Was the partition of India in 1947 the right thing to do?

[MenInG]

National/Independence days approaching fast and the question which is asked many times

Would Muslims have survived in a united India or are both countries better off as they are today?

 

[TQ89]

No use discussing this now. We should look forward not backwards.

We should now think at where we want to see our country in the next twenty years otherwise our next generation will suffer and face angst like we are facing now. Time to start fighting against the self destruction mode

 

[hafeezrocks]

Absolutely, considering the growth of anti-Muslim Violence in India which includes the Beef lynchings, Anti-Muslim riots , rise of Hindutva Terror groups and Hindu-Nationalist parties winning the elections in India.

 

[Zahid87]

Absolutely, considering the growth of anti-Muslim Violence in India which includes the Beef lynchings, Anti-Muslim riots , rise of Hindutva Terror groups and Hindu-Nationalist parties winning the elections in India.

The flipside of that is that if Partition were never to have happened, a party like the BJP would never have been able to come into power on the back of a pro-Hindu, or anti-Muslim agenda - they simply would not be able to command the votes with nearly 50% of the population being non-Hindu.

The question is irrelevant now anyway. There is no correct answer, or no way of knowing what path a United SC may have led after 1947. The animosity that both populations have for each other are relatively recent - up until 1965 relations were generally good between the two countries.

Jinnah envisaged that India and Pakistan would eventually become natural allies and friends, given the cultural similarities and common problems we would share. After all, Hindus and Muslims had lived together in the SC for over 1000 years. But after 200 years of British rule, we have somehow convinced ourselves that our Hindu/Muslim neighbour, who had lived on the same galli/mohalla for as long as we had, were suddenly foreign and alien.

In any case, Pakistani's have had it fed down their throats since 1947 that Pakistan was necessary, and a good thing. Indians once upon a time looked at Partition as a national tragedy, but nowadays the right wing fundoos look at it with the same view as most Pakistanis.

 

[last_knight]

National/Independence days approaching fast and the question which is asked many times

Would Muslims have survived in a united India or are both countries better off as they are today?

20 years from 1920s onward were "Darkest Era" for Muslim Ummah. It was an identity crisis for Muslim Ummah. There was no Islamic country to project Islamic Identity after Caliphate. Partition of Indo-Pak served well on this global front.

After inception of UNO, Capitalism was always going to be New World Order. Muslims have always been below par when dealing with Capitalism as a Social Culture among Muslim societies. Muslims of subcontinent would have suffered more without Partition. Partition served well on this regional front as well.

 

[rahulrulezz]

India owes big time to Jinnah. The congressis leaders like Nehrus who only cared about power would never have let that happen and India would have suffered for generations.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I think Muslims would have ruled and would have been more united if there was no partition. Hindus would not have a country of their own.

 

[Pakistanian]

This is question has been beaten to death, its been discussed multiple times and is always brought around Pakistan's independence day. I find it very insulting to Pakistan, why does it matter now and why does have to be discussed every year especially as we approach the 14th of August. Whether it was right or wrong, you can't change history. It's been 70 years, it's time for some people to realize that Pakistan is a reality.

BTW for people like me of mixed heritage, if it weren't for partition I probably wouldn't exist cause my grandparents wouldn't have married if it weren't for the mass migration/displacement. So I wouldn't really see this partition as either good or bad, some of us wouldn't have existed if it weren't for it.

 

[TQ89]

There was never an Ummah and the caliphate wasn't there to protect the Ummah. Get out of social studies and do some historical research of all the muslim empires & civilization since the last millenia and you will know why we are in a rut today. The BS we have been fed that it was all ok until the jews and british decided to invade us ( us here meaning any muslim state).

Things were never okay, we were in period of decline since way before. There were no good old days.

 

[Snak3eye5]

One thing I always wanted to see if I could go back in time or if someone can verify for me is if in reality Gandhi really wanted Jinnah to be prime minister of united India as he didn't want India broken up into two ??...If true why did Jinnah refuse and why did he never then go on to be prime minister of Pakistan ...?

 

[KB]

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.





 

[PakLFC]

Absolutely right! I can't stand the thought of a so called united India when it was originally many divided states itself until the Moghul's came calling. Our ancestors gave their blood in millions so the question is invalid. We wanted Pakistan and we took it! Even if Quaid Jinnah had been the PM of so called united India it would not have worked.There were just to many Muslim's who wanted their own country, I don't know one Pakistani who regrets the creation of Pakistan. We are as much people of the soil as the Indian's are so had every right to form our country. Below is a famous pic of Meher Dil Mehsud of Khyber agency telling Nehru that we want Pakistan!

 

[PakLFC]

Ask the Palestinians how great it is t have your own country even if it has many problems. What would they give to have a military like ours? Ask the Kashmiris in IoK if the creation of Pakistan was the right thing to occur. You will get your answer. Thing is that the current generation like ours having not witnessed the independence movement take Pakistan for granted.

 

[Badsha]

Yes. India was never meant to be one nation. It is a whole region of different entities and cultures.

