Indus Nationalism could have avoided the tragedy of Partition

[yuba]

Pretty large numbers of Kashmiris supported Abdullah because he promised them independent Kashmir where ethnic Kashmiri muslims will be majority. Its another matter that once India occupied IoK they refused to honor their promise.

Kashmiris are justified in their struggle for that reason but not sikhs. Sikh leader joined India without any condition. Sikhs could have gotten independent state if they really wanted, that was perfect time for Khalistan. Instead they chose secularism only to change mind after 1947.

I have heard a lot of Sikhs blame a Sikh leader can't remember his name for not get an independent Sikh state. Sikhs in large number wanted to join India aswell they fight the independence movement for a united nation but did not expect the state to be divided and how badly it would end with all the bloodshed in the state. Just checked the leader was Tara Singh

 

[truthfollower]

Some people think Allama Iqbal was the real founder of Pakistan. They claim that in his address at Allahabad in 1930, Iqbal presented the concept of separate county or sovereign state.
But That’s not true. Iqbal talked about ‘Autonomous states.’

Between 1857 and 1929, over 64 people presented more than 80 schemes regarding autonomy of provinces and division of India. Iqbal’s scheme was just one of many schemes.

In 1933, Chaudhry Rehmat Ali conceptualized ‘Pakistan’. He wanted north western areas and some parts of Afghanistan to form an empire of Muslims outside of India, by the name of ‘Pakistan Commonwealth of Nations’.

Rehmat Ali propagated this scheme to a great length through his pamphlets.

Jinnah rejected this scheme in 1934 when some came to him to make him accept it.

Also in 1934, Iqbal rejected this scheme in his letter to Edward Thompson. In 1937, he changed his mind and wrote letters to Jinnah and told him what kind of Pakistan he really wants. At this point Iqbal just had an opinion about Pakistan’s nature and he wasn’t the founder of its concept. Remarkably, Jinnah didn’t reply to Iqbal’s letter.

Next year, since Iqbal was famous in Punjab, he asked Muslims of Punjab to accept Jinnah as their leader. Iqbal died same year.

Jinnah however, once again rejected Pakistan scheme in 1938 during All India Muslim League’s annual session.

Opportunists in Muslim India. Everyone had his own vision for India. Openly supporting one group’s vision would’ve meant losing support of another. So, Jinnah remained silent about definition of ‘Independent states’ till 1946.

Soon after Lahore Resolution, congress media started its propaganda and claimed that Muslim league was demanding Pakistan and wanted to divide India. At first, Jinnah protested against the word ‘Pakistan’ being associated with him, since his demands were a bit different. But later he decided to use this word for political gains due to word’s popularity among the masses. But Jinnah’s Pakistan was different than Rehmat Ali’s one. He merely called Muslim India, Pakistan, and Hindu India, Hindustan, and saw both as part of some Indian federation or confederation.

This was the reason why Rehmat Ali remained bitter about Jinnah, as he felt betrayed. Jinnah also gave a political statement that Iqbal was his mentor, to get even more support from Punjab.

Iqbal and Jinnah both were their own men and stayed that way. Iqbal opposed secularism unlike Jinnah. On other hand, Iqbal wanted some modified version of Islamic laws in Pakistan. Jinnah however opposed that too. The very reason there is no mention of religious laws in Lahore Resolution or any other official document crafted by Muslims League during the presence of Jinnah himself.

Well funny you should say that. This is exactly in a round about way that Allama Iqbal espoused in his speach of 1930. This is the first recorded event where Pakistan as exists was called for. Let's just have a look at what Allama Iqbal demanded in 1930.

View attachment 733818


Then three years later Rehmat Ali coined the name for this land 'PAKSTAN' in his pamphlet "NOW OR NEVER" printed in 1933 which was acronym for all the five provinces on the Indus Basin.


