to 200 million. The population of Pakistan is 220 million. The population of Bangladesh is 165 million. The population of Kashmir is 13 million.

A total combined Muslim population and 600 million Muslims overall.

India now has around 1.1 million Hindus. Wouldn't 600 million Muslims have been a very significant number for the 1.1 million Hindus in India to bully around?

When the British first took over India in the 1700's, it was one of the most peaceful conquests ever where the British just came over and the Hindus and Muslims were content, laid back and did nothing about the colonization by the British and the British exploited this indifference.

Eventually the Hindus educated themselves, got close to the British and got a level where they were able to stand shoulder to shoulder and gather some level of respect and credibility in terms of being taken seriously by the British. The Muslims on the other hand did nothing to help themselves, they remained content in their low level status jobs and all they did was protest, cry about injustice by the British and the Hindus. It was Sir Syed Ahmed Khan who finally changed this persecution complex mindset and adopted the philosophy of "If you cant beat them, then join them" and that is exactly what he did by educating himself and trying to get into the system.

Yes come the 1920's to 40's, it was felt the Hindus were less sympathetic towards the Muslims and that Muslims as a group hadn't done well and were exploited by them. But was partition really necessary and the only solution in 1947? Couldn't time and persistence helped bridge the gap between the Hindus and the Muslims in India?

My personal view is that Gandhi was absolutely correct in his fears where post partition he envisioned years and generations of blood shed between the two countries. We have fought many wars i.e. 1947, 1965, 1971, Siachen, Kargill and many other border skirmishes, we have spent billions on Nuclear Weapons and are still spending, wasting billions on Defence Budgets over a stupid piece of Land which vested interest groups are interested in exploiting for their own benefit.

As it is India has excellent relations with the rest of the Arab and Muslim world. Its not like Muslims have not done badly in India, you see Muslims excelling in all fields. I am sure with a 600 million Muslim population in India today, there would have been solid accountability for massacres in Gujrat, Babri Masjid and Kashmir. Any inequity in terms of education, business opportunities could have been addressed.

This is just my personal view but i think the Partition of India was an error and not really needed

This is a very interesting post and I only hope this thread has enough good quality responses that this post deserves instead of the usual "hindu terrorists" and "muslim terrorists" type finger pointing.

I think whether partition was good/bad and how good/bad can vary from which perspective you are looking at it - Muslim perspective or Non-religious state actor as a national entity or Hindu Perspective or Other minorities (Christian/Sikh/Buddhist/Others) or non-religious liberal/progressive perspective. Each of these would have its own negative/positive from among the multitude of outcomes.

 

[mustang]

If partition was a mistake for you, you are most welcome to do an Adnan Sami. For the rest of us Pakistanis we are forever indebted to Mr. Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Had it not been for that great man, today Pakistanis would constantly have to prove their allegiance to the Hindu majority. Also no beef burgers.

Can Christians freely enjoy a good tongue tingling pork BBQ in a restaurant in Pakistan? Always been curious about this.

 

[mustang]

Kashmir issue is the border with India, that is understandable as the religious divide is still too raw for much progress for either side. What is less understandable is how Pakistan has failed to make progress with other countries which share both borders and the same faith. Afghanistan and Iran for example.

Good point but to be fair, India also has border disputes and only a not so chummy relationship with Sri Lanka (a Buddhist country that should supposedly be friendly with a Hindu majority nation). But in fairness to India in return, they do have excellent relations with Nepal and Bhutan.

I believe Pakistan can prosper more if they had friendlier relations with Iran and Afghanistan but sadly that is not the case.

 

[rhony]

Pakistan was formed based on religion but Jinnah had always maintained that in Pakistan, religion was not the matter of the state. More than 90 percent of the country were Muslims but there were divisions due to ethnicity, languages etc. These differences between people of the same religion led to a wasted decade of 50s. It's amazing to learn that during this time of grappling to chart a course for the nation, the conservative religious outfits were not major players.

The elitist agenda at that time was half baked as it wasn't pragmatic considering the country's various ethnic groups and their cultural identities. It is precisely during this time, due to a vacuum in leadership due to Jinnah's demise earlier, that Pakistan had it's major turning point. Due to rampant corruption and the infighting within Muslim league, martial law was imposed by Pak's then president who was soon deposed by Ayub Khan. That's where India and Pakistan have diverged as one embraced democracy while the other started it's future with military at the helm. Initially, the military rule seemed to be working due to Pakistan's amazing economic growth in the early 60s. The war in 1965 put a halt to that and the country firmly in grasp of the military rulers.

So, partition was not a mistake. It gave an identity to a minority community. The mistake was made much later in the 50s. I wonder if Jinnah was alive for another decade he would have built strong democratic institutions in Pakistan like Nehru did in India. It could have resulted in a country that did not have to suffer through religious extremism during the later part of the century. India and Pakistan would have resolved the Kashmir issue and wouldn't have let Americans or Russians exploit them during the Afghan war which screwed up the entire region for decades to come with terrorism.

 

[mustang]

Pakistan was formed based on religion but Jinnah had always maintained that in Pakistan, religion was not the matter of the state. More than 90 percent of the country were Muslims but there were divisions due to ethnicity, languages etc. These differences between people of the same religion led to a wasted decade of 50s. It's amazing to learn that during this time of grappling to chart a course for the nation, the conservative religious outfits were not major players.