However, it would have been better if we were a completely autonomous state with loose affinity with an overall India. Kind of like an EU.

 

[LegCutter]

A united republic like USA would probably have been the best outcome with an electoral college system.

Each state gets it's own language, it's own state government, taxes etc
Freedom of religion for everyone.

Some under-representation would be inevitable but it would be still be a lot better than what we have now - a sectarian, ethnic mess with endless corruption and being eclipsed by India's economy.

 

[Romali_rotti]

I think the whole morality behind the partition was wrong because it all happened due British wanting to drive a wedge between the hindus and muslims using Jinnah their agent. British succeeded in their plans but too bad for them, they were out of the sub continent to reap the benefits.. Once the seeds of evil were sown by the british to create a divide between hindus and muslims it was too late and I believe muslims wouldve faced problems had the partitian not took place, however their situation would have been a lot better than the minorities of modern day Pakistan had the partitian not happened.

 

[kaayal]

May be the political situations were worse then but still we could have lived like the different states of India are now in. India is already like several mini countries under a single label. Pakistan's each province are big and must have represented you well in the Lok sabha.

Would love to explore some of your places....From Kerala to Muree in train...Must be interesting lol.

Atleast Modi will not be in power now and Kashmir could have been saved from this mess.....

 

[PakLFC]

Indian's know that Pak having nukes means they can never militarily conquer Pakistan. For that reason they will try to make Pakistanis feel guilty about our country or play on our emotions of how brilliant a so called united India would be. No chance! Even more people today would be willing to sacrifice their life for Pakistan. As I said before no Pakistani I know wants any reunification or anything as such at all. August 14 will be celebrated with great zeal and happiness as if it were Eid, that tells you everything! India cries on August 14 when we celebrate!

 

[PakLFC]

I think the whole morality behind the partition was wrong because it all happened due British wanting to drive a wedge between the hindus and muslims using Jinnah their agent. British succeeded in their plans but too bad for them, they were out of the sub continent to reap the benefits.. Once the seeds of evil were sown by the british to create a divide between hindus and muslims it was too late and I believe muslims wouldve faced problems had the partitian not took place, however their situation would have been a lot better than the minorities of modern day Pakistan had the partitian not happened.

We all know how minorities in India are treated.
It was Gandhi not Jinnah who was a British agent. It s natural for you to discredit Jinnah.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ndhi-a-British-agent/articleshow/46517634.cms
https://www.scribd.com/document/476...-brought-from-SA-by-British-to-sabotage-India

 

[Sachin136]

Indian's know that Pak having nukes means they can never militarily conquer Pakistan. For that reason they will try to make Pakistanis feel guilty about our country or play on our emotions of how brilliant a so called united India would be. No chance! Even more people today would be willing to sacrifice their life for Pakistan. As I said before no Pakistani I know wants any reunification or anything as such at all. August 14 will be celebrated with great zeal and happiness as if it were Eid, that tells you everything! India cries on August 14 when we celebrate!

No one in India cries on August 14th.

 

[jeetu]

3 major scenarios i can speculate had partition not happened.

1. As powerful as China or even surpass it.

2. Civil war on religious lines leading to similar land area division like now. But hatred factor would be much higher.

3. Civil war leading to creation of several smaller countries.

 

[PakLFC]

No one in India cries on August 14th.

I don't think you know over 1 billion people! Many do where as many do not.

 

[kaayal]

I don't think you know over 1 billion people! Many do where as many do not.

North western India who lost their families must have cried before. Others doesn't even know when is your Independence day tbh.

 

[Slog]

If anything India should be 7-8 diferent countries

 

[Stewie]

3 major scenarios i can speculate had partition not happened.

1. As powerful as China or even surpass it.

2. Civil war on religious lines leading to similar land area division like now. But hatred factor would be much higher.

3. Civil war leading to creation of several smaller countries.

if buts and then.. thats all this thread is.

I sometimes wonder why Pakistanis even start such threads.

 

[troodon]

During my youth I used to feel that partition was wrong. But as I got into my 30's, i felt that it was the right decision.

Hinduism and Islam are polar opposites in terms of culture and religion. Islam is everything that is opposite of Hinduism.

Indian Christians never lost their Indian culture. They did not give up on their local culture, their language and names just because they became christians. Most christians still have Indian names and they do not dress anything different from a normal Hindu.

On the other hand Muslims as soon as they convert, change their language, culture, dressing, names(Arabic) and try hard to distance themselves from the rest of the population.

You can see most Christians living among Hindus and you would not know that they are Christians unless you ask them. Most Muslims tend to live in close communities and do not easily mingle with the rest of the population.

To me, it is clear that Muslims are a separate group though they are the same as rest of Indians in terms of looks. Its not easy to integrate them with others. At best, they just say Hi when you meet them. I felt that South Indian Muslims are still more closer to the local culture than North Indian Muslims and the Hyderabadi Muslims.

