If Britan had given India its freedom in 2010, Would Partition still be necessary.

[muslim282]

Not just religous but many cultural differences appeared among the many cultures of india, the lack of trust and respect for other beliefs and cultures which sadly exists even today more in india and to a lesser extent in pakistan were the causes of partition in the first place. In order to stay unified your fundamental cause needs to be top priority and has to weigh down everything else.
The people of india had the primary cause of removing the British, once the british knew they were loosing india, they played their trump card of race, culture and religon and sadly this worked because the people allowed it to work.
Divide and rule is the best option when facing a determined enemy.
The British historians (hypocrites) often claim that the muslims, sikhs and hindus were at each others throats before they came yet they don,t talk about how the scots, welsh and irish have always fought english rule and never believed in the UK as a single nation, the conflict of roman catholics with the church of england.
In the end I believe that the best of all wisdom is that of gods and hence their will have been a devine reason for our beautiful country of pakistan.

Pakistan zindabad.

 

[advaita]

@EjazR - You echo my thoughts completely. Well almost. My view is also that religion was merely used to enforce partition. But I must add one more of my belief here and i would like your comments and understanding on this EjazR. I think British did not invent divide and rule. They merely used a strategy that they saw being already used by earlier Islamic invaders (what else would explain the exceedingly high percentage of Muslims in the subcontinent compared to minute number of Christians). Islamic invaders in turn merely used what they saw being successfully used in Brahminism-Budhism tussles who merely took up the thread from the Arya-Non Arya politics.
Looks like all this divide and rule was successful only because of the extreams of specialization that Non-Vedantic Casteism wanted to impose instead of the recomendatory ideas of Vedantic Casteism. In fact the moment democracy came to India. The 500+ princely states aggregated to there natural center of gravity. Shudras rule man (Vedantic Shudras of course). Today everybody in India (including brahmins) says they are marginalised when the reality is that the true basis of temporal leadership the service class came into power only recently under Gandhiji. Also Pak and BD went downwards again only because of the extreams of islamic specialization/exclusivity.

I can write more but i guess this gives you the drift.

Also I think the point Gogbot raised (oye you really got my attention) is covered by more then adequate caveats in font size only blind people will miss and misconstrue. It certainly merits at least one detached thought even if only passing.

Gogbot, my view is that citrius paribus, if India had gotten independence in 2010 then China would have had it man. Everybody needs a competition and with the record of the Chinese in treatment of minorities inside and outside China, the muslims of the subcontinent would easily have seen reason in confronting China.

But as somebody said, god knows best. And apne ghar main everybody zindabad.

 

[EjazR]

advaita,
The topic was wether in the climate of "religious tolerance" would a partition be necessary. It ignores the fact that religious tolerance and peaceful co-existence has always been a part of India, wether it be Buddhist-Hindu or Hindu-Muslim interaction. It only started to change in the late 19th century.

Although British conservatives under Churchill did not invent divide and rule (it was a greek philosophy) they were probably the first in the sub continent to use it on a religious basis. Chrisitanity also came to India much before the British. Ofcourse now religious tolerance is a more visible issue, but this was built up only over the last 100 years or so. And picked up more pace in the last 40-50 years alone after the partition.

The idea of invaders who indulged in loot and plunder(who happened to be muslims as well as greeks, turkic and other invaders) is much different than muslim kings in India who had settled down in India as there home and set about developing their empires for the benfit of India itself instead of their home country in another continet. Most of the muslims in India are (upto 90&#37 from the same ethnic stock as their Hindu counterparts and were willing converts.

Therefore you have Gujjar muslims, Rajput muslims, Kashmiri muslims, and even Dalit muslims. They were all Indian in ethnicity although they followed a different faith.

Islam first reached India in Kerala through muslim traders. Kerala today is one of the states in India that has a large muslim concentration. Similarly no muslim armies ever reached Indonesia but it is the largest muslim country in the world and was deeply entrenched with Hindu and Buddhist. The "muslim invasions" were nothing more than terrotorial wars that were sometimes waged in collaboration with Hindu allies.

Infact, apart from three muslim invader campaigns in NW India which were against non-muslims. Almost all other campaigns were between non-muslims or between muslims.

So basically you had an alliance of hindus and Muslims on one side versus another alliance of Hindus and Muslims on the other.