The elitist agenda at that time was half baked as it wasn't pragmatic considering the country's various ethnic groups and their cultural identities. It is precisely during this time, due to a vacuum in leadership due to Jinnah's demise earlier, that Pakistan had it's major turning point. Due to rampant corruption and the infighting within Muslim league, martial law was imposed by Pak's then president who was soon deposed by Ayub Khan. That's where India and Pakistan have diverged as one embraced democracy while the other started it's future with military at the helm. Initially, the military rule seemed to be working due to Pakistan's amazing economic growth in the early 60s. The war in 1965 put a halt to that and the country firmly in grasp of the military rulers.

So, partition was not a mistake. It gave an identity to a minority community. The mistake was made much later in the 50s. I wonder if Jinnah was alive for another decade he would have built strong democratic institutions in Pakistan like Nehru did in India. It could have resulted in a country that did not have to suffer through religious extremism during the later part of the century. India and Pakistan would have resolved the Kashmir issue and wouldn't have let Americans or Russians exploit them during the Afghan war which screwed up the entire region for decades to come with terrorism.

Interesting points here. I have read some articles as to how one of the fundamental differences in the split between India and Pakistan was feudal system. India was taking definite steps to move away from feudal system - I even remember a comment from my grandfather about a law capping how much land you can own being passed in 50s or 60s. I also remember that many of the elite founders of Pakistan were also major land owners and it was (is) in their best interest that there be no cap on land ownership. There are some posts in Quora which state that to this day Pakistan has an economic structure that is closer to feudalism (Zamindari system) relative to India's economic structure driven by its earlier days' socialism.

Of course most of the things I mentioned here about Pakistan's economic structure is hearsay read from other sources. It would be great to hear from those of you in Pakistan regarding this.

 

[bujhee kom]

No. I am glad we do not live under Hindu tyranny. I regret that our sub-partition in 1971 was violent but Jinnah's basic premise was right. Hindus and Muslims have a complex history and being so outnumbered would mean perpetual short straws in a united India.

Congress should have agreed to constitutional safeguards for Muslims in 1946/7. That would have solved it.

 

[KB]

I am going to repeat something I wrote here a while back when a similar question was asked, as so far here the global context of partition has been ignored and without this context, I am not sure we can really understand the division of 1947:

It would be tempting to look at the post-independence period to find evidence to support either position. But those involved in the outcome did not have the benefit of hindsight and were influenced by the particular currents of the age in which they lived. In particular the global context is crucial in understanding the visions, ideas and fears of the leading politicians in the 1940s.

For the Congress the price of an undivided India was a weak centre with a confederal or quasi-confederal constitutional settlement. This was unpalatable to them for a weak central government would not be able to carry out the sort of change that many members of the Congress, including Nehru, were advocating. This needs to be seen in a global context. After the first World War and the Great Depression, the pendulum swung back in favour of a strong centralised state. We see this with more obviously with Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. In the USA, the New Deal led to much greater state intervention in society and in the UK, Churchill the much celebrated war time leader, was dispatched by the British electorate in favour of the Labour party which advocated a much larger role for the state in directing social and economic change. More broadly, there was a general belief in state planning, which of course became a central feature of the Nehru years. Nehru’s vision was that of a statist inspired transformation of society. The foundations of the Indian state were legitmised in these terms. In the case of India, we also must remember that it was a place with astounding levels of poverty and with very little history of the colonial state attempting to alleviate it. Not only was a strong state seen as indispensable to engendering a socio-economic transformation, but as essential for the continuing unity of India and for shepherding the princely states into the Indian Union.

The Muslim League was shaped by aspirations of creating a space where both Muslims and Islam would be secure and indeed rejuvenated. Long-standing ideas from Islamic tradition shaped its separatist platform. But important also was the global context of the particular period. The sense of foreboding that the Muslim minority felt and articulated was a far more generalized sentiment. The sense of unease often crystallised with the introduction of electoral politics, where numbers mattered. The fear of majoritarianism, the sense of exclusion from the dominant culture and what this might mean in a country or indeed province ruled by the weight of numbers was an issue for many different communities. As case studies we could point to the Hindus and Sikhs in the Frontier province in the 1930s who became increasingly uneasy with their minority position. We could point to the Naga community, with members of the Naga club in 1929 handing over a memorandum to the British commission which expressed a fear of being dominated culturally and economically by the Assamese and Indians. Such concerns were not specific to British India. The introduction of elective principle in Ceylon, for example, sparked concerns amongst the minority Tamil community. We should also note the collapse of the world order with the onset of World War 2. As Faisal Devji writes, “ideas of multinational federations, autonomous zones and partnerships in empire…were common in the period following the First World War, with its mandates and minority protections guaranteed by the League of Nations.” But the “the collapse of all these arrangements after 1939” had “forced upon men like Jinnah the realization that however regrettable, such schemes were no longer tenable.” What had happened was a “rapid unraveling of an international order that had been intended to guarantee the independence of nation states as well as the minorities within them.”