Its better for both Hindus and Muslims to live in separate countries. Jinnah did the right thing. I doubt Punjabi Muslims from Pakistan would accept a Hindu as their leader.

Thanks Jinnah.

 

[troodon]

If anything India should be 7-8 diferent countries

Nope.

India should have been 3 countries.

One for Caste Hindus (Brahmins/Kshatriyas/Baniyas/Jatts/Gujjars/Yadavs etc) + Sikhs + Jains. These guys are more similar to eachother.
One for Muslims (Including Muslims from all parts of subcontinent)
One for Dalits and Tribals.
Christians can decide where they want to be.

Northwest part of India should be with Muslims.
North Indian should be with Caste Hindus
South India should be for Dalits and Tribals.

 

[Markhor]

[MENTION=142169]PakLFC[/MENTION] - Jinnah supported a United India in the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946.

Congress initially accepted the plan involving a high degree of decentralisation for the provinces but u-turned as Nehru and Congress leaders insisted on a strong central government. From then on, partition was inevitable.

If partition had not occurred, there may have been a civil war with communal tension reaching even higher levels than what occurred. Partition itself wasn't wrong, but the rushed manner in which the British withdrew, leaving unresolved issues most notably Kashmir, created an appalling tragedy and the SC still lives with that legacy.

Mountbatten should not have pushed forward partition from June 1948 to Aug 1947. Someone more qualified should have been appointed to deal with the boundaries instead of Cyril Radcliffe who never stepped foot in India.

 

[Syed1]

Imagine the potential of a country like unified India. 1.5 billion people, Stretching from Middle East, Central Asia and all the way to South East Asia. Massive hydro potential in Kashmir and KPK.. vast tracts of fertile land, huge rivers and natural ports along the coastline that stretches from Straits of Hormuz all the way to Bay of Bengal.


Thanks to the Hindu-Muslim disputes and Congress's desire to subjugate Muslims that the Quaid had to give up his stance on unified India.

 

[Snak3eye5]

I wouldn’t change a thing about partition and I believe that Jinnah had the right vision no matter what anyone tells me that Gandhi kept giving Jinnah the prime minister post for a united India and Jinnah kept declining it and all that. If we see history, most of India was under Muslim rulers before British. After independence, when democracy comes, any majority will form the country's policy. So its natural that the minority muslims who descended from the pre-british rulers won't have any say. So Jinnah in all fairness wanted equal say for Muslims and Hindus . But that was obviously not acceptable for majority Hindus (Congress). They wanted equal status for all Indians of all religions. So obviously congress sidelined Jinnah. This forced Jinnah's hand and he demanded a separate country (though he stated on record that India - Pakistan relations should be as good as US and Canada and should be like brothers). I wonder had he known how things would be today, the plight of Kashmir, would he have changed his mind and decided not to go with partition ?

Like any of us, Jinnah had a vision for Pakistan. He had asked for most fertile land, the Sindhu river and Ganga-Brahmaputra Delta. Due to which until 1960's Pak had better economy than India and was supposedly to be the next south korea or Taiwan. But after his death just after the 1st year of independence, there was no leader of his class or vision to guide Pak in right direction. Even though Gandhi died right after independence, India had Nehru, Patel and others to carry forward their vision. Though many people feel Nehru didn't exactly do good with socialistic policies, he took India down a path of his vision. Right or wrong, Indian economy was going down some path. Whereas Pakistan was under martial law and it's economy was stagnant.

On the other hand history shows Nehru completely ignored Army and their ideas. Its only after losing Indo-Sino war, India started actually bothering about increasing military spending and training. But by then the indian civilian govt was strong and above military. India already had constitution and a separate independent judiciary. Even the constitution had divided power between States and Union govt. Judiciary was so independent that even someone like Indira Gandhi was penalized by Judiciary whereas Pakistan still didn't have a valid constitution, independent judiciary and a civilian leader to take over military dominance. They continued centralization of power, enforcing Urdu on minorities, which then led to separation of Bengal as Bangladesh. This led to high reduction in revenue for the govt among other things. More martial law dictators took over and during democratic governments, politicians started exploiting the common people for their personal gain, that too as fast as possible because they were not sure when the next General would impose martial law again.

If I would change anything it would only be the path India took towards its economic reforms that would have envisioned Jinnah’s vision for a great Pakistan who could never catch up to India’s economic growth. Jinnah dying a year or something later right after partition didn’t help Pakistan which then kept getting into an endless cycle of military coups and constitution revisions until 1973 when it was finally enforced. We’ve been playing catch up ever since.

 

[PakLFC]

[MENTION=142169]PakLFC[/MENTION] - Jinnah supported a United India in the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946.

Congress initially accepted the plan involving a high degree of decentralisation for the provinces but u-turned as Nehru and Congress leaders insisted on a strong central government. From then on, partition was inevitable.

If partition had not occurred, there may have been a civil war with communal tension reaching even higher levels than what occurred. Partition itself wasn't wrong, but the rushed manner in which the British withdrew, leaving unresolved issues most notably Kashmir, created an appalling tragedy and the SC still lives with that legacy.

