Was the 1947 partition of India a mistake?

[rvd]

Anybody have recommendations for good books which discuss the Pakistani perspective on independence and partition? That is not something I learned growing up.

 

[MenInG]

Anybody have recommendations for good books which discuss the Pakistani perspective on independence and partition? That is not something I learned growing up.

@KB;

Please advise.

 

[Buffet]

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.

Sub-Saharan countries had far bigger challenges.

I am forgetting the best book's name on the topic of optimal size for natural development. It's been almost a decade I read that. But the main idea was that being too small puts you at a disadvantage, and being too big does the same. Big enough but not too big allows regions to develop fast due to some countries out of that region ending up following a rational approach.

Take the example of India and Pakistan,

If India had 10-12 separate countries, sure some regions would have struggled even then. But some would have developed really fast. Entire India was pretty much a closed economy till their finance minister Mr. Singh opened it up in 1992. India was close to defaulting in 1992. I am pretty sure that in the hypothetical case of 10-12 countries, not all of them would have followed a closed economic system. Indian economy did not grow much till then and we had plenty of non-sense writing all over justifying why it was in the best interest of the country. Growth took off after they opened the economy.

For Pakistan, I don't want to get into a debate with nationalist posters. I realize many posters maybe even from an army family. But the biggest problem is Army. It has simply taken over the country and sucked resources for decades. I mean 40-50% of elementary school kids are out of school, but it's a pretty much non-issue for most in Pakistan who are enjoying the status quo. It's not surprising, I would have behaved the same if I was benefitting from the existing system. At least the likelihood will be pretty high. Now, if there were 4 countries then the odds of all 4 having the same issue will be low. This non-stop talk about strategic depth, valuable location etc is non-sense when 40-50% of elementary school kids are not in school. Focusing on that will pay a far bigger dividend and it will be sustainable as well. The result may appear after a few decades, but it will change the trajectory.

Yes, there would have been challenges if the region had 12-15 countries. But the capitalistic system works best when we allow unleashing human potential. Human civilization has really taken off in the last few centuries after we learned how to harness energy cheaply. People in India or Pakistan are not different from US or Canada. If you have a rule of law, safety, regulation, etc to allow unleashing human potential then the country will grow leaps and bounds. Incentive drives this and we all want to have a good life for our family.

In short, there have to be roughly the right conditions for unleashing human potential. The chance of having the right condition is much larger with 15 countries than just 2. Indian has been moving in that direction and I am sure that Pakistan will move in that direction as well. But decades are lost and hundreds of millions of people suffered in poverty.

Sub-Saharan countries had bigger problems. Wherever the British went, they actually had a much better infrastructure and administrative setup. They did not do it for helping anyone. They did it to benefit themselves, but it ended up helping natives when they left. In comparison, many other occupying empires made the situation really bad, and when they left there was a large vacuum. It won't surprise me to see fast-growing subs Saharan countries in the future once they can get to some basic minimum standard.

 

[ElRaja]

Sub-Saharan countries had far bigger challenges.

I am forgetting the best book's name on the topic of optimal size for natural development. It's been almost a decade I read that. But the main idea was that being too small puts you at a disadvantage, and being too big does the same. Big enough but not too big allows regions to develop fast due to some countries out of that region ending up following a rational approach.

Take the example of India and Pakistan,

If India had 10-12 separate countries, sure some regions would have struggled even then. But some would have developed really fast. Entire India was pretty much a closed economy till their finance minister Mr. Singh opened it up in 1992. India was close to defaulting in 1992. I am pretty sure that in the hypothetical case of 10-12 countries, not all of them would have followed a closed economic system. Indian economy did not grow much till then and we had plenty of non-sense writing all over justifying why it was in the best interest of the country. Growth took off after they opened the economy.

For Pakistan, I don't want to get into a debate with nationalist posters. I realize many posters maybe even from an army family. But the biggest problem is Army. It has simply taken over the country and sucked resources for decades. I mean 40-50% of elementary school kids are out of school, but it's a pretty much non-issue for most in Pakistan who are enjoying the status quo. It's not surprising, I would have behaved the same if I was benefitting from the existing system. At least the likelihood will be pretty high. Now, if there were 4 countries then the odds of all 4 having the same issue will be low. This non-stop talk about strategic depth, valuable location etc is non-sense when 40-50% of elementary school kids are not in school. Focusing on that will pay a far bigger dividend and it will be sustainable as well. The result may appear after a few decades, but it will change the trajectory.

Yes, there would have been challenges if the region had 12-15 countries. But the capitalistic system works best when we allow unleashing human potential. Human civilization has really taken off in the last few centuries after we learned how to harness energy cheaply. People in India or Pakistan are not different from US or Canada. If you have a rule of law, safety, regulation, etc to allow unleashing human potential then the country will grow leaps and bounds. Incentive drives this and we all want to have a good life for our family.

In short, there have to be roughly the right conditions for unleashing human potential. The chance of having the right condition is much larger with 15 countries than just 2. Indian has been moving in that direction and I am sure that Pakistan will move in that direction as well. But decades are lost and hundreds of millions of people suffered in poverty.