View attachment 733819

These are facts that are conveniently ignored. In fact is it not a wonder that PAKSTAN stands for the five pieces of the jigsaw on the Indus Basin geography? The name PAKSTAN has the DNA of the Indus Basin writ into it. This fact.

This is because of deliberate choice by the state for 70 years to obfuscate this aspect of the 96% native people of the Indus Basin. You will notice the PPP of Sindh invests fair bit on the IVC and Mohenjo Daro as Sindhi heritage.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Partition turned out very good for India, though british made sure people die and relation are tarnished for ever. People stuck in that era must move on. Pakistanis are happy with Pakistan n Indians r happy with India.

How was the wanton death and destruction good for any country? Partition based on religion created a rush for the border......How the hell can Tamil or Mizorami Muslims live with Pashtun or Gilgiti Muslims?

 

[gulli]

How was the wanton death and destruction good for any country? Partition based on religion created a rush for the border......How the hell can Tamil or Mizorami Muslims live with Pashtun or Gilgiti Muslims?

Why ask me?? n not muslim. If you read my post I have said deaths could have been avoided, but brits pulled the old trick of divide n rule. Through pig head in Masjid n cow heads in Mandirs. Otherwise things were peaceful.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Jinnah would have died a year later, so Muslim league would have been without its most charismatic leader and the majority would fall behind Congress.

Agreed...Jinnah was monumental to the movement.

It is a cycle. There was some divide before partition. The partition increased the divide. Without partition, the divide may have reduced over time as there would be no British govt to further stoke differences. Jinnah would have died a year later, so Muslim league would have been without its most charismatic leader and the majority would fall behind Congress. Had Nehru / Patel knew that Jinnah is terminally ill and is going to die soon, they would have agreed with Gandhi to make Jinnah the first PM of united India.

Partition or no partition...it is hard for hate to disappear. It is easy for ppl to hate the "other" and escape goat...
...and even easier for any retard extremist(in ideology) to use that to further their goals(whether political or any others).

IMO what Nehru promised was idealistic...and what Jinnah saw was more realistic.
...I don't want this thread to go on a tangent of philosophical discussion around the topic of partition.
...but just consider this example below.
Beef ban...
...there are some places in India that have this. You will find Hindus who would want to implement it all over India. Why should they not? After all it is according to their beliefs...and Hindus are the majority...so being a democracy means majority rules.
Then there will be Muslims who will feel that this is the state interfering in their religion...even though they were promised religious freedom in a secular country. They would say that they do not slaughter cows to offend Hindus...they do it as per their religious beliefs of commemorating Prophet Abraham's sacrifice. Yes it is true that they don't have to slaughter a cow...and can slaughter other animals...but that doesn't mean the state should dictate what they can or cannot do in their religious matters...and they would also be right.

...for a moment try imagining that u r some neutral person(neither Hindu nor Muslim setting aside biases)...who is right?

Other examples that come to mind are things like triple talaq, azaan on loud speaker, love jihad, "correcting" the past by tearing down masjids and building mandirs, etc. It is impossible to divorce religion from the matters of the state...especially when two religions are forced to coexist...that are specially at odds with each other in their ideology.

In conclusion the hatred wouldn't have disappeared anywhere if no partition occurred...
...no partition would've increased India's Muslim population more...and all the strife that occurs in modern day India over religion(including the massacres) would have only increased in intensity bcuz Muslims would have felt emboldened to strike back(being more in numbers)...and it will just go tit for tat from there.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

How do you know Nehru's underlying feelings if he did not state those or did?

There was no conflict between Nehru & Patel on getting plebiscite done once the active battle ends. But for that plebiscite to happen, UN had laid some conditions which Pak did not follow. The only differing opinion was to whether go to the UN for help on plebiscite or do it ourselves. Patel wanted that India first captures the entire J&K and then does plebiscite (like it did in Junagarh). Nehru wanted to avoid further bloodshed and was too trusting in the UN's ability to make Pak behave.