Mountbatten should not have pushed forward partition from June 1948 to Aug 1947. Someone more qualified should have been appointed to deal with the boundaries instead of Cyril Radcliffe who never stepped foot in India.

Jinnah initially supported a United India but then changed his mind after some bad experiences with Hindu's joining the Muslim league. I agree that without partition there probably would have been a civil war which is why separation was the right thing to do. The British deliberately left Kashmir unresolved so that the subcontinent will not progress but continue to fight over it. The situation was that no matter what there would have been a lot of bloodshed when people separated in the name of faith. As a Pakistani I have no regrets over the creation of Pakistan. We wanted our own country and got it, to bad so many innocents had to die in the process.

 

[PakLFC]

The creation of Pakistan has had a massive and positive psychological impact on the Muslim's of our country. I have heard from elders how in British India the Hindu's used to openly discriminate against the Muslim's by even refusing to share cutlery with them. Many if not most Hindu's then looked upon Muslim's as being impure unless they according to them reconverted to Hinduism. They dare not even think of treating the now Pakistanis in such a manner without suffering much worse in return. The creation of Pakistan did not only give us a separate country but it liberated our minds otherwise we would have been like the apologetic Indian Muslims of today bending over backwards to please others. Now in Pakistan we can eat whatever we want without worrying what they think, we are not forced to celebrate non Muslim religious events for the sake of coexistence and crap like that. We don't need to marry Hindu's and Sikh's to improve so called community relations and things like that. This is the magic of Pakistan!

 

[Slog]

Imagine the potential of a country like unified India. 1.5 billion people, Stretching from Middle East, Central Asia and all the way to South East Asia. Massive hydro potential in Kashmir and KPK.. vast tracts of fertile land, huge rivers and natural ports along the coastline that stretches from Straits of Hormuz all the way to Bay of Bengal.


Thanks to the Hindu-Muslim disputes and Congress's desire to subjugate Muslims that the Quaid had to give up his stance on unified India.

There would be no potential

It would perhaps be the most poor country/entity in history of the world for sure

 

[Slog]

More than that Muslims in India (or atleast the areas where my ancestors are ftom) had only either lived under Muslim rule or British colonisation

Why would they have willingly gone under rule of Hindu majority

We are seperate people

 

[Napa]

National/Independence days approaching fast and the question which is asked many times

<b>Would Muslims have survived in a united India</b> or are both countries better off as they are today?

In the 1951 census, the Muslim population was 9.8%, and in the 2011 census 14.2%.

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

It was a master move. Otherwise hundreds of millions right know would've been oppressed by likes of Modi and his Muslim-killer terrorists.

 

[troodon]

It was a master move. Otherwise hundreds of millions right know would've been oppressed by likes of Modi and his Muslim-killer terrorists.

Not even close. Considering how the likes of Hafeez Saed are still roaming freely in Pak, how the Hindu population dropped to a minuscule percentage since Pak's split, Hindus would have been killed in millions where ever Muslims are in majority (Northwest part of United India).

United India would have almost equal number of Hindus and Muslims. I cannot imagine a united democratic country that has 60 crore Muslims.

 

[Pakistanian]

Imagine the potential of a country like unified India. 1.5 billion people, Stretching from Middle East, Central Asia and all the way to South East Asia. Massive hydro potential in Kashmir and KPK.. vast tracts of fertile land, huge rivers and natural ports along the coastline that stretches from Straits of Hormuz all the way to Bay of Bengal.


Thanks to the Hindu-Muslim disputes and Congress's desire to subjugate Muslims that the Quaid had to give up his stance on unified India.

It would've been a very divided country, what makes you think India would be able to hold onto KPK and Balochistan? Lol Those areas would've of broken off soon after independence, the ethnic differences in a unified india would've been magnified and the federal govt wouldn't be able control the divisions, New Delhi would be despised as much as Brussels is today in the EU.

 

[Pakistanian]

Not even close. Considering how the likes of Hafeez Saed are still roaming freely in Pak, how the Hindu population dropped to a minuscule percentage since Pak's split, Hindus would have been killed in millions where ever Muslims are in majority (Northwest part of United India).

United India would have almost equal number of Hindus and Muslims. I cannot imagine a united democratic country that has 60 crore Muslims.

Most of the Hindus were in present day Bangladesh, present-day Pakistan was almost always muslim majority.

 

[Pakistanian]

If anything India should be 7-8 diferent countries

more like 20 different countries.

 

[Syed1]

It would've been a very divided country, what makes you think India would be able to hold onto KPK and Balochistan? Lol Those areas would've of broken off soon after independence, the ethnic differences in a unified india would've been magnified and the federal govt wouldn't be able control the divisions, New Delhi would be despised as much as Brussels is today in the EU.

Present day India isnt any less diverse yet they are managing to stick together

 

[English August]

If anything India should be 7-8 diferent countries

Why do you want to get hammered by 7-8 different teams in WC? Isn't regular phainty by 1 team enough?!