We cannot detach those that were involved in the political discussions in the 1940s from the particular milieu of the time. The fears of a great many Muslims as a minority were quite understandable and not exceptional, seen especially in the context of the era. It is not surprising that they feared being dominated in an India with a strong state at the centre able to impose its will. But equally, one can also understand the position of the Congress. By the end of his life Nehru may have come to appreciate that change in India could not be merely ‘top down’ and driven only by the state, but in the 1940s it is not surprising that, in an intellectual climate that favoured a strong state, he and so many would see the Muslim League’s demands as an obstacle to the sort of radical change required in a country that suffered so greatly under colonialism and possessed so many impoverished individuals.

 

[IAJ]

We Indians are happy with the partition, Pakistanis are happy with their identity and living in their own country. Don't think it was a mistake.

Sounds fair.

 

[imrankhannsu]

IMO dont think it is that much of a mistake. Everything would have centred in Delhi and Bombay. Other areas might not have developed in other areas as much as they are now after separation. Probably see more religious riots.

 

[Slog]

No. If anything there should have been 6-8 countries out of what is the subcontinent

India is an artificial entity created by the British for administrative purposes

 

[Slog]

In an ideal world, the Indian subcontinent should have been the U.S. of Asia.

India, Pakistan and Bangladesh should have been one massive superpower country.

However, Muslims of the subcontinent have always had problems with Hindu rule, so a United States of India would probably have been a basket case as well.

Eventually, a few states would have attempted a revolt and a natural partition would have eventually taken place anyway.

By the time the British were ready to leave, one can argue that partition was a necessity. There was too much bad blood for the whole region to coexist.

The British with their divide and rule policy were very successful in exploiting religion and creating rifts between communities.

Once the British were able to use the religion card, the turbulent future of the region was sealed. Any future partition was always going to be on religious grounds once it became Muslims vs Hindus, with the British pulling the strings from both ends.

Partition would have been successful if it would have been conducted on administrative grounds, but Pakistan was carved out of India because of religious hate.

Another major mistake was not diving the region into multiple countries. Ideally, North India should have absorbed into Pakistan and South India should have been a distinct country.

The East should have been merged with Bangladesh (or Bengal) as an independent country as well.

However, we must go back to Britain’s divide and rule policy - once it was established that partition will be done on religious grounds, forming several small countries was not possible anymore.

Since Pakistan is so much smaller than India, and it has not been able to step out of India’s shadow and form its own identity. Plus, because of its small size and it’s hateful foundation, the military has been able to maintain a very strong grip on the country and thus impeding it’s progress by interfering in politics and creating terrorist entities.

Lol at superpower

There would have been more poverty than the rest of the world put together and communal crimes and hate acts would be weekly occurrence.

 

[slipcatch]

In an ideal world, the Indian subcontinent should have been the U.S. of Asia.

India, Pakistan and Bangladesh should have been one massive superpower country.

However, Muslims of the subcontinent have always had problems with Hindu rule, so a United States of India would probably have been a basket case as well.

Eventually, a few states would have attempted a revolt and a natural partition would have eventually taken place anyway.

By the time the British were ready to leave, one can argue that partition was a necessity. There was too much bad blood for the whole region to coexist.

The British with their divide and rule policy were very successful in exploiting religion and creating rifts between communities.

Once the British were able to use the religion card, the turbulent future of the region was sealed. Any future partition was always going to be on religious grounds once it became Muslims vs Hindus, with the British pulling the strings from both ends.

Partition would have been successful if it would have been conducted on administrative grounds, but Pakistan was carved out of India because of religious hate.

Another major mistake was not diving the region into multiple countries. Ideally, North India should have absorbed into Pakistan and South India should have been a distinct country.

The East should have been merged with Bangladesh (or Bengal) as an independent country as well.

However, we must go back to Britain’s divide and rule policy - once it was established that partition will be done on religious grounds, forming several small countries was not possible anymore.

Since Pakistan is so much smaller than India, and it has not been able to step out of India’s shadow and form its own identity. Plus, because of its small size and it’s hateful foundation, the military has been able to maintain a very strong grip on the country and thus impeding it’s progress by interfering in politics and creating terrorist entities.

A negative pessimist would always try to sell what could have been and cry over his mistakes over and over but that isn't you.

You do it for trolling reason, to appear different than the rest.

An idealist, an optimist, like the person you wish and want to be, Imran Khan, would dream to change the things for the better with a vision.

Keep working hard and may be one day people will admire you as much as most of the Pakistan and the rest of the world admire Imran Khan.

 

[Bhaijaan]

500 million muslims to 800-900 million hindus would have been quite a good balance for the unified subcontinent.

My Pakistani friends might disapprove me saying this, but i have always been a supporter of unified sub continent and i will always say that partition of India was a blunder and the most poorly executed event history in history of this region.

What most people worry about is what colour flag would it have been then and what would the unified region be called. Many people maybe have issues with the unified territory being simply called India only. I say what's in a name? Call it whatever you like but we all would have been much better off together and unified. Would peace and prosperity have come easy? Of course not. Challenges would still be there but we would have got there.

 

[Bilal7]

One of my family members made the same arguments and although the initial reaction is one of anger, there is some truth in this statement. The partition was done by the incompetent and exploitative British and did not have the interests of the Muslims at hand. So yes, in this sense, the partition can be seen as a mistake.