As an example, Shivaji who was of shudra stock rebelled against the Mughals. The governor of this region was a Rajput Hindu who were Mughal allies. Shivaji had a number of pathan soldiers and generals in his army as well as native muslims when he went to war with the Rajputs and Mughals.

In the 12 century (before muslim invaders actually entered the subcontinetn) the sufi movement had started and millions of people converted due to their efforts int he next 100s of years. During the 11th and 12th century mongol and turkic invaders who were non-muslims at that time wrecked havoc on muslims in Iran and Iraq as well as Hindus and Buddhists in north west india and Afghanistan and the Hindu Kush mountains. Millions of people were slaughtered and muslims bore the brunt of this. However, these same people converted to Islam, once they came to know about the religion through sufis. It would be wrong to suggest that these mongols and turkic tribes were "forced" when they infact were the conquerers over arab muslim kingdoms.

I might just give you a few links for you to read through for India specific history as examples
Shivaji and tomb of Afzal Kahn
Abusing Shivaji for secretarian goals
Mughal Emperor: Bad Ruler or Bad History?
History As Told By Non-Historians

So based on this, it took many centuries for the muslim population to reach what it is today in the indian subcontinent. Compared to this Chritianity came to India only recently.

The British however, basically held the view that they are a superior race and because of that they should rule Indians who were inferior (wether Hindus , Muslims or Christians)

 

[third eye]

Partition would not be necessary but a natural corollary to independence.

Only, instead of two nations, there would have been at least 4-5 nations.

 

[praveen]

religion is the opening they exploited and hence dismissing religion as a factor is foolish

 

[EjazR]

I thought I might also add some information on how the religious divide was magnified and utilised by the British.

After the revolt of 1857, the British were so scared of a united front by Muslims, Brahmins and Rajputs that they set about propagandising that they had saved the Hindus from the "tyranny" of muslims to bring them away from nationalist sentiments. It is important to realise that 1857 rebellion had a deep affect on the British imperialist. I just quote one statment below which shows how they perceived it

To live in India, now, was like standing on the verge of a volcanic crater, the sides of which were fast crumbling away from our feet, while the boiling lava was ready to erupt and consume us...The infanticide Rajput, the bigoted Brahmin, the fanatic Mussalman, had joined together in the cause; cow-killer and the cow-worshipper, the pig-hater and the pig-eater... had revolted together. - Thomas Lowe, British Chronicler, 1860

Hence, it became necessary to divide on the basis of religion which wasn't easy. It started with the eight volume history book "The History of India, as told by its Historians" which tried to justify British rule to the majority Hindus saying they are here to protect them. Infact, before the British, Hindi, or Hindu was used to refer any native India regardless of their religion as a geographical term. It is only after the British that Hindus came to be associated as seprate religious group from muslims.
It should be interesting to note than in all its eight volume, it doesn't quote any brahman or rajput document as its source. And still forms the main source for most communalists.

Infact, if it was not the religious divides, Colonial Britishers would have exploited linguistic or ethnic divides to achieve their aim. Highlighting Dravidian-Aryan divdes or carving a seprate state for shudra homeland. The NW part of India was important for British strategic interests and religion seemed to be the easiest way to excuse this.

For example, the Hindi-Urdu controversy that is highlighted and was debated as a demand for the muslims. It ignored the fact that first of all many muslims did not speak Urdu (i.e. Bengali, Pathans, South Indian muslims) and also ignored that only 9% of India was literate. So would the use of Hindi vs Urdu be really that important for the common man when he could neither read or write?

I am not saying that there were no differences, every society has different ethnic groups, religous groups and linguistic groups. For example Ireland is a recent example. But the extent of communalisation today is no way near as it was 100 years back. The British policies, the partition for strategic interests potrayed as religious issue, the right wing Muslims/Hindus promoting the religious divide (e.g. authors like S.R. Goel and Arun Shourie and similar authors in Pakistan) have basically aggravated it.

Infact, these people have become flagbearers of that same idology that the colonial British left back. Even Jinnah had had cordial relations with Hindus and Parsis. And shunned religious muslims as "those mullas".

The true situation in India was the rich (be they muslims or hindus) were opressing the poor(again be they muslims or hindus). It was more of a class struggle than a hindu-muslim issue. Ofcourse there were benevelont Hindu and Muslim landlords and rulers who looked after the rural poor but these were exceptions rather than the norm.

