A report in "The Hindu" on Pakistan & Jinnah in August,1947.Copy & Paste .

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Yes, it could have been both ways. Hindu leaders may have also wanted to lower the Muslim population who were averse to building a modern society based on pluralism. However, India was divided in such a way that the east and west Pakistan controlled important link east and west of the now India. So, I am not very sure if partition of India was really sought by the Hindu leaders.

Note one point. During the course of long years of partition struggle the Muslim League wanted a kind of Federation with a total of three DEFINED land masses which the Congress Party rejected. This gave the Muslim leaders an opportunity to struggle for a separate homeland. India was not divided in one night and by only one person. It was a long process.

The people of E Pakistan (Bangla Desh) played an important role in that regard so despite a troubled political past we still shared aspirations in common.

 

[eastwatch]

I still say that if the Brits actually did something about the subcontinent (instead of leaving it to fend for itself), the Kashmir issue would have never been an issue to begin with.

Please understand one thing, Muslim majority is not the only factor in Kashmir. This region controls almost all the sources of Sub-Continent's Himalayan water at or near Manosh Sarobor. With Kashmir in its hand, India controls the sources. Water is the main reason that India will fight to maintain the status quo.

 

[Bang Galore]

Please understand one thing, Muslim majority is not the only factor in Kashmir. This region controls almost all the sources of Sub-Continent's Himalayan water at or near Manosh Sarobor. With Kashmir in its hand, India controls the sources. Water is the main reason that India will fight to maintain the status quo.

Muslim majority princely state was not relevant to India which chose to remain secular. India had as much right to seek entries of such state into India as Pakistan. The reverse would be difficult to justify, what possible interest would a Muslim state have with predominantly Hindu subjects especially when the very reason for partition was given as being seperate people. The leaders of India did not subscribe to that theory and therefore were not bound by the principles of the 2NT. After 1971, Pakistan's claim on Kashmir merely on the basis of it being a Muslim majority state was in tatters.

India has many reasons never to let go of Kashmir, water is only one of them. India is going nowhere, no matter who smokes what & dreams what. Status quo suits us just fine.

 

[Rank]

It was necessary that Delhi recognized the newly independent country Pakistan in 1947. So, the British first allowed that country to be established on 14th August. Delhi, still under the British, and London itself quickly extended recognition to that Muslim-majority state. The next day the remaining part of British India or most of India got independence from London.

It was possible that the entire sub-continent would have fallen into a political quagmire and a long communal war had Delhi not recognized Pakistan as a separate entity immediately after Pakistan was established. So, it was a good decision to recognize the independence of Pakistan one day before Delhi was declared and recognized as independent.

bara technical jawab diya hey... ye Fan aap ka huwa!

 

[That Guy]

Please understand one thing, Muslim majority is not the only factor in Kashmir. This region controls almost all the sources of Sub-Continent's Himalayan water at or near Manosh Sarobor. With Kashmir in its hand, India controls the sources. Water is the main reason that India will fight to maintain the status quo.

Even then, my point still stands. If the Brits insisted on helping the two sides reach a deal on Kashmir RIGHT AFTER independence, then this wouldn't be an issue to begin with.

Even India would be hard pressed to disagree over such a deal.

 

[eastwatch]

Even then, my point still stands. If the Brits insisted on helping the two sides reach a deal on Kashmir RIGHT AFTER independence, then this wouldn't be an issue to begin with.

Even India would be hard pressed to disagree over such a deal.

Note that Kashmir was one of the Princely States in 1947 who were holding a separate status than other parts of then India. Had the British wanted to force these States to choose sides, the former would have to first declare the status quo invalid and remove the Maharajas, Nizams and Nawabs, and had to make these States the Provinces of India.

But, to change the relationship at that last stage was almost impossible. Time was against it, British wanted a quick exit in order to go back and re-build their own country which was destroyed in the 2nd WW. So, they told the Princely States to choose among the options.

The Dogra King of Kashmir opted for India, and Pakistan sent the Pathan tribals to invade that land on the reason that the people were Muslims in that Princely State.

So, irrespective of emotion can I ask which country was at fault in Kashmir?

 

[That Guy]

Note that Kashmir was one of the Princely States in 1947 who were holding a separate status than other parts of then India. Had the British wanted to force these States to choose sides, the former would have to first declare the status quo invalid and remove the Maharajas, Nizams and Nawabs, and had to make these States the Provinces of India.

But, to change the relationship at that last stage was almost impossible. Time was against it, British wanted a quick exit in order to go back and re-build their own country which was destroyed in the 2nd WW. So, they told the Princely States to choose among the options.