However, there is no denying that Muslims were being oppressed by the Hindus which is why, the idea of a separate nation was even brought up. Like some others have said, had the Kashmir issue been resolved and more of North India been a part of Pakistan, the partition would have been a much better outcome. As it stands, it was a flawed but necessary step to ensure the lives and safety of millions of Muslims.

Of course, the Mughal Empire not weakening and expelling the East India company from the beginning would have been the ideal scenario.

 

[troodon]

One of my family members made the same arguments and although the initial reaction is one of anger, there is some truth in this statement. The partition was done by the incompetent and exploitative British and did not have the interests of the Muslims at hand. So yes, in this sense, the partition can be seen as a mistake.

However, there is no denying that Muslims were being oppressed by the Hindus which is why, the idea of a separate nation was even brought up. Like some others have said, had the Kashmir issue been resolved and more of North India been a part of Pakistan, the partition would have been a much better outcome. As it stands, it was a flawed but necessary step to ensure the lives and safety of millions of Muslims.

Of course, the Mughal Empire not weakening and expelling the East India company from the beginning would have been the ideal scenario.

Ideal scenario would be Mughals never coming to India.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

500 million muslims to 800-900 million hindus would have been quite a good balance for the unified subcontinent.

My Pakistani friends might disapprove me saying this, but i have always been a supporter of unified sub continent and i will always say that partition of India was a blunder and the most poorly executed event history in history of this region.

What most people worry about is what colour flag would it have been then and what would the unified region be called. Many people maybe have issues with the unified territory being simply called India only. I say what's in a name? Call it whatever you like but we all would have been much better off together and unified. Would peace and prosperity have come easy? Of course not. Challenges would still be there but we would have got there.

I mostly agree with this, with the proviso that India was a confederate of multiple smaller states, which I said before in a similar thread, breaking each region into states such as Bengal, Punjab, Kashmir, Balochistan etc. That way religion would not be the driving dynamism of each individual state, but a characteristic.

Also we could keep some space from south Indians like troodon who I find frankly weird, I think the regional break up would be useful here. As one of our esteemed members once said here, good fences make good neighbours.

 

[Musakhel]

No Indian muslims are not like Pakistani muslims, they having lived under Hindu hegemony for all their lives, have become meek and servile to their Hindu overlords.

We can not allow 200 million of such indiviuals into our country.

 

[Markhor]

No, the idea that if only the Muslims of the subcontinent remained united they'd be a superpower is misguided. The Muslim subcontinent is not a monolith but is made up of a vast myriad of religious sects, languages, classes, ethnicities and tribes. Pakistan's own history has seen sectarian conflict and inter-provincial power struggles, and has fought two major insurgencies on its western border.

If Partition hadn't happened there would've a significant possibility of continued turmoil and violence.

The mistake was the execution of Partition. East Bengal should've been granted independence from the outset.

 

[Rahul1]

Today the Muslim Population in India is close to 200 million. The population of Pakistan is 220 million. The population of Bangladesh is 165 million. The population of Kashmir is 13 million.

A total combined Muslim population and 600 million Muslims overall.

India now has around 1.1 million Hindus. Wouldn't 600 million Muslims have been a very significant number for the 1.1 million Hindus in India to bully around?

When the British first took over India in the 1700's, it was one of the most peaceful conquests ever where the British just came over and the Hindus and Muslims were content, laid back and did nothing about the colonization by the British and the British exploited this indifference.

Eventually the Hindus educated themselves, got close to the British and got a level where they were able to stand shoulder to shoulder and gather some level of respect and credibility in terms of being taken seriously by the British. The Muslims on the other hand did nothing to help themselves, they remained content in their low level status jobs and all they did was protest, cry about injustice by the British and the Hindus. It was Sir Syed Ahmed Khan who finally changed this persecution complex mindset and adopted the philosophy of "If you cant beat them, then join them" and that is exactly what he did by educating himself and trying to get into the system.

Yes come the 1920's to 40's, it was felt the Hindus were less sympathetic towards the Muslims and that Muslims as a group hadn't done well and were exploited by them. But was partition really necessary and the only solution in 1947? Couldn't time and persistence helped bridge the gap between the Hindus and the Muslims in India?

My personal view is that Gandhi was absolutely correct in his fears where post partition he envisioned years and generations of blood shed between the two countries. We have fought many wars i.e. 1947, 1965, 1971, Siachen, Kargill and many other border skirmishes, we have spent billions on Nuclear Weapons and are still spending, wasting billions on Defence Budgets over a stupid piece of Land which vested interest groups are interested in exploiting for their own benefit.

As it is India has excellent relations with the rest of the Arab and Muslim world. Its not like Muslims have not done badly in India, you see Muslims excelling in all fields. I am sure with a 600 million Muslim population in India today, there would have been solid accountability for massacres in Gujrat, Babri Masjid and Kashmir. Any inequity in terms of education, business opportunities could have been addressed.

This is just my personal view but i think the Partition of India was an error and not really needed

Just 1.1 million hindus live in India? Where are you getting your information from?