Sub-Saharan countries had bigger problems. Wherever the British went, they actually had a much better infrastructure and administrative setup. They did not do it for helping anyone. They did it to benefit themselves, but it ended up helping natives when they left. In comparison, many other occupying empires made the situation really bad, and when they left there was a large vacuum. It won't surprise me to see fast-growing subs Saharan countries in the future once they can get to some basic minimum standard.

not sure if its the book your talking about, but francis fukuyama has written about the challenges of SSA, geographical, and infrastructural that have hampered the development of that region.

i appreciate your general sentiment, but i think all the advantages your mention of the capitalist system could have been put in place in both pakistan and india, and the economies of scale present in countries of their size would have served to expedite economic development. the fact that both countries wasted decades implementing ineffectual economic policies (Pakistan is still doing this) notwithstanding i believe both countries still had greater potential as larger markets.

im not sure about india, but karachi for instance is populated by more than half migrants from other parts of Pakistan, was it not part of Pakistan it would not have reached its size, and i would assume the same would be true to some extent of mumbai, which afaik has benefited from access to amassive indian market and cheap migrant labour from other parts of the country.

my own opinion is that states like maharashtra, karnataka, and TN might have had some economic surplus from independence and earlier adoption of economic liberalism, however assuming that independence came at a lack of access to the rest of india, potential regional conflict and the subsequent effect of losses to the poorer parts of india from the loss of that network effect overall prosperity would in total not be particularly higher than currently imo.

 

[Buffet]

not sure if its the book your talking about, but francis fukuyama has written about the challenges of SSA, geographical, and infrastructural that have hampered the development of that region.

i appreciate your general sentiment, but i think all the advantages your mention of the capitalist system could have been put in place in both pakistan and india, and the economies of scale present in countries of their size would have served to expedite economic development. the fact that both countries wasted decades implementing ineffectual economic policies (Pakistan is still doing this) notwithstanding i believe both countries still had greater potential as larger markets.


.

I think it was a different book.

You are correct about scale. The economy of scale would certainly benefit if snowball starts rolling down from a hill. The problem is getting that process started. I was making that point. I agree that once you have good conditions to move in that direction, the scale will surely help.

Not one to one correlation, but works the same way in the US at the state level. US system of federal and state. Different states have somewhat different policies. If one state becomes too regressive in tax and businesses start moving out, then the state tries to self-correct. Basically, we have many states carrying their own little experiment and whatever works, ended up getting copied to some extent by other states. This is far better than let's say states having no freedom and one monolithic policy. If you make a mistake it will take a decade to self-correct.

 

[KB]

@KB;

Please advise.

There is a useful ‘participant’ account from a Pakistani perspective provided by Chaudhri Muhammad Ali in his book, The Emergence of Pakistan, which was published in 1967. Ali was a Civil Servant in British India and was entrusted with the role of laying the groundwork for the creation of an elite Pakistani Civil Service, following partition when Pakistan’s governing machinery had to be constructed from virtually scratch. He also went on to become Prime Minister of Pakistan for a short period in 1955. His work is very useful in detailing the severe challenges that confronted Pakistan after its birth.

In respect of Pakistani historians/social scientists writing about the causes of partition, while acknowledging that there is not a single Pakistani view of the event, we might identify broadly two trends. One trend, common amongst Pakistani academics writing in the early years of Pakistan, was the emphasis on the ‘two nation theory’. So Khalid Bin Sayeed in, Pakistan: The Formative Phase 1857-1948 (originally published in 1968), wrote that the ‘decisive cause’ of partition was that there had:

“never taken place a confluence of the two civilizations in India – the Hindu and the Muslim. They may have meandered towards each other here and there, but on the whole the two have flowed their separate courses – sometimes parallel and sometimes contrary to one another.”

However, easily the most eloquent case for the role of ‘Islamicate value systems’ in constraining, shaping and/or inspiring Muslim elites was provided by a historian working outside the Pakistani academy - Francis Robinson - in his brilliantly argued essay ‘Islam and Muslim Separatism’, which is part of his book, Islam and Muslim History in South Asia.

The second trend, amongst a section of Pakistani historians, has been a focus on the leadership of Jinnah. This has resulted in a number of publications relating to Jinnah’s speeches and statements but not much in the way of what would amount to a useful biography. Akbar Ahmed’s book on Jinnah (Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic Identity), though weak on historical analysis, did avoid some of the pitfalls of other works by Pakistanis on Jinnah. Ahmed, a former Pakistani Civil Servant, ‘humanised’ Jinnah and showed how this Westernised man who was not a fluent Urdu speaker was able to symbolically embody Muslim hopes and inspire powerful bonds of affection.

Away from specifically Pakistani perspectives, I think there are two useful books for anyone new to studying partition. One is Patrick French’s Liberty or Death, which is a highly readable narrative that was intended for mass readership. The second is a more academic study by Ian Talbot and Gurharpal Singh, The Partition of India. It has a very useful chapter on the historiography of partition and emphasises the shift in the focus of research from causes of partition to the human consequences of partition.