I do not disagree that there were some benefits with the British rule. The gave us a democratic society which we did have to fight for. they also gave us railways, a modern army e.t.c although again these were to be used for their own imperial benefits.

 

[Awesome]

Yes, especially in 2002.

 

[praveen]

I thought I might also add some information on how the religious divide was magnified and utilised by the British.

After the revolt of 1857, the British were so scared of a united front by Muslims, Brahmins and Rajputs that they set about propagandising that they had saved the Hindus from the "tyranny" of muslims to bring them away from nationalist sentiments. It is important to realise that 1857 rebellion had a deep affect on the British imperialist. I just quote one statment below which shows how they perceived it

thanks to Aurangazeb ,the notion was already there Ejaz.The united front was formed after a situation of dire necessity and for the hatred of British.The revolt was only present in UP ,Bengal ,bihar and to some extent MP.Even then there was never a coherent strategy among them.

Hence, it became necessary to divide on the basis of religion which wasn't easy. It started with the eight volume history book "The History of India, as told by its Historians" which tried to justify British rule to the majority Hindus saying they are here to protect them. Infact, before the British, Hindi, or Hindu was used to refer any native India regardless of their religion as a geographical term. It is only after the British that Hindus came to be associated as seprate religious group from muslims.

How many people were aware of the book at that time Ejaz .Shivaji was the one who brought Hindus as a seperate entity

It should be interesting to note than in all its eight volume, it doesn't quote any brahman or rajput document as its source. And still forms the main source for most communalists.

true

Infact, if it was not the religious divides, Colonial Britishers would have exploited linguistic or ethnic divides to achieve their aim. Highlighting Dravidian-Aryan divdes or carving a seprate state for shudra homeland. The NW part of India was important for British strategic interests and religion seemed to be the easiest way to excuse this

.
Linguistic ,caste and Ethinic divides would never work Mahatma and Nehru saw to that

For example, the Hindi-Urdu controversy that is highlighted and was debated as a demand for the muslims. It ignored the fact that first of all many muslims did not speak Urdu (i.e. Bengali, Pathans, South Indian muslims) and also ignored that only 9% of India was literate. So would the use of Hindi vs Urdu be really that important for the common man when he could neither read or write?

true

I am not saying that there were no differences, every society has different ethnic groups, religous groups and linguistic groups. For example Ireland is a recent example. But the extent of communalisation today is no way near as it was 100 years back. The British policies, the partition for strategic interests potrayed as religious issue, the right wing Muslims/Hindus promoting the religious divide (e.g. authors like S.R. Goel and Arun Shourie and similar authors in Pakistan) have basically aggravated it.

You name the difference and India had it in 1947.Partition was bound to happen Ejaz sooner or later

Infact, these people have become flagbearers of that same idology that the colonial British left back. Even Jinnah had had cordial relations with Hindus and Parsis. And shunned religious muslims as "those mullas".

from Liberal communalist he became communalist Ejaz.His goal was not Pakistan it was becoming PM of India

The true situation in India was the rich (be they muslims or hindus) were opressing the poor(again be they muslims or hindus). It was more of a class struggle than a hindu-muslim issue. Ofcourse there were benevelont Hindu and Muslim landlords and rulers who looked after the rural poor but these were exceptions rather than the norm

.
Class struggle will become communal struggle in such a case Ejaz.Pakistan has that problem to this day.That is where naxalism helped in bengal and central India.It destroyed feudalism

I do not disagree that there were some benefits with the British rule. The gave us a democratic society which we did have to fight for. they also gave us railways, a modern army e.t.c although again these were to be used for their own imperial benefits.

I agree

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

The british raj in itself had the seeds of seperation sowed amongst the different communities to accomodate its rule over the masses---whomsoever was picked to be the favourite son---the opposing community would revolt against the idea. The raj could not control the masses unless they sowed the seeds of discontent and disharmony amongst different groups.

So---that, basically was the recipe for a major disaster---it was the ultimate time bomb that could go off at any moment---the chosen one would act and behave differently towards the less fortunate---we saw that happen---.

So---an independence in 2010----I don't think it would have been possible under the given circumstances---we had already reached a boiling point in the 40's---our salvation lay in partition---now that we are seperate and have had a few wrestling matches as well---this is the time to look and understand our diversity and differences.