 

[Markhor]

Interesting points here. I have read some articles as to how one of the fundamental differences in the split between India and Pakistan was feudal system. India was taking definite steps to move away from feudal system - I even remember a comment from my grandfather about a law capping how much land you can own being passed in 50s or 60s. I also remember that many of the elite founders of Pakistan were also major land owners and it was (is) in their best interest that there be no cap on land ownership. There are some posts in Quora which state that to this day Pakistan has an economic structure that is closer to feudalism (Zamindari system) relative to India's economic structure driven by its earlier days' socialism.

Of course most of the things I mentioned here about Pakistan's economic structure is hearsay read from other sources. It would be great to hear from those of you in Pakistan regarding this.

That's very true. Whilst some aspects of Nehru's socialism can be criticised, at least he introduced land reform.

Pakistan introduced land ceiling acts under Ayub and Bhutto but it was riddled with loopholes - namely that it capped individual not family land holdings.

Therefore landlords transferred some of their share to family members. Bhutto himself divided his holdings amongst family members before the legislation became active.

 

[Bhaijaan]

I mostly agree with this, with the proviso that India was a confederate of multiple smaller states, which I said before in a similar thread, breaking each region into states such as Bengal, Punjab, Kashmir, Balochistan etc. That way religion would not be the driving dynamism of each individual state, but a characteristic.

Also we could keep some space from south Indians like troodon who I find frankly weird, I think the regional break up would be useful here. As one of our esteemed members once said here, good fences make good neighbours.

And it probably still isn't impossible. Maybe within India and Pakistan respectively, we will see greater autonomy as each region becomes more economically advanced and mature.

Regarding 1947, i just fail to understand how the partition helped muslims overall when it simply made 50% of them even weaker inside mainland India? I hate to say it, its just selfish thinking on part of many resident Pakistanis that thanks to muslim league/Jinnah etc they were saved from India. Yes, 50% of you were saved from hindus, what about the remaining 50% who are forever weaker and prone to majoritarian harassment?

Gandhi might have been a racist but his opposition to partition was spot on.

1947 was an opportunity for the leadership of subcontinent to show a sense of responsibility towards this land.

 

[a_tahir]

Just 1.1 million hindus live in India? Where are you getting your information from?

Billion*

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

And it probably still isn't impossible. Maybe within India and Pakistan respectively, we will see greater autonomy as each region becomes more economically advanced and mature.

Regarding 1947, i just fail to understand how the partition helped muslims overall when it simply made 50% of them even weaker inside mainland India? I hate to say it, its just selfish thinking on part of many resident Pakistanis that thanks to muslim league/Jinnah etc they were saved from India. Yes, 50% of you were saved from hindus, what about the remaining 50% who are forever weaker and prone to majoritarian harassment?

Gandhi might have been a racist but his opposition to partition was spot on.

1947 was an opportunity for the leadership of subcontinent to show a sense of responsibility towards this land.

My view is as an outsider, not necessarily reflective of Pakistanis I should clarify. To get a real perspective you would have to survey Pakistanis themselves as to whether life as an Islamic republic is providing well for the citizens. It is easy to dismiss religion as a binding factor, but when India - which is supposed to be the shining example in the SC - is itself turning towards Hinduism as a binding factor, you can only assume they must think Pakistan is doing something right?

 

[KB]

That's very true. Whilst some aspects of Nehru's socialism can be criticised, at least he introduced land reform.

There is no doubt that in Pakistan land reform largely failed due to the deep rootedness of landed power. One can also say that measures in India were in comparison more effective, but even in India many historians have suggested that the impact in most regions was in fact underwhelming. For example, Tirthankar Roy, an economic historian of India talks of “the widespread failure of land reform in the region [by which he means South Asia generally].” Judith Brown, a historian of Indian politics, has also stated that

"The overall impact of the attempt at land reform by legislation was limited. The largest zamindari holdings were indeed dismantled. But overall throughout the country substantial farmers still controlled the bulk of the land, out of all proportion to their numbers. Moreover, many tenants were evicted during this period of change, lest they gained legal rights in land, and comparatively little land was redistributed to help those at the base of rural society."

In East Punjab, following the upheaval of partition, there is evidence that land reform did promote greater equity. The application of ‘standard acres’ and ‘graded cuts’ levelled the field. The consolidation of land reduced uneconomic holdings and freed up large areas of wasteland, which became available for distribution to landless groups.

Elsewhere, though, the picture appeared to be far less positive. Case studies of UP and Bihar have pointed to the limitations. Tomasson Januzzi’s study in 1974 on Bihar was especially illuminating, showing that the Congress's rhetoric far exceeded its commitment to land reform. Januzzi, further wrote that

“Not only has Bihar failed to implement agrarian reforms, the misery and poverty of her landless labourers, share croppers and small farmers are extreme...To live at the margins of subsistence is the way of life for the majority of Bihar’s peasantry. In real terms this means that some customarily need consume undigested grain picked from the excrement of cattle as they struggle for survival."

We should also remember that land reform fell under the control of states rather than central government under India's constitution.

 

[Savak]

Just 1.1 million hindus live in India? Where are you getting your information from?

Sorry Typo, 1.1 billion

 

[mustang]

That's very true. Whilst some aspects of Nehru's socialism can be criticised, at least he introduced land reform.