 

[daytrader]

Nehru’s letters dispel Modi narrative on Kashmir ‘blunder’

A series of letters, which India’s current government has tried to keep classified, paint a weak picture of the Indian army’s position in its 1948 war with Pakistan, and that then-Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru was urged to agree to a ceasefire by his most senior general.

According to a Guardian report, Mr Nehru was advised by Gen Sir Francis Robert Roy Bucher – who was the commander in chief of the Indian army – to compromise with Pakistan due to their military’s inability to withstand a long military operation.

The letters can have significant political consequences for India’s nationalist government – led by Prime Minister Modi – which had discredited Mr Nehru’s decision to compromise with Pakistan on the status of Kashmir as an ill-informed “blunder”, the Guardian said.

Indian-held Kashmir was illegally stripped of its special status in 2019, which gave the region constitutional autonomy. The Modi government justified its decision by suggesting that Mr Nehru had made a mistake.

The correspondence from Gen Bucher shows that Mr Nehru’s decision was not a blunder, and that he was acting on his top commander’s advice that a political compromise was needed.

In his message to Mr Nehru, on November 28, 1948, Gen Bucher warned of fatigue among Indian troops in Kashmir, adding that an “overall military decision was no longer possible”.

Revealing Indian army’s weak positions on the battlefield, he wrote: “Army personnel evince two weaknesses, lack of training in the junior leaders, tiredness and ennui in the other ranks … In brief, the army needs respite for leave, training, and vitalising.”

There were also reports that Pakistan was planning to bomb Indian positions from the sky and was building roads to maintain and advance its positions.

Raising these concerns with Gen Bucher, Mr Nehru wrote “It is clear to me that we cannot rely on Pakistan remaining on the defensive.”

“In the event of Pakistan continuing their persistent shelling and offensive operation and our not being able to check this there, there is every likelihood of war taking place with Pakistan.”

...
https://www.dawn.com/news/1741380/nehrus-letters-dispel-modi-narrative-on-kashmir-blunder

 

[Romali_rotti]

Nehru’s letters dispel Modi narrative on Kashmir ‘blunder’

A series of letters, which India’s current government has tried to keep classified, paint a weak picture of the Indian army’s position in its 1948 war with Pakistan, and that then-Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru was urged to agree to a ceasefire by his most senior general.

According to a Guardian report, Mr Nehru was advised by Gen Sir Francis Robert Roy Bucher – who was the commander in chief of the Indian army – to compromise with Pakistan due to their military’s inability to withstand a long military operation.

The letters can have significant political consequences for India’s nationalist government – led by Prime Minister Modi – which had discredited Mr Nehru’s decision to compromise with Pakistan on the status of Kashmir as an ill-informed “blunder”, the Guardian said.

Indian-held Kashmir was illegally stripped of its special status in 2019, which gave the region constitutional autonomy. The Modi government justified its decision by suggesting that Mr Nehru had made a mistake.

The correspondence from Gen Bucher shows that Mr Nehru’s decision was not a blunder, and that he was acting on his top commander’s advice that a political compromise was needed.

In his message to Mr Nehru, on November 28, 1948, Gen Bucher warned of fatigue among Indian troops in Kashmir, adding that an “overall military decision was no longer possible”.

Revealing Indian army’s weak positions on the battlefield, he wrote: “Army personnel evince two weaknesses, lack of training in the junior leaders, tiredness and ennui in the other ranks … In brief, the army needs respite for leave, training, and vitalising.”

There were also reports that Pakistan was planning to bomb Indian positions from the sky and was building roads to maintain and advance its positions.

Raising these concerns with Gen Bucher, Mr Nehru wrote “It is clear to me that we cannot rely on Pakistan remaining on the defensive.”

“In the event of Pakistan continuing their persistent shelling and offensive operation and our not being able to check this there, there is every likelihood of war taking place with Pakistan.”

...
https://www.dawn.com/news/1741380/nehrus-letters-dispel-modi-narrative-on-kashmir-blunder

So where are these classified letters ? does anyone have a copy ?.

 

[nextover666666]

Simple answer: NO it was not a mistake Muslims had to have their own country and we got it.

 

[sweep_shot]

1947 partition was much needed. As a matter of fact, it should've happened much earlier.

I was a bit surprised Indian Muslims didn't join Pakistan. They chose to stay in India where they now often get persecuted.

 

[gazza619]

I have changed my mind about this topic.

Partition was the biggest blunder ever and muslims on both sides have been scammed.

 

[sweep_shot]

I have changed my mind about this topic.

Partition was the biggest blunder ever and muslims on both sides have been scammed.

Why? Do you think they should've stayed with India?

 

[SpiritOf1903]

Bigger question is why are Muslims blamed for the violence when the sikhs committed the most acts of savagery yet come across as innocent bystanders

 

[Bewal Express]

No but we swapped the possible Hindu oppression with savages amongst our own.

 

[Syed1]

I don't know if it was a blunder or not but I sure wish my grandparents had stayed put in Delhi and not moved to the new country. They had so much hope for the new country but now would be turning in their graves seeing the current state of affairs. While things are tough right now for Indian muslims they weren't always like that. Heck they even had a Muslim president. I'm hopeful that the majority of secular Indians won't let it turn into a Hindu Rashtra.