The Dogra King of Kashmir opted for India, and Pakistan sent the Pathan tribals to invade that land on the reason that the people were Muslims in that Princely State.

So, irrespective of emotion can I ask which country was at fault in Kashmir?

Noted, but my point still stands. If the Brits took their time with the withdrawal, Kashmir would not be an issue.

Personally? it doesn't matter what I think, nor which country war originally at fault. All the nations involved share the fault, the British more so than Pakistan and India.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Why do not you call Jinnah what Jinnah was? Why do you want to see him what you want to see him like? It seems you are trying to wrapping Jinnah with Islamic fundamentalism. Jinnah was not even a practicing Muslim, telling you because you may not know it. But, does it matter if he was a secular personality and was, in reality, a Pakka Saheb?

Try bsing somewhere else.. Quaid e Azam was a secular no doubt but a muslim.. who created our country and urs aswell.

 

[Awesome]

Can please anyone explain why Pakistan's independence day is celebrated on 14th august and not 15th during which Pakistan actualy got its independence?? AFAIK india and pakistan got its independence on the same day.

Official handing over ceremony was held on 14th August.

 

[eastwatch]

Try bsing somewhere else.. Quaid e Azam was a secular no doubt but a muslim.. who created our country and urs aswell.

Yes, Jinnah was a Muslim but was averse to fundamentalism. Since he was not inclined to do the religious rituals routinely, many of your new generation brought up under the shade of Talibanist propaganda may find it difficult to accept him as even a Muslim, although many like me believe he was a talented human being and a good Muslim.

However, he did not anticipate that the founding of a Muslim majority country would someday bring about the introduction of old-time obsolete laws that would cut many his countrymen's hands or other limbs. So, I ask you, was he then a good Muslim if he was averse to fundamentalism?

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Yes, Jinnah was a Muslim but was averse to fundamentalism. Since he was not inclined to do the religious rituals routinely, many of your new generation brought up under the shade of Talibanist propaganda may find it difficult to accept him as even a Muslim, although many like me believe he was a talented human being and a good Muslim.

However, he did not anticipate that the founding of a Muslim majority country would someday bring about the introduction of old-time obsolete laws that would cut many his countrymen's hands or other limbs. So, I ask you, was he then a good Muslim if he was averse to fundamentalism?

Wow.. so being a secular muslim makes him a lesser muslim?ur calling me a "fundamentalist an extremist" ... please tell me which post on mine have you seen advocating talibastard scumbags?

 

[474474]

Bro Kashmir is like Mecca for hindus. I will remain part of Indian republic no matter what. Even if brits wanted to handover it to Pakistan we would have take it back.

40% of kashmir only*

It is still BULL$HIT. And please, do not project your ignorance on everyone else.

Mountbatten signed the documents relating to transfer of power to Pakistan, on 14th Aug, 1947. But the documents came into force on 15th Aug, 1947 in accordance to sec 1(1) of The Indian Independence Act, 1947.

Pakistanis celebrate this signing as their independence day.

Celebration is fine. But, the mind numbing hilarity is that they have begun to consider this, 14th Aug, as their real independence day, when in fact it is 15th Aug. The reason behind this is that they being they, can't possibly be considered to have gotten their independence along with the Indians - those pesky banias - on the same date.

That's blasphemy.

Now I see why we don't like you, clearly you don't like yourselves either.

 

[toxic_pus]

The Dogra King of Kashmir opted for India, and Pakistan sent the Pathan tribals to invade that land on the reason that the people were Muslims in that Princely State.

Another BULL$HIT.

The impatient Pakistanis sent their cannon fodders, I mean, the Pathan tribals into the sovereign Princely State of Kashmir which lead to the Dogra King opting for India.

So, irrespective of emotion can I ask which country was at fault in Kashmir?

Pakistan. To be more accurate Jinnah.

 

[eastwatch]

Wow.. so being a secular muslim makes him a lesser muslim?ur calling me a "fundamentalist an extremist" ... please tell me which post on mine have you seen advocating talibastard scumbags?

No, not exactly. I was just asking you a question in good heart. Relieved to know your thinking is quite pragmatic. I am not here to insult Mr. Jinnah who we used to call Quaid-E-Azam.

Most people in Bangladesh respect him as he is supposed to be. Usually, people do not blame him for anything that happened in 1971.

Moreover, Bangladesh is following the thinking of the Founding Father of Pakistan, a liberal minded Muslim country averse to fundamentalism with religious freedom for all its citizens.