 

[Pakistanian]

Present day India isnt any less diverse yet they are managing to stick together

That's a poor example, present-day India also has a common enemy in Pakistan. More importantly they don't have to deal with more rebellious ethnic groups like Pashtuns and Balochs, they can hardly keep control over Kashmir. If you added Pakistan to India, it'd be too BIG for them manage. They'd lose the the lands west of the Indus, cause you can't forget that Afghanistan would've become India's enemy instead if they didn't give those lands to them. Moreover since India wouldn't be muslim majority, they still wouldn't get support from the OIC despite having the most muslims in the world. Then there's also the beef with the Chinese over some border states.

 

[kaayal]

It would've been a very divided country, what makes you think India would be able to hold onto KPK and Balochistan? Lol Those areas would've of broken off soon after independence, the ethnic differences in a unified india would've been magnified and the federal govt wouldn't be able control the divisions, New Delhi would be despised as much as Brussels is today in the EU.

No offence but if Pakistan army can hold on to these places then definitely the United Indian army can. Moreover all those army men fighting in the Kashmir can be diverted to these troubled Afghanistan and chinese borders.

 

[English August]

Jinnah envisaged that India and Pakistan would eventually become natural allies and friends, given the cultural similarities and common problems we would share.

On that count, got to say Jinnah turned out to be a visionary. NOT! What was he thinking?!

Anyway, 70 years later, and thinking about the next 30 years, the paths the two countries will take is pretty clear. At our 100th anniversary of independence --

India: democratic institutions would have gained even more strength; extreme poverty would have disappeared completely; India's biggest problem then would be dealing with man-made issues like pollution, environmental disasters like extreme heat, rising sea levels, lack of clean water supply, rampant urbanization etc. People would have the money but most wouldn't have a good life.

Pakistan: the mullafication of the society would be complete (Saudis would be in control on this dimension); it would be a Chinese protectorate for all practical purposes and on a day-to-day basis would be ruled by uber-rich fat cats (mostly Punjabis, themselves probably living in Dubai / London)

 

[Snak3eye5]

Yes what the above poster said. Let's take it from a different angle. How does the Us do it ? Even if the whites are the majority and they been through 9/11 and other sorts of mass killings and violence and all kinds of issues why is it that people from all over the world still want to go there and live there??

The fact is that even though reading through the above looks like the majority are happy with the split, it's quite possible that if India is currently one entity with tons of different cultures religions, languages, like Hindus christians, muslims, Jains, Jews, Buddhist, Tamils, gujus, panjabis, they're doing ok from the looks of it...It hasn't really become a chaotic state but rather quite the opposite. One should really wonder why one of the Indian states hasn't undergone a brexit of its own a long time ago. In my mind I can't comprehend if Pakistan being part of India would have made it any more complicated that it currently is. Am i naive in thinking so...maybe but looking at India right now with its multi culture multi religion and it's gone through its election handovers successfully without any issues since its independence tells me that the majority people there regardless of their religion identity, language believe in the current situation. Sure they'll be a few bad apples everywhere that want to go extreme but that's going to be the case everywhere..



We can only assume that one or the other would have occurred. But no way to really know for sure. I know it's stating the obvious.

 

[kaayal]

That's a poor example, present-day India also has a common enemy in Pakistan. More importantly they don't have to deal with more rebellious ethnic groups like Pashtuns and Balochs, they can hardly keep control over Kashmir. If you added Pakistan to India, it'd be too BIG for them manage. They'd lose the the lands west of the Indus, cause you can't forget that Afghanistan would've become India's enemy instead if they didn't give those lands to them. Moreover since India wouldn't be muslim majority, they still wouldn't get support from the OIC despite having the most muslims in the world. Then there's also the beef with the Chinese over some border states.

What kind of help does this OIC offer Pakistan or any other Islamic Country? I am hearing this organisation for the first time.

 

[Pakistanian]

No offence but if Pakistan army can hold on to these places then definitely the United Indian army can. Moreover all those army men fighting in the Kashmir can be diverted to these troubled Afghanistan and chinese borders.

It'd be much harder for India than it would be for Pakistan because the Indian army wouldn't have enough muslims and would be seen as an anti islamic army by the locals there, right now many pukhtuns serve in the pak army cause of religious kinship, the religious ties just wouldn't be there. India would never be able to hold to any land west of the indus or the north. The lands they would be able to hold would be Punjab, Sindh, and Kashmir but even then it'd be a lot of trouble cause even right now India can't manage Kashmir and has had issues in their part of Punjab which is much smaller.

 

[Pakistanian]

What kind of help does this OIC offer Pakistan or any other Islamic Country? I am hearing this organisation for the first time.

Turkey has always been a big supporter of Pakistan, the Libyans under Gaddafi gave a lot of military support too that's why there's a Gaddafi stadium in Lahore. The GCC countries invest a lot of money in Pakistan, mostly for personal interest but in the past they've been generous with Oil payments. Even today the OIC supports Pakistan on Kashmir and most then there's Iran which has always been pro Kashmir and recently even duped India.