As for Pakistan, IK was a small glimmer of hope but he was thrown out by the corrupt generals and their pet politicians. The future is very bleak for Pakistan. Thank god my family has moved out of the country and we don't want anything to do with it anymore. Pakistan is only for corrupt generals, judges, politicians, bureaucrats and their offspring.

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

I don't know if it was a blunder or not but I sure wish my grandparents had stayed put in Delhi and not moved to the new country. They had so much hope for the new country but now would be turning in their graves seeing the current state of affairs. While things are tough right now for Indian muslims they weren't always like that. Heck they even had a Muslim president. I'm hopeful that the majority of secular Indians won't let it turn into a Hindu Rashtra.


As for Pakistan, IK was a small glimmer of hope but he was thrown out by the corrupt generals and their pet politicians. The future is very bleak for Pakistan. Thank god my family has moved out of the country and we don't want anything to do with it anymore. Pakistan is only for corrupt generals, judges, politicians, bureaucrats and their offspring.

Every civilization has ups and down and inshallah Pakistan will be back.

Pakistan was not created for economic prosperity but for safety of life.

The Indian president is a totally powerless position so nothing special there. Talk when an Indian Muslim becomes prime minister.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Considering that both countries are still disputing over Kashmir, Pakistan already losing East Pakistan, and provinces failing to unite, the partition was indeed a mistake.

 

[gazza619]

Why? Do you think they should've stayed with India?

Absolutely. As I said muslims on both sides are at a big loss.

Pakistani muslims got 70 years of dictatorship and Indian muslims were treated as second class citizens due to partition

 

[ahsan17]

I have changed my mind about this topic.

Partition was the biggest blunder ever and muslims on both sides have been scammed.

I don't know if it was a blunder or not but I sure wish my grandparents had stayed put in Delhi and not moved to the new country. They had so much hope for the new country but now would be turning in their graves seeing the current state of affairs. While things are tough right now for Indian muslims they weren't always like that. Heck they even had a Muslim president. I'm hopeful that the majority of secular Indians won't let it turn into a Hindu Rashtra.


As for Pakistan, IK was a small glimmer of hope but he was thrown out by the corrupt generals and their pet politicians. The future is very bleak for Pakistan. Thank god my family has moved out of the country and we don't want anything to do with it anymore. Pakistan is only for corrupt generals, judges, politicians, bureaucrats and their offspring.

One year of difficulty and you guys are changing the tune. IK should be easily able to come to power this coming elections. The fundamentals of why a separate state was needed hasn't changed one bit.

 

[gazza619]

One year of difficulty and you guys are changing the tune. IK should be easily able to come to power this coming elections. The fundamentals of why a separate state was needed hasn't changed one bit.

Imran khan is not here to stay.

His rivals are, via their children and grandchildren.

Unless we hang a selection of 50 people across different sections, nothing is going to change I am afraid.

 

[KB]

Rather than looking at the question from the perspective of today, I think it is more useful to understand it from the context of the inter-war period.

What needs to be emphasised is how unsettling the rise of nationalism and representative institutions were to minorities. As Jane Burbank and Frederick Cooper remind us in their book on Empire: “Throughout history, most people have lived in political units that did not pretend to represent a single people. Making state conform with nation is a recent phenomenon.”

Empires were of course hierarchical and exclusionary, but loyalty in the final analysis was owed to the ruler and the dynasty and not to an ethnicity. Whereas states under empire “declares the non-equivalence of multiple populations,” the nation-state by contrast “proclaims the commonality of its people.”

Nationalists - in pursuit of assimilation and homogeneity - often displayed a discomfort with difference. In addition, with the rise of representative institutions, there was the threat of the ‘tyranny of the majority’ as nineteenth century thinkers, Tocqueville and John Stuart Mills, had famously noted.

Mark Mazower in his brilliant book - The Dark Continent - demonstrates that the victors of World War I sought to deal with the problem of minorities through the force of international law and the League of Nations minority system. The idea was to keep minorities were they were, backed by legal guarantees and overseen by the League of Nations. The rise of Nazism and its obsession with biological racism put paid to this. As Mazower writes, there was “the virtual elimination of many minorities in eastern Europe – falling from 32 per cent to 3 per cent of the population in Poland, 33 per cent to 15 per cent in Czechoslovakia, from 28 per cent to 12 per cent in Romania. The German Volk was now more closely aligned with the boundaries of the (divided) German state; so, too, the Ukrainians. War, violence and massive social dislocation turned Versailles’s dreams of national homogeneity into realities.”

The League of Nations and its international law based approach to the minority problem had unravelled. This is the context for understanding the concerns of minorities and specifically the concerns of the Muslim League.