Pakistan introduced land ceiling acts under Ayub and Bhutto but it was riddled with loopholes - namely that it capped individual not family land holdings.

Therefore landlords transferred some of their share to family members. Bhutto himself divided his holdings amongst family members before the legislation became active.

Thanks for the inputs. I'm a firm believer that money is the real force behind the formation of majority of national entities. Religion/race/language may usually be the surface level symptoms IMO.

Loopholes: My guess is that the Indian system has some loopholes as well but probably not to the extent as in Pakistan. I found couple of helpful links regarding feudalism in Pakistan

https://www.aljazeera.com/humanrigh...ht-against-feudalism-2014814135134807880.html

https://www.economist.com/asia/2018/01/04/pakistan-still-suffers-from-feudalism

To the OP's question - my contention is that avoiding partition would have been impossible given the opposing economic stakeholders on either side. Reasons claiming religion may well have been marketing strategy to get the masses to follow your side's path.

Among the core elite of the Indian side you had strong bureaucrats that believe in big strong government combined with socialist economy. Among the core elite of the Pakistani side you had wealthy landowners, feudal lords (hardcore capitalists) who want less government control/power from an economic standpoint. Both sides probably knew that the other side's economic vision means less/no power for them, hence situation probably became non-negotiable and partition was unavoidable.

You can actually see the results of this from both nations' economic growth in 50s/60s (effects of which were felt until 80s). Pakistan had better economic growth and opened up markets earlier while India suffered from lower growth (the infamous "Hindu growth rate"). Somewhere after 60s Pakistan seemed to have lost the plot and India seemed to have woken up from slumber so things are opposite now.

My 0.02 to OP question - economy/money is real driving force behind majority of political decisions. Given that and given that Pakistan and India stakeholders had different economic visions, partition was inevitable.

It would have been a mistake not to have partition because forget the obvious religious riots, you will not have any economic reforms/decisions happening thanks to opposing views and political deadlock. Now you would have faced a 1.5 Billion population in sheer poverty, trying to kill each other regularly, near zero economic reforms, no outside investments (thanks to unstable environment), military coups, secessions for new banana republics ...

The word Balkanization would not have existed and the word "Indianization" would have been the vogue.

 

[a_tahir]

The partition was the best thing that could have happened to us pakistanis.
Even though we're not in the best economic state at least we're not getting assualted by some hindu goons everyday.

Thanks Mr.Jinnah

 

[Mamoon]

Lol at superpower

There would have been more poverty than the rest of the world put together and communal crimes and hate acts would be weekly occurrence.

That is why I said "in an ideal world". An ideal world where there would be interfaith harmony in the subcontinent, and people would take pride in their identity as Indians rather than religion or ethnicity. Without a disproportionate amount of resources spent on conflicts, the subcontinent would have been in a significantly better position to fight poverty.

 

[rhony]

Thanks for the inputs. I'm a firm believer that money is the real force behind the formation of majority of national entities. Religion/race/language may usually be the surface level symptoms IMO.

Loopholes: My guess is that the Indian system has some loopholes as well but probably not to the extent as in Pakistan. I found couple of helpful links regarding feudalism in Pakistan

https://www.aljazeera.com/humanrigh...ht-against-feudalism-2014814135134807880.html

https://www.economist.com/asia/2018/01/04/pakistan-still-suffers-from-feudalism

To the OP's question - my contention is that avoiding partition would have been impossible given the opposing economic stakeholders on either side. Reasons claiming religion may well have been marketing strategy to get the masses to follow your side's path.

Among the core elite of the Indian side you had strong bureaucrats that believe in big strong government combined with socialist economy. Among the core elite of the Pakistani side you had wealthy landowners, feudal lords (hardcore capitalists) who want less government control/power from an economic standpoint. Both sides probably knew that the other side's economic vision means less/no power for them, hence situation probably became non-negotiable and partition was unavoidable.

You can actually see the results of this from both nations' economic growth in 50s/60s (effects of which were felt until 80s). Pakistan had better economic growth and opened up markets earlier while India suffered from lower growth (the infamous "Hindu growth rate"). Somewhere after 60s Pakistan seemed to have lost the plot and India seemed to have woken up from slumber so things are opposite now.

My 0.02 to OP question - economy/money is real driving force behind majority of political decisions. Given that and given that Pakistan and India stakeholders had different economic visions, partition was inevitable.

It would have been a mistake not to have partition because forget the obvious religious riots, you will not have any economic reforms/decisions happening thanks to opposing views and political deadlock. Now you would have faced a 1.5 Billion population in sheer poverty, trying to kill each other regularly, near zero economic reforms, no outside investments (thanks to unstable environment), military coups, secessions for new banana republics ...

The word Balkanization would not have existed and the word "Indianization" would have been the vogue.

Good post. It would have been near impossible to govern centrally.

 

[MP2011]

https://www.dawn.com/news/1464998/india-an-unfamiliar-territory-or-not

Bit of an old article but still relevant, even in current climate.

 

[MenInG]

Seventy-four years is a long time. And for these two brothers, it was a moment they had been waiting for long.

They cried and hugged each other in the Kartarpur Corridor as they met after 74 years. The pictures and visuals showed the brothers and their family filled with joy. They reunited with the help of social media.