 

[kaayal]

It'd be much harder for India than it would be for Pakistan because the Indian army wouldn't have enough muslims and would be seen as an anti islamic army by the locals there, right now many pukhtuns serve in the pak army cause of religious kinship, the religious ties just wouldn't be there. India would never be able to hold to any land west of the indus or the north. The lands they would be able to hold would be Punjab, Sindh, and Kashmir but even then it'd be a lot of trouble cause even right now India can't manage Kashmir and has had issues in their part of Punjab which is much smaller.

Even though Pakhtoons have more religious inclination than the other people of United India, don't underestimate our Army's power which will be equivalent to that of the present day China. We should only be worried about nukes and the Chinese....

 

[Pakistanian]

Even though Pakhtoons have more religious inclination than other people in United India don't underestimate our Army's power which will be equivalent that of the present day China. We should only be worried about nukes and the Chinese....

No, India would be more divided than it is right now, the Chinese are still 90% one ethnic group and they're also a communist state with no democracy so they don't have the problems that India has.

 

[kaayal]

Oh i see, that's how the Gaddafi stadium got it's name. Good to know that.

 

[kaayal]

No, India would be more divided than it is right now, the Chinese are still 90% one ethnic group and they're also a communist state with no democracy so they don't have the problems that India has.

Chinese population is 1.379 billion and India's 1.324 billion. We are still together for past 70 years irrespective of our multi ethnic and multi religion society. We just need big hearts to accept each other. That's it.

 

[Pakistanian]

Chinese population is 1.379 billion and India's 1.324 billion. We are still together for past 70 years irrespective of our multi ethnic and multi religion society. We just need big hearts to accept each other. That's it.

If you force us in your union then it'd the end of it.

 

[kaayal]

If you force us in your union then it'd the end of it.

Our population is too big. Don't need to add another burden to it.

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

Not even close. Considering how the likes of Hafeez Saed are still roaming freely in Pak, how the Hindu population dropped to a minuscule percentage since Pak's split, Hindus would have been killed in millions where ever Muslims are in majority (Northwest part of United India).

United India would have almost equal number of Hindus and Muslims. I cannot imagine a united democratic country that has 60 crore Muslims.

I am not going to defend here any sick psycho, be it this Saeed guy or Narendra "let people vent their anger" Modi.

Pakistan have its set of problems. Should never have supported the West in creation of 'Mujahideen' in 80s.

But let's not delude ourselves here, people who are ruling India have an innate and demonstrated hate for Muslims. These are facts. Cannot deny them.

 

[faraz39]

If India had gone down the road of a true secular state (such as US, Canada, etc.) not just on the gov't level but also in people's mindset, then the partition would have been a mistake for Muslims. Right now, India is great if you are Hindu but Muslims are at the bottom for education, jobs, communal hatred, and all other metrics.

It's hard to argue against the partition as a mistake (for Muslims) considering much of Indian politics and society is driven by Hindu nationalism.

I grew up with Indian friends who were born in Canada and even though all of us were best friends, I could see clear signs of discrimination in their families against Muslims. And these were Indians who had left India 20-30 years ago. My friends were good because we were all raised in Canada but one of them told me his parents gave their dog a Muslim name on purpose. Another friend told me his parents tell him to be careful around Muslims. etc. etc.

I also experienced much good from many Indian Hindu families but I can't ignore the blatant dislike from others.

 

[LegCutter]

United India with the equivalent of Civil Rights Movement for the Muslims would have been the right answer. It would have stopped Zia Ul Haq from getting power in 1971 and preventing the current sectarian disaster in Pakistan.
Possibly even prevent the current War on Terror on Pakistani soil today as there would probably be no TTP.

Ofcourse this is the best case scenario; I'm sure the Muslim vs Hindu dynamic could possibly be equivalent to the status of African Americans in the US.

 

[Wasim_Waqar]

Ask the Palestinians how great it is t have your own country even if it has many problems. What would they give to have a military like ours? Ask the Kashmiris in IoK if the creation of Pakistan was the right thing to occur. You will get your answer. Thing is that the current generation like ours having not witnessed the independence movement take Pakistan for granted.

Just the thing I was going to say. My maternal side is Kashmiri.

So proud to be Pakistani!

 

[King Kong]

The question should rather be would Hindus have survived in a United India? India is dealing with a lot of mess due to a significant population of minority in Muslims. Muslims are about 200 million in number. Hindus are already having a feeling of threat and insecurity due to rising Muslim population, which was completely evident in the victory of BJP in 2014. Muslims have gone up from 10% in 1947 to 15 % in 2017. If this kind of demographic change had happened in any other country, there would have been incidents of outcry and uproar. But Hindus are like "It's ok, we are secular". Ah! Poor, innocent, gullible people! No matter how much Pakistan or other media portrays, Hindus have always been tolerant and kind to people of other religious beliefs. It's just that those values are deeply entrenched in Hindus and their religion. And this was exploited by others for centuries and even to date, are still being done. India is tolerant today despite religious, linguistic, cultural differences because we are overwhelmingly Hindu. PERIOD! Now let's think of United India with more than 40% being Muslims? Won't make much time for India to descend into chaos and Hindus disappearing over time. Thank you Jinnah! Hindus are greatly indebted to you.