Adeel Hussain has argued that although we tend to view Jinnah as the consummate constitutional lawyer, in fact Jinnah during the 1930s turned away from the belief that the framework of law and legal guarantees could secure protection for the Muslim minority. No doubt the fate of the Jews in Germany and the impotence of the League of Nations in protecting minorities influenced Jinnah. Listen to his Presidential Address at Lucknow in October 1937, where he appeals not to law and justice but to power as the ultimate guarantor for a community:

“Honourable settlement can only be achieved between equals, and unless the two parties learn to respect and fear each other, there is no solid ground for any settlement. Offers of peace by the weaker party always mean confession of weakness, and an invitation to aggression. Appeals to patriotism, justice, and fair play, and for good will, fall flat. It does not require political wisdom to realise that all safeguards and settlements would be a scrap of paper, unless they are backed up by power. Politics means power, and not relying only on cries of justice or fair play or good will. Look at the nations of the world, and look at what is happening every day. See what has happened to Abyssinia; look at what is happening to China and Spain--and not to say of the tragedy of Palestine…”

Given that the anxieties of being a minority in many ways shaped the demand for a separate country, the pity is that the Pakistan that was created proved to be so insensitive to the concerns of its own minorities.

 

[ex-q-zit]

The partition was perfect solution (discounting the millions of deaths and displacement of people). If it wouldn't have happened then India would have been a never-ending boiling pot as the hindu-muslim population divide would have been about 65% Hindu, 30% Muslim and 5% the rest. Riots would have been rampant. Now muslims in pakistan are happy for becoming the only Islamic nation with a nuclear capability while India is happy as a growing economic power. Its a win-win situation.

 

[Local.Dada]

The partition was perfect solution (discounting the millions of deaths and displacement of people). If it wouldn't have happened then India would have been a never-ending boiling pot as the hindu-muslim population divide would have been about 65% Hindu, 30% Muslim and 5% the rest. Riots would have been rampant. Now muslims in pakistan are happy for becoming the only Islamic nation with a nuclear capability while India is happy as a growing economic power. It’s a win-win situation.

Good post. Partition was the right decision in hindsight however it was one of the worst implemented decisions of all time which resulted in millions of death, loss of properties and human displacement. Someone needs to be held accountable for that.

I feel the leadership purposely did a half-baked partition to prove a point this is not sustainable. Apparently QEA Jinnah wanted his property in Mumbai to be rented out and then collect the rent on it. Similarly some of the moves Gandhi/ Nehru made in that period gives me the same feeling. These things sometimes make me wonder how serious they were about the partition.

The locals who have lived there forever are fine, they just that they woke up to a new country. I feel for all the people who were displaced from their homes by radical mobs. No sympathies or accolades for the ones who made the decision to move on their own. They are responsible for their own fate.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Considering that both countries are still disputing over Kashmir, Pakistan already losing East Pakistan, and provinces failing to unite, the partition was indeed a mistake.

Pakistan didn't lose East Pakistan, it should have never have been Pakistan to begin with, it was Bengal always. For some reaosn it still didn't rejoin with the rest of their region even after being iberated by India. Why is there still a fence dividing Bengal?

 

[Oxfordchamp]

In hindsight, Partition was best thing to happen to India given the different trajectories taken and looking at the current gap between the two.

 

[Local.Dada]

. For some reaosn it still didn't rejoin with the rest of their region even after being iberated by India. Why is there still a fence dividing Bengal?

That’s because 1971 war wasn’t about India invading East Pakistan and conquering it. It was a civil war within Pakistan that India took advantage of if you put it that way and the reasoning was the influx of refugees into India which was to put it in your words much poorer than it is today.

Let’s say even if India had annexed Bangladesh it would mean India would look like an invader which would mask the real problem which was the atrocities done by the army of west pakistan against Bengalis.

Not everything in the world needs to be oversimplified for you on pp. you will be surprised how much info this thing called internet has once you try.

 

[Buffet]

Given that the anxieties of being a minority in many ways shaped the demand for a separate country, the pity is that the Pakistan that was created proved to be so insensitive to the concerns of its own minorities.

Is it surprising though? I think it's expected. As soon as country gets formed based on religion, it's headed in one direction as a default route. It will take some really great leadership for very long time to not go in that default direction.


Think about it for a minute. If a country is formed just for whites or blacks saying that they can't live together, it will be unrealistic to expect that minority race will be treated fairly in newly formed country.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

That’s because 1971 war wasn’t about India invading East Pakistan and conquering it. It was a civil war within Pakistan that India took advantage of if you put it that way and the reasoning was the influx of refugees into India which was to put it in your words much poorer than it is today.

Let’s say even if India had annexed Bangladesh it would mean India would look like an invader which would mask the real problem which was the atrocities done by the army of west pakistan against Bengalis.

Not everything in the world needs to be oversimplified for you on pp. you will be surprised how much info this thing called internet has once you try.

If you can't even post a quote without cutting parts of it out to suit your agenda, then why would anyone take your views seriously? This isn't Modi's India where you can start trashing documents on taking office, people can see the full quote by scrolling up.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Is it surprising though? I think it's expected. As soon as country gets formed based on religion, it's headed in one direction as a default route. It will take some really great leadership for very long time to not go in that default direction.


Think about it for a minute. If a country is formed just for whites or blacks saying that they can't live together, it will be unrealistic to expect that minority race will be treated fairly in newly formed country.

Agree, and a reason why I think Indian trajectory may be going in the wrong direction currently.