The video of the two brothers meeting each other after a gap of 74 years has gone viral. The brother--Muhammad Siddiq and Muhammad Habib aka Cheela-- were separated at the time of partition in 1947.

Muhammad Siddiq is a resident of Pakistan's Faislabad, while Muhammad Habib is a resident of India's Punjab.

The two planned a meeting at Gurdwara Kartarpur Sahib, Pakistan, on Tuesday after their relatives traced each other over social media.

Mohammad Siqqique was a kid when India was partitioned in 1947. His family got split. His elder brother Habib alias Shela grew on the Indian side of the partition line. Now 74 years later, the Kartarpur Corridor that connects Gurdwara Darbar Sahib in Pakistan to India has reunited the brothers.

Reports say Siddique lives in Pakistan’s Faislabad. Shela is his elder brother and lives in the Indian side of Punjab. The two brothers have hailed the Kartarpur Corridor initiative that helped them reunite.

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/d...t-at-kartarpur-corridor-after-74-years-360928

 

[Local.Dada]

I won’t get into my personal opinion on the partition itself because that is subjective and will only lead to back and forth.

However the more factual statements are


The way the process of partition itself was handled was one of the biggest Human Rights disaster in the post WW 2 era.

Can you imagine how many people were displaced, killed,raped, pillaged during this migration? It’s one of the biggest human migrations recorded in the history of the world. Whoever was responsible to oversee that is accountable

Also the way India- Pakistan have handled the diplomatic relationship post-partition with each other have also been disastrous. We have had 4 wars, constant accusations which have led to a point where some of the people on both side have almost pathological hatred for each other.

I think that’s what we need to discuss to better ourselves . What has happened has happened.

Now who has made more mistakes or right moves and where they stand today is a debate for another day and that is not worth discussing here.

 

[ElRaja]

The way the process of partition itself was handled was one of the biggest Human Rights disaster in the post WW 2 era.

Can you imagine how many people were displaced, killed,raped, pillaged during this migration? It’s one of the biggest human migrations recorded in the history of the world. Whoever was responsible to oversee that is accountable

i think the issue is that no was held responsible to oversee things, as soon as the flood gates opened any external power realised that it would not be possible to control.

millions were displaced, assaulted or worse, the fact that no film, or documentary has even made an attempt to accurately document the barbarity of the event is testament to how horrific the truth on the ground must have been.

 

[Kroll]

I won’t get into my personal opinion on the partition itself because that is subjective and will only lead to back and forth.

However the more factual statements are


The way the process of partition itself was handled was one of the biggest Human Rights disaster in the post WW 2 era.

Can you imagine how many people were displaced, killed,raped, pillaged during this migration? It’s one of the biggest human migrations recorded in the history of the world. Whoever was responsible to oversee that is accountable

Also the way India- Pakistan have handled the diplomatic relationship post-partition with each other have also been disastrous. We have had 4 wars, constant accusations which have led to a point where some of the people on both side have almost pathological hatred for each other.

I think that’s what we need to discuss to better ourselves . What has happened has happened.

Now who has made more mistakes or right moves and where they stand today is a debate for another day and that is not worth discussing here.

Parting gift by the British for the loss of their most prized possession...

 

[Justcrazy]

No, it was not a mistake.

Islam and Hinduism are not two different religions but totally different cultures. They are 180 degrees apart.

 

[the Great Khan]

The very word partition in itself is incorrect. Partition would imply that there was a modern India prior to 47. There was no India. It was the British raja or British India. What followed was the creation of Pakistan and the creation of modern India. End of. As for the tears of the Sikhs. Well nobody seems to talk about what they did during the turmoil. We always hear oh both sides. And no doubt that's true but that doesn't absolve the Sikhs for what they did..

 

[Lego20]

Easy - Bigger/united single country would have been stronger (economy, military, diplomacy) and more resourceful (natural and human) not to mention more diverse and colorful.

 

[rvd]

India would have been ungovernable with Pakistan and Bangladesh.

After that founding generation, parties would have devolved into appealing to people's base prejudices and instincts.

Nothing would have got done. So I am grateful that Partition happened although the way it occured was atrocious.

 

[RehnDeKaka]

Not a mistake.
Pakistan ideologically scientifically or philosophically has nothing to offer to the world.
Pakistan is a borrowed country with a borrowed ideology and can only take help, it will never give any help.It is best to isolate them. They are anyway privately isolated in overseas also. Pakistanis are not invited to many parties abroad.But Modi has done 100% right thing to isolate them.The so called nucular power - is totally based on Chinese design with enrichment done by AQK done by fraudulent means.If it was a capable country, it would have some capability in space program. Right now their space program is laughable - because their minds are not scientific but religious. It is not because of budgetary constraints.India has long way to prosper but it is lucky to drop off the excess baggage of Pakistan. Because it is morally bankrupt country.Thank you.Come again.

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

It was a mistake that only two countries were made. Several more should have been on ethnic / linguistic base

 

[sweep_shot]

I think the partition was great for Muslims.

Things could have been complicated had partition not happened.

 

[rvd]

Also keep in mind that there is no way South India would have accepted being part of an India with Pakistan and Bangladesh given their concerns about Hindi domination.