 

[Braveheart]

This is What I think.

 

[Devilsadvokat]

No Partition

Would Pakistan be in a better position if Partition had not occurred. If so, India would be home to the largest Muslim population in the World.

I have not heard of any Indian Muslims being involved in world terrorism, the Indians must be doing something right.

Yes, I don't know how I would feel going back to parents homeland and walking in the bazaar with Sikhs and Hindus around too, guess it would be pretty easy, we live with plenty of ethnicities, religions, nationalities here in the UK.

I guess people of similar backgrounds would tend to flock together.

I know many Indians would now say good riddance but would Pakistan have been better off not partitioning.?

 

[in_cutter]

Urmmm there would not have been Pakistan if there was no partition...so how would it have been better..?

 

[javier]

Agree, Indian Muslims have not allowed themselves to be influenced by turmoil in the Muslim World and largely remain unaffected while Pakistanis have made their country as the Global Hub of Islamic terrorism.

 

[Sirris]

Recheck you facts. "Maulana" Asim Umar, the head of Alqaeda's Indian branch is an Indian Muslim. I am pretty sure one can find many more. Besides all the rebels in Kashmir Valley count as "Indian" Muslim too, right?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Urmmm there would not have been Pakistan if there was no partition...so how would it have been better..?

I think he means Muslims, but doesn't like to refer to people of that faith because of his pathological aversion to them.

 

[JaDed]

Move on.. already

 

[Devilsadvokat]

I think he means Muslims, but doesn't like to refer to people of that faith because of his pathological aversion to them.

Where is the stiff upper lip British approach gone? No actual argument just mud slinging. I LOVE Muslims, I HATE Islam, get it right Cap E Tan.

 

[Devilsadvokat]

Move on.. already

I've started four or five threads, this is the first to receive a response, I'm moving on...

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Where is the stiff upper lip British approach gone? No actual argument just mud slinging. I LOVE Muslims, I HATE Islam, get it right Cap E Tan.

Why would I need a stiff upper lip to posit an explanation for your gaffe?

Anyway moving on, your OP assumes that partition was made inevitable by the 'Pakistanis' and the Hindus had nothing to do with it. I would suggest that India's refusal to reintegrate Bangladesh and make no attempt since partition to take back the lands lost would suggest they found partition very favourable to them, and that is why they are quite happy for it to continue for the foreseeable future.

 

[enkidu_]

so an apostate cares about India having the largest Islamic population ? If you read Hindu ideologues, Muslims won on two fronts in '47 : they secured an Islamic republic and they also became the largest minority in India, which means they have all the benefits of being a minority and could change this situation with demography in the near future as well.

And Hindus/Sikhs and Musims can perhaps live together in the UK in a secular/liberal world where basically all ethnicities/religions co-exist for the simple reason that your identity doesn't matter when you become a purely economic atom, but in their home region one has always to dominate symbolically, because the metaphysical systems are such at odds (monotheisms vs polytheism ; beef burgers vs cow worship ; etc), Partition was just the manifestation of ritual purity proposed by both religions in some way.

As for the myth of "Indian Muslims" somehow being a singularity in the world, sold by secular India, as if you could generalize 200 millions anyway, perhaps you should read more about the Indian Mujahideen and their dozens of attacks on Indian soil. They're not involved in "world terrorism" because they already are dominated by Hindus at home, so that's what they have to conquer first.

Most importantly without Partition thousands of Indian trolls would have no hobby.

 

[JaDed]

so an apostate cares about India having the largest Islamic population ? If you read Hindu ideologues, Muslims won on two fronts in '47 : they secured an Islamic republic and they also became the largest minority in India, which means they have all the benefits of being a minority and could change this situation with demography in the near future as well.

And Hindus/Sikhs and Musims can perhaps live together in the UK in a secular/liberal world where basically all ethnicities/religions co-exist for the simple reason that your identity doesn't matter when you become a purely economic atom, but in their home region one has always to dominate symbolically, because the metaphysical systems are such at odds (monotheisms vs polytheism ; beef burgers vs cow worship ; etc), Partition was just the manifestation of ritual purity proposed by both religions in some way.

As for the myth of "Indian Muslims" somehow being a singularity in the world, sold by secular India, as if you could generalize 200 millions anyway, perhaps you should read more about the Indian Mujahideen and their dozens of attacks on Indian soil. They're not involved in "world terrorism" because they already are dominated by Hindus at home, so that's what they have to conquer first.

Most importantly without Partition thousands of Indian trolls would have no hobby.

Neither will you be able sprout your nonsensical views on threads,so thankful to op that you always get an opportunity.