 

[ElRaja]

pakistans current predicament is not due to partition, situated between india, Iran and china, with a lower population density than india, what is today Pakistan had a lot of advantages which could have been leveraged.

unfortunately land reform never took place, the civil political space remain hollowed out, religious parties continued to divide votes without ever adding any benefit, the army become the main power broker and the rest was history.

sprinkle in bhutto using socialism to destroy pakistans industry, zia using Islam to indoctrinate pakistans middle classes, the non stop leacherous corruption of the last few decades and its a miracle Pakistan still exists. pakistan is like an episode of air crash investigation, theres tonnes of little things that add up.

india cannot tolerate one state with a Muslim majority, the idea it could tolerate 400 million worth of states with Muslim majorities is ludicrous. that india would be materially different to the India of today, likely mired in sectarian politics and massively corrupt administration.

 

[ex-q-zit]

Agree, and a reason why I think Indian trajectory may be going in the wrong direction currently.

Its funny how people base opinions based on stray incidents. India has over 20 crore muslims, so are you saying all of them are being discriminated against? In the past 6 months there have been 2 incidents in Telangana where hindu boys were killed by their muslim lover's families as part of honour killings. Does this mean all muslims are murderous?

Muslims are still making progress in every field. Nikhat Zareen is a boxer who won gold medals are world boxing championship and commonwealth games. Would she be able to even compete in sport if she was in Pakistan? We dont need to count the names in the Indian film industry. Owaisi brothers are rapidly increasing their footprints across the country with each election. Not to mention Shami, Siraj and Umran in cricket. Millions are educated and working in IT, medicine and other fields too.

We have hundreds of Pakistani Indians who have sought asylum in India. If India was indeed an unbearable place for muslims and Pakistan heavenly, then how many Indian msulims have souight asylum in Pakistan in search of better lives? There have been no bomb blasts in mosques. They celebrate every islamic festival with complete freedom. Enjoy Haj subsidies till date.

Just like there were stray incidents of mob-lynching in the name of beef Pakistan has mob-lynching in the name of blasphemy eg., Mashal Khan. Does that make Pakistan unsafe for muslims?

Don't understand how people who have not even set foot in India in their lives come to conclusions based on selective media reports.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

Considering prosperous, integrated Muslims got overrun in Gujarat, it beggars belief what would've happened without it with the Saffron Army getting its tail up.

Though I have a respect for
Hindus standing up for their beliefs

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Its funny how people base opinions based on stray incidents. India has over 20 crore muslims, so are you saying all of them are being discriminated against? In the past 6 months there have been 2 incidents in Telangana where hindu boys were killed by their muslim lover's families as part of honour killings. Does this mean all muslims are murderous?

Muslims are still making progress in every field. Nikhat Zareen is a boxer who won gold medals are world boxing championship and commonwealth games. Would she be able to even compete in sport if she was in Pakistan? We dont need to count the names in the Indian film industry. Owaisi brothers are rapidly increasing their footprints across the country with each election. Not to mention Shami, Siraj and Umran in cricket. Millions are educated and working in IT, medicine and other fields too.

We have hundreds of Pakistani Indians who have sought asylum in India. If India was indeed an unbearable place for muslims and Pakistan heavenly, then how many Indian msulims have souight asylum in Pakistan in search of better lives? There have been no bomb blasts in mosques. They celebrate every islamic festival with complete freedom. Enjoy Haj subsidies till date.

Just like there were stray incidents of mob-lynching in the name of beef Pakistan has mob-lynching in the name of blasphemy eg., Mashal Khan. Does that make Pakistan unsafe for muslims?

Don't understand how people who have not even set foot in India in their lives come to conclusions based on selective media reports.

I am not a fan of religion based organisations in politics, that is all I am saying. I would say the same if Tableegh i Jamaat got voted into power in Pakistan.

 

[Local.Dada]

If you can't even post a quote without cutting parts of it out to suit your agenda, then why would anyone take your views seriously?

Pakistan didn't lose East Pakistan, it should have never have been Pakistan to begin with, it was Bengal always.

That’s the edited part. I thought I was doing you a favor by editing out things that might enhance some iq points to the post but I guess I was wrong.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

That’s the edited part. I thought I was doing you a favor by editing out things that might enhance some iq points to the post but I guess I was wrong.

Use your superior IQ to learn how to quote properly, even if you want to leave some bits out, can still be done efficiently with some care.

 

[Local.Dada]

Use your superior IQ to learn how to quote properly, even if you want to leave some bits out, can still be done efficiently with some care.

I don’t claim to have a superior IQ. I have above-average iq at best, but I think I have the decorum to not say foolish things out of some irrational hate or just to get a rise out of people for no reason. That comes with basic education and the environment around you I would believe.

 

[ex-q-zit]

I am not a fan of religion based organisations in politics, that is all I am saying. I would say the same if Tableegh i Jamaat got voted into power in Pakistan.

In Pakistan you dont need to be a religious party as even a liberal Bhutto can bring in laws discriminating ahmaddiyyas. Also a military dictator like zia brings in religion by declaring even saree as un-islamic. Whereas in India even bigger historical events like 1984 Sikh genocide and 1992 Babri masjid riots couldn't change the democratic fabric. The civil society in India is much more empowered as compared to Pakistan. Even if BJP stays in power for next 50 years India will still uphold its democratic and constitutional rights.