 

[Technics 1210]

Partition was not just great for Muslims, but humanity too - breaking away from a country that has more rights for animals than humans, is a clarion call towards humanity.

 

[Buffet]

Yes, it was.

Pakistan should have been 3-4 separate countries. Indian should have been 8-10 separate countries. The entire region would have developed faster.

 

[Local.Dada]

Partition was not just great for Muslims, but humanity too - breaking away from a country that has more rights for animals than humans, is a clarion call towards humanity.

Wow the hate is strong in this one.

 

[Local.Dada]

Easy - Bigger/united single country would have been stronger (economy, military, diplomacy) and more resourceful (natural and human) not to mention more diverse and colorful.

That already kind of exists. It is called India.

 

[KB]

Yes, it was.

Pakistan should have been 3-4 separate countries. Indian should have been 8-10 separate countries. The entire region would have developed faster.

This raises an interesting point. The movement for Pakistan is of course usually set against the idea of a United India, that from the perspective of the Muslim League leaders rendered the Muslims a permanent minority and threatened to lead to their marginalisation. But based on what is written above, we could also set it against a second, different option: that of the balkanisation of India.

In the Muslim majority areas, regional parties espousing localist interests and regionalist identities tended to dominate politics until the Muslim League was able to make a breakthrough quite late in British India. Therefore, there was in fact a strong basis for provincialism and indeed the raising of the Pakistan demand was in many ways designed to achieve a semblance of trans-provincial political unity amongst Muslims. (Some historians have gone so far as to argue that the image of Pakistan as a potent unifying symbol to rally around was in fact more important than a vision of it as a geographically bounded entity.)

Therefore, the movement for Pakistan- by redirecting focus to the idea of two nations - in fact weakened the case for a balkanised India, that could have led to many nations. Partition also put paid to visions of a more confederal India or at least one with diluted powers at the centre. As soon as Pakistan was cast off, many Congressmen breathed a sigh of relief that they could inherit a strong centre with few limitations. In historian Joya Chatterji’s words,

“By getting rid of its Muslim-majority tracts, with their awkward demands for special representation, states’ rights and group autonomy, partition enabled independent India to have the strong centre the Congress high command wanted, and to accept, without weightages, reservations and other such devices, the rule of numbers to which its leaders were committed.”

Counter-intuitively, it could therefore be argued that the Muslim League, more by effect than design, in the end in fact preserved the unity of India!

 

[Buffet]

This raises an interesting point. The movement for Pakistan is of course usually set against the idea of a United India, that from the perspective of the Muslim League leaders rendered the Muslims a permanent minority and threatened to lead to their marginalisation. But based on what is written above, we could also set it against a second, different option: that of the balkanisation of India.

In the Muslim majority areas, regional parties espousing localist interests and regionalist identities tended to dominate politics until the Muslim League was able to make a breakthrough quite late in British India. Therefore, there was in fact a strong basis for provincialism and indeed the raising of the Pakistan demand was in many ways designed to achieve a semblance of trans-provincial political unity amongst Muslims. (Some historians have gone so far as to argue that the image of Pakistan as a potent unifying symbol to rally around was in fact more important than a vision of it as a geographically bounded entity.)

Therefore, the movement for Pakistan- by redirecting focus to the idea of two nations - in fact weakened the case for a balkanised India, that could have led to many nations. Partition also put paid to visions of a more confederal India or at least one with diluted powers at the centre. As soon as Pakistan was cast off, many Congressmen breathed a sigh of relief that they could inherit a strong centre with few limitations. In historian Joya Chatterji’s words,

“By getting rid of its Muslim-majority tracts, with their awkward demands for special representation, states’ rights and group autonomy, partition enabled independent India to have the strong centre the Congress high command wanted, and to accept, without weightages, reservations and other such devices, the rule of numbers to which its leaders were committed.”

Counter-intuitively, it could therefore be argued that the Muslim League, more by effect than design, in the end in fact preserved the unity of India!

An interesting angle here. Thanks for taking the time to share.

I don't know much about that era. My comment was simply based on humans being motivated to make a better life for their families. Having 12-15 countries would have allowed at least a few to develop much faster and others would have followed. Even lazy bums like Greece are not suffering because the regions around them pulled them forward.

Size does have benefit some time, but it probably held back the region for many decades. It may turn into an advantage in the future, but my comment was about the time when the British left the region.

 

[ElRaja]

An interesting angle here. Thanks for taking the time to share.

I don't know much about that era. My comment was simply based on humans being motivated to make a better life for their families. Having 12-15 countries would have allowed at least a few to develop much faster and others would have followed. Even lazy bums like Greece are not suffering because the regions around them pulled them forward.

Size does have benefit some time, but it probably held back the region for many decades. It may turn into an advantage in the future, but my comment was about the time when the British left the region.

using a similar-ish scenario, do u think a fragmanted africa has particularly helped the smaller nations of that country develop?

the equivalent to the sub continent would have been one muslim north african country, and a billion plus population sub saharan africa. i don't think having that many countries helped them all that much.

not saying being united would have been better, just that the size of the countries in historic context would not have mattered materially imo, the more deprived parts of pakistan and india would still be deprived as independent countries i think.