 

[Devilsadvokat]

Why would I need a stiff upper lip to posit an explanation for your gaffe?

Anyway moving on, your OP assumes that partition was made inevitable by the 'Pakistanis' and the Hindus had nothing to do with it. I would suggest that India's refusal to reintegrate Bangladesh and make no attempt since partition to take back the lands lost would suggest they found partition very favourable to them, and that is why they are quite happy for it to continue for the foreseeable future.

My gaffe? You mean a pedantic pointed out summat that would be obvious to anyone.

No I do not assume the Hindus had nothing to do with it. I am just asking if partition wasn't carried out would the 'Pakistani' contingent (as there are non Muslim munorities) feel that their part of the homeland would be better off.

Thinking about it, even tho it would anathema to some Indians, would India have been better off, it would have one mighty country, putting differences aside.

Imagine the cricket team!

 

[Devilsadvokat]

so an apostate cares about India having the largest Islamic population.

I don't care, just stated the fact. Anyways I might be a murtad but I am still a Pakistani and proud of it.

 

[enkidu_]

I don't care, just stated the fact. Anyways I might be a murtad but I am still a Pakistani and proud of it.

Who asked Muslims and Sikh/Hindus to slaughter/rape each other in '47 in Punjab ? Don't you think antagonisms were thus already there ?

If you're a liberal, there's a liberal scholar in Pak, Yasser Latif Hamdani, who said that the biggest win of Partition was the rise of a Muslim urbane middle class, which pre Partition only existed in some pockets of the Mughal élite (thus the Urdu speakers dominating bureaucracy and other professional fields at Partition) ; if there wasn't Partition, the urbane middle class in places like Lahore, Rawalpindi, etc would have been the Hindu banya, the Punjabi-Khatri's, while the rest would have been living like Dalits or Muslims in India for that matter, and you talk of the cricket team, but who tells you that the perennial 6-7 Brahmins in the playing XI would have let all the Imran Khan, Wasim Akram, etc to even get there ?

In fact what you should get first out of your head is the very idea of some hollow "united India", it never existed through popular sentiments, but only through forced external domination, often foreign to the peoples of the land (Maurya, Mughals, British, etc).

 

[the Great Khan]

Who asked Muslims and Sikh/Hindus to slaughter/rape each other in '47 in Punjab ? Don't you think antagonisms were thus already there ?

If you're a liberal, there's a liberal scholar in Pak, Yasser Latif Hamdani, who said that the biggest win of Partition was the rise of a Muslim urbane middle class, which pre Partition only existed in some pockets of the Mughal élite (thus the Urdu speakers dominating bureaucracy and other professional fields at Partition) ; if there wasn't Partition, the urbane middle class in places like Lahore, Rawalpindi, etc would have been the Hindu banya, the Punjabi-Khatri's, while the rest would have been living like Dalits or Muslims in India for that matter, and you talk of the cricket team, but who tells you that the perennial 6-7 Brahmins in the playing XI would have let all the Imran Khan, Wasim Akram, etc to even get there ?

In fact what you should get first out of your head is the very idea of some hollow "united India", it never existed through popular sentiments, but only through forced external domination, often foreign to the peoples of the land (Maurya, Mughals, British, etc).

This. I only need to add that the socio economic position of Muslims in india shows that a non aprtitoin India would have been no different for Muslims. We would be an underclass like Indian Muslims are. And pogroms would be a normal occurrence. Pakistan is gift from God for the Muslims of the subcontinent!!

 

[CricketCartoons]

The best thing about partition was that it set a benchmark, that whenever a pakistani may be disillusioned with the state, all he has is to look at india and be grateful for not being living in india.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

My gaffe? You mean a pedantic pointed out summat that would be obvious to anyone.

No I do not assume the Hindus had nothing to do with it. I am just asking if partition wasn't carried out would the 'Pakistani' contingent (as there are non Muslim munorities) feel that their part of the homeland would be better off.

Thinking about it, even tho it would anathema to some Indians, would India have been better off, it would have one mighty country, putting differences aside.

Imagine the cricket team!

As you may well know, I am not an advocate of Pakistan, if anything it has proven to be a useful buffer for India whereupon the Afghans who used to consider Indians a mortal enemy, now direct they're ire towards Pakistan instead.

That said, it will be Pakistan who will preserve the history and culture of the Mughal empire, we can see already a time in the future when it will all be wiped out. We British have always had a fascination for that period with countless documentaries and photos of Princess Di sitting pensively at the walls of the Taj Mahal. Neutral observers will no doubt be grateful that Pakistan will keep the historical records intact on their side of the border at least.

 

[Devilsadvokat]

As you may well know, I am not an advocate of Pakistan,

What does that mean in practise? Are you Pakistani, Pakistani but British born. Anti-Pakistan advocate?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

What does that mean in practise? Are you Pakistani, Pakistani but British born. Anti-Pakistan advocate?

It means I am British of Indian/Pakistani heritage, in that my parents were born in India and migrated to Pakistan after partition.