India and Pakistan cannot be compared in this matter. In fact the only time ever a supreme court order was overturned by parliament was in the Shabano case by Rajiv Gandhi to appease the moulanas n islamic clerics. Its never happened to overtly benefit the hindu community.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

Having Bangladesh shoehorned in to a land mass with historic connection was segregation at best.

Bangladesh became a colony of newly founded country. Simply inoperable

Then it took India and Jagjit to liberate Bangladesh from Pakistan oppression.

That's a serious chess move from India

 

[KB]

Is it surprising though? I think it's expected. As soon as country gets formed based on religion, it's headed in one direction as a default route. It will take some really great leadership for very long time to not go in that default direction.

I think it is far more complex than such an interpretation - which tends to ‘flatten’ history and implicitly treats Islam as monochrome - suggests.

I have already touched on this here many times before, with respect to the journey and travails of Islamic modernism, so I won’t repeat myself. All I will say is that for a more sophisticated understanding, I recommend Muhammad Qasim Zaman’s book Islam in Pakistan.

 

[Buffet]

I think it is far more complex than such an interpretation - which tends to ‘flatten’ history and implicitly treats Islam as monochrome - suggests.

I have already touched on this here many times before, with respect to the journey and travails of Islamic modernism, so I won’t repeat myself. All I will say is that for a more sophisticated understanding, I recommend Muhammad Qasim Zaman’s book Islam in Pakistan.

You did not get my point. My point has nothing to do with Islam.

If you form a country for whites and then it's unrealistic to expect that blacks will be treated equally well.
If you form a country for Christians then it's unrealistic to expect that non-Christians will be treated equally well.
If you form a country for Muslims then it's unrealistic to expect that non-Muslims will be treated equally well.

Human nature is not going to change due to being white, Christian or Muslim. Yes, there could be exceptions, but norm will be a default path if country gets formed specifically for a certain group. Default path will be not so accommodating to groups who are different.

 

[uppercut]

The partition was not a mistake at all. Any Hindu who has lived in predominantly Muslim areas of any city in India will tell you this. Sad and unfortunate but that's the reality. However the implementation of it was extremely flawed to the detriment of Hindus on both sides.

The blame for it goes mainly to Gandhi - the Chief architect of Muslim appeasement politics in India - an utterly naïve individual who said and believed in some truly shocking things like " If Muslims come to kill you lay down and give up your lives" or words to that effect.

Ideally there should have been a complete population exchange based on religion. Just imagine where India would be today if that had happened. Instead I fear in the coming years there will be another partition forced on us.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I don’t claim to have a superior IQ. I have above-average iq at best, but I think I have the decorum to not say foolish things out of some irrational hate or just to get a rise out of people for no reason. That comes with basic education and the environment around you I would believe.

You don't have that decorum. If you did you wouldn't need to announce it on your own behalf along with your IQ.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

In Pakistan you dont need to be a religious party as even a liberal Bhutto can bring in laws discriminating ahmaddiyyas. Also a military dictator like zia brings in religion by declaring even saree as un-islamic. Whereas in India even bigger historical events like 1984 Sikh genocide and 1992 Babri masjid riots couldn't change the democratic fabric. The civil society in India is much more empowered as compared to Pakistan. Even if BJP stays in power for next 50 years India will still uphold its democratic and constitutional rights.

India and Pakistan cannot be compared in this matter. In fact the only time ever a supreme court order was overturned by parliament was in the Shabano case by Rajiv Gandhi to appease the moulanas n islamic clerics. Its never happened to overtly benefit the hindu community.

All fair points but my posts were talking about trajectory not history. I just find it hard to believe that chaiwallah is the face of modern India going into the 21st century.

 

[rickroll]

While India is far ahead of Pakistan in terms of economy and education, I don't think it would be a good scenario for muslims to be under BJP+VHP+RSS type rule.

BUT - this being said, I also wonder if goons like BJP would have come to power in the first place if partition never took place. Muslims usually vote as a single block especially when confronted with entities from outside threatening the foundation of Islam in their region. Now think of muslims from India-Pakistan-Bangladesh, and how 80% or more of this group voting as a single block against a Hindu majority divided by caste lines. In essence around 35%-40% minority voting as a single majority against a fragmented majority. This would have resulted in a great political dominance for muslims, resulting in better (better than today) education/employment/health/other social progresses among all muslim communities in South Asia.

In this sense, partition was probably more of a benefit for hindus than muslims. I agree with the above comment, muslims on both sides of the border seem worse off now instead of being a united stronger force.

 

[SportsWarrior]

No. It wasn't. The best thing to happen to India was the partition. I don't think india woild have made whatever little progress it has made with another 400 million people dragging it back. Thank God for the partition and most RSS cadres I personally know agree with. Only thing I would change is India's ill-fated pivot towards socialism. A moderate pivot to open economy would have helped india a lot better. If it was possible I would have thanked Jinnah personally for the partition.