Once we acknowledge that----then we can say that we are not too far from each other.

I believe that our realities are inter twined---we are like a body and its shadow---a body can never run away from its shadow---india can never run away from its neighbour---.

 

[praveen]

Hi,

The british raj in itself had the seeds of seperation sowed amongst the different communities to accomodate its rule over the masses---whomsoever was picked to be the favourite son---the opposing community would revolt against the idea. The raj could not control the masses unless they sowed the seeds of discontent and disharmony amongst different groups.

The seeds were there already before the raj they only poured more water into it

So---that, basically was the recipe for a major disaster---it was the ultimate time bomb that could go off at any moment---the chosen one would act and behave differently towards the less fortunate---we saw that happen---.

true

So---an independence in 2010----I don't think it would have been possible under the given circumstances---we had already reached a boiling point in the 40's---our salvation lay in partition---now that we are seperate and have had a few wrestling matches as well---this is the time to look and understand our diversity and differences.

would have been possible any time.The muslim elite balked at the idea of being ruled by Hindus sir

Once we acknowledge that----then we can say that we are not too far from each other.

We are too far sir
Our ideals and histories are too different from1947 onwards

I believe that our realities are inter twined---we are like a body and its shadow---a body can never run away from its shadow---india can never run away from its neighbour---.

Indians consider our neighbour as a doppleganger of what India would be.If we strayed from the path

 

[advaita]

The seeds were there already before the raj they only poured more water into it

Right.
At the same time we cannot avoid the fact that all muslims of the subcontinent are not Pakistanis and BDs. History and God have already decreed that Indian muslims (who and only those , whether they be Muslims or Hindus, who are willing to accept India, the whole of it, as there motherland) are different and hell they are brothers, especially given the fact that Indian Muslims are historically Indians who took up Islam and not Muslims who took up India. Whatever was done was done under Autocratic rules, infact more often then not by pitting one hindu against other and later on one Indian against the other.

Our focus should be on protecting our libralised economy and democratic institutions. It has not made us rich as yet but it has sure given a chance to fight it out to every Indian at least theoretically and with further refinement it can make us less miserable. We did lift the population equivalent of one Pakistan from below poverty line to above poverty line since libralisation began under the democratic rule.

We are too far sir
Our ideals and histories are too different from1947 onwards
Indians consider our neighbour as a doppleganger of what India would be.If we strayed from the path

ditto. We have to avoid exclusivism in whatever kind. The life is grey and we should accept it just as such. It would be lovely the Indian Muslims rising higher and better then the Pakistanis.

 

[MastanKhan]

"Indians consider our neighbour as a doppleganger of what India would be.If we strayed from the path"----praveen


Hi,

Could you please write it in english so that I can understand what you want to say. Thanks.

 

[sadiqams]

It is a myth that there was partition. There was no partition. The sub continent had never been one country or nation in its history even under the mongol or the British. You did not force the British out rather the Muslims were forced into Pakistan by nehru, Patel and Gandhi rejecting the Cabinet Mission Plan which would have cobbled together a con federation of three regions. In fact the Indian union was forced into a union many of the independent states were reluctant to join until forced to do so. It was rather pulled together than partitioned. Areas were given to India which rightly should have gone to Pakistan. Not to say that Pakistan was also 'cobbled' together of the bits that successfully resisted forced Indian Union. If independence was granted in 2010 no the subcontinent would have been different. It is likely that the Tamils would demand their own homeland. The Bengalis another. There would have been no Lord Mounbattan, No Nehru, No Gandhi and No Jinnah. Pakistan may not have been created but to avoid the subcontinent becoming a great power the British would have split it up into small dominions expanding their divide and rule policy. I think they regret not dividing India in such a way because to some extent they have lost influence over it. At the moment there is no democracy in India or Pakistan. In India they are rule by just 10% to 15% of the population the elite brahamins. A large chunk of Indians are denied their rights (Dalits) There are about 450 Million of them even when they are organized they are robbed of their democratic rights. They should have large numbers and influence the indian parliament if not dominate it but they dont there is something wrong. As far as a liberalised economy is concerned. That is a myth you canot not compare you economy to the 'liberlised' western economies. When you have people sleeping on the side walks in your major cities. The distribution wealth is a does not occur in your country in a meaningful way. However you spend money, missiles, nuclear subs (that are not nuclear) and have been led into a blind the trap that the USA has set up for you in a nuclear 'deal' and the Russains are conning you by selling you junk. The American and Isrealis will now rip you off by selling you downgraded weapon systems that wont work when you wish to use them. You do not wish to settle border disputes with you neighbours under the illusion of so called 'Superpower' status. If you dont settle then one day one neighbour will pull the rug from under your feet and when you get up you will find you have lost more than if you would have settled thd disputes. I sometimes wonder foreign (or traitors) spys in Pakistan not withstanding how many foreign spys (or traitors) it took India to succumb to a rather unfair nuclear deal which will fall apart even if you test your nuclear capability. OI am sure sometime in the future there is a scandal in the making when the truth is out. You have been lied to by the Indian Government and as you know 'The truth always comes out'. As in the Bofors scandal.