 

[Romali_rotti]

While India is far ahead of Pakistan in terms of economy and education,

In this sense, partition was probably more of a benefit for hindus than muslims. I agree with the above comment, muslims on both sides of the border seem worse off now instead of being a united stronger force.

It was/is bad for the Muslims today because of themselves, they chose to dig their head overly into religion and ignore the true Important factors that was needed to build a successful country (talking mainly Pakistan here)

It is no surprise Pakistan is finished and Bangladesh whilst doing better but still nowhere really in the grand scheme of things internationally and India doing well. Both Pakistan and Bangladesh are muslim majorities.

Religious mindset was the difference between Hindus and Muslims proof is there for all to see.

I have always maintained that had India been a muslim majority today, they would be another Pakistan...

P.s. I am not saying India is a perfect country...

 

[Colorblind Genius]

Anybody have recommendations for good books which discuss the Pakistani perspective on independence and partition? That is not something I learned growing up.

“Shahaab Nama” is a good one.
It’s not based 100% on political events but it has some very noteworthy nuggets that indicate what were the motives behind the scenes by some Hindu political leaders.

 

[rickroll]

It was/is bad for the Muslims today because of themselves, they chose to dig their head overly into religion and ignore the true Important factors that was needed to build a successful country (talking mainly Pakistan here)

It is no surprise Pakistan is finished and Bangladesh whilst doing better but still nowhere really in the grand scheme of things internationally and India doing well. Both Pakistan and Bangladesh are muslim majorities.

Religious mindset was the difference between Hindus and Muslims proof is there for all to see.

I have always maintained that had India been a muslim majority today, they would be another Pakistan...

P.s. I am not saying India is a perfect country...

Disagree that Pakistan is finished or such doom messages. Yeah the country is facing a tough time now due to bad leadership. But Pakistan still has a good demographic tailwind that it could leverage with the right leadership and policies in place. Add the geo-strategic location to this and Pakistan has a good amount of untapped potential .

 

[Suleiman]

The mistake was getting lax and carefree so British could walk in and claim the land without a care.

Mughals should’ve been much more clinical after rightfully unifying India under a proper rule that it didnt deserve, but definitely needed.

If they had been as invested in the well-being of the empire as they were previously, Brits would’ve been thwarted, and then… Hindu and Muslim could continue to live in peace…

Aurangzeb defeated the Brits (and yet, a lot of Indians in Modi’s India have no gratitude towards the Mughals- same Mughals who defended the land against the subcontinent’s biggest enemy, an enemy that would leech billions and billions in wealth over the next few centuries)

If only after establishing his authority Vs the East India Company, Aurangzeb kicked them off the shores, there would be no partition…

That was his mistake. He underestimated Britain.

Everything after the British Invasion took the decision out of the hands of the Indians (including those whose descendants would be Pakistani or Bangladeshi). After the invasion they would dance to the Brit’s tunes as the Brits would continue to divide and conquer- both literally, but also psychologically and ideologically using the differences in faith.

 

[Hitman]

The mistake was getting lax and carefree so British could walk in and claim the land without a care.

Mughals should’ve been much more clinical after rightfully unifying India under a proper rule that it didnt deserve, but definitely needed.

If they had been as invested in the well-being of the empire as they were previously, Brits would’ve been thwarted, and then… Hindu and Muslim could continue to live in peace…

Aurangzeb defeated the Brits (and yet, a lot of Indians in Modi’s India have no gratitude towards the Mughals- same Mughals who defended the land against the subcontinent’s biggest enemy, an enemy that would leech billions and billions in wealth over the next few centuries)

If only after establishing his authority Vs the East India Company, Aurangzeb kicked them off the shores, there would be no partition…

That was his mistake. He underestimated Britain.

Everything after the British Invasion took the decision out of the hands of the Indians (including those whose descendants would be Pakistani or Bangladeshi). After the invasion they would dance to the Brit’s tunes as the Brits would continue to divide and conquer- both literally, but also psychologically and ideologically using the differences in faith.

That's an understatement. We Indians hate those invaders. We'll never consider those outsiders our own.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

The mistake was getting lax and carefree so British could walk in and claim the land without a care.

Mughals should’ve been much more clinical after rightfully unifying India under a proper rule that it didnt deserve, but definitely needed.

If they had been as invested in the well-being of the empire as they were previously, Brits would’ve been thwarted, and then… Hindu and Muslim could continue to live in peace…

Aurangzeb defeated the Brits (and yet, a lot of Indians in Modi’s India have no gratitude towards the Mughals- same Mughals who defended the land against the subcontinent’s biggest enemy, an enemy that would leech billions and billions in wealth over the next few centuries)

If only after establishing his authority Vs the East India Company, Aurangzeb kicked them off the shores, there would be no partition…

That was his mistake. He underestimated Britain.

Everything after the British Invasion took the decision out of the hands of the Indians (including those whose descendants would be Pakistani or Bangladeshi). After the invasion they would dance to the Brit’s tunes as the Brits would continue to divide and conquer- both literally, but also psychologically and ideologically using the differences in faith.

If the British didn't invade Muslims would still be under the sikh empire. Though maybe some prefer that and the brutality it inflicted