 

[Musalman]

In that case we would have 16 new countries based on ethnicity just like the Yogusalvia. We would have Republics of Punjab Sindh Kalat Baluchistan Pakhtunkwa, Bengal east, Bengal west, Bihar, Oudh, Hyderbad, Mysore, Carantic etc etc etc. And English instead of giving us the freedom would have been surrendered the way Americans did in the siagon ....... A helicopter taking last of brits from the Viceroy House roof in Dehli

 

[gogbot]

It is a myth that there was partition. There was no partition. The sub continent had never been one country or nation in its history even under the mongol or the British. You did not force the British out rather the Muslims were forced into Pakistan by nehru, Patel and Gandhi rejecting the Cabinet Mission Plan which would have cobbled together a con federation of three regions. In fact the Indian union was forced into a union many of the independent states were reluctant to join until forced to do so. It was rather pulled together than partitioned. Areas were given to India which rightly should have gone to Pakistan. Not to say that Pakistan was also 'cobbled' together of the bits that successfully resisted forced Indian Union. If independence was granted in 2010 no the subcontinent would have been different. It is likely that the Tamils would demand their own homeland. The Bengalis another. There would have been no Lord Mounbattan, No Nehru, No Gandhi and No Jinnah. Pakistan may not have been created but to avoid the subcontinent becoming a great power the British would have split it up into small dominions expanding their divide and rule policy. I think they regret not dividing India in such a way because to some extent they have lost influence over it. At the moment there is no democracy in India or Pakistan. In India they are rule by just 10% to 15% of the population the elite brahamins. A large chunk of Indians are denied their rights (Dalits) There are about 450 Million of them even when they are organized they are robbed of their democratic rights. They should have large numbers and influence the indian parliament if not dominate it but they dont there is something wrong. As far as a liberalised economy is concerned. That is a myth you canot not compare you economy to the 'liberlised' western economies. When you have people sleeping on the side walks in your major cities. The distribution wealth is a does not occur in your country in a meaningful way. However you spend money, missiles, nuclear subs (that are not nuclear) and have been led into a blind the trap that the USA has set up for you in a nuclear 'deal' and the Russains are conning you by selling you junk. The American and Isrealis will now rip you off by selling you downgraded weapon systems that wont work when you wish to use them. You do not wish to settle border disputes with you neighbours under the illusion of so called 'Superpower' status. If you dont settle then one day one neighbour will pull the rug from under your feet and when you get up you will find you have lost more than if you would have settled thd disputes. I sometimes wonder foreign (or traitors) spys in Pakistan not withstanding how many foreign spys (or traitors) it took India to succumb to a rather unfair nuclear deal which will fall apart even if you test your nuclear capability. OI am sure sometime in the future there is a scandal in the making when the truth is out. You have been lied to by the Indian Government and as you know 'The truth always comes out'. As in the Bofors scandal.

Well i thank you for your open mind in discussing this issue but.
"India is ruled by 10-15 % elite Brahamins"
Please what does that mean for me, my family my friends.
Are you saying we have no say in politics. that our entire life has been a fraud.
Please believe me when i say this India is a democracy.
it isn't some neo conservative Brahmin society as you are led to believe.

And people make mistakes, governments are no different but we all strive to be better than we are.

this thread was just meant to question the relevance of religion in the separation of India and Pakistan.
But thanks for all the other aspects of the separation