Till you agree on LOC to IB, the region on both sides is disupted and claimed in entirety by both parties. Hence both parties will claim the other's area as occupied. How can we give up claim on GB and Pak Kashmir if you dont give up claim on Indian Kashmir.

There were no free and fair elections in J&K before independence. Hence there is no way of knowing exactly what percentage supported which leader.

Free and fair elections also didn't occur after 1947 on multiple occasions. Complete rigging is well documented. Let us not even start on the imposition of governorship in order to enforce constitutional amendment without consulting the representative of the state itself. It's a bit rich preaching democracy and rule of law when Hindustan trampled over both just two years ago.

As for conditions on Pakistan, we've heard it before. What you fail to mention is why Pakistani troops and irregulars were compelled to act in the first place.

The forgotten massacre that ignited the Kashmir dispute

In November 1947, thousands of Muslims were killed in Jammu by paramilitaries led by the army of Dogra ruler Hari Singh.

www.google.com

You and your friends will need to be constantly reminded that Hari began these pogroms before accession. This act triggered the Muslim retaliation from Pakistan to preserve the lives of other Muslims. It's a very simple equation. Whatever jinnah or nehru or Patel wanted or didn't want, all that really matters is the killings in Jammu forcing Pakistan's hand at the critical moment. Ultimately this is what genocidal maniacs do and perhaps this is why Nehru was somewhat at odds with the Dogras, especially in terms of his support for Abdullah. Blame jinnah or Pakistani tribals as much as you like - the harsh reality is that if the Hindu chieftain had not embarked upon a genocidal campaign, Kashmir may have been solved on day zero. Pakistan had to intervene on basic humanitarian grounds, and we had no assurances that the killings would cease in our absence. Pakistan's intervention and annexation of part of Kashmir saved lives.

 

[-blitzkrieg-]

Don't know if they have lived but right now I have never heard of a Pashtun claiming indus heritage, priding themselves to be different from Punjabis and Sindhis who are more into the Indian cultural sphere.
India name was given by the greeks. Still it was based on sanskrit Sindhu.
We don't mind, we get all the ancient pride and glory with the name, we also have Bharat as official name.
Good for us if Pakistanis never think of claiming it

You wont find river nationalism anywhere in paksitan except some areas of sindh.But that doesnt mean communities here consider others vastly different. Any two neighbouring communities have common region which is a melting pot of two cultures and that can be seen around indus river in case of punjabi/pashtun and sindh/baloch and some places all four..Besides proximity of koh e sulleman to indus, as per the earliest greek accounts pakhtuns were seen all the way upto indus.. Punjabis come in varieties.punjabi is not an ethnicity but a geographic identity.it's not ur fault as an Indian you only know a sikh as punjabi..while there are some Punjab areas closer to kpk it's also true that lahore and other cities around are closer to indian Punjab.
The Greeks called it Indós not india..later indika was derived and eventually india by brits.
Bharat is a folklore. Tell anyone outside you live in bahrat he will be confused ..the world knows you by one name.your real official name. india..

 

[Bouncer]

"Indus nationals" are the modern Pakistanis. No matter how you twist it the fact is that Pakistanis are the inheritors of anything even remotely related to the mighty Indus, the civilizations that sprung around it, the kings, peoples, religions, books, arts and basically everything it produced. Heck even the name India is our loan to your country my friend.

So what are you on about? Some people and some areas of Indus got left behind in 47. They'll come back to the motherland when the time comes. Vast majority is already here and its called Pakistan.

 

[magra]

In conclusion the hatred wouldn't have disappeared anywhere if no partition occurred...
...no partition would've increased India's Muslim population more...and all the strife that occurs in modern day India over religion(including the massacres) would have only increased in intensity bcuz Muslims would have felt emboldened to strike back(being more in numbers)...and it will just go tit for tat from there.

The entire premise for partition was 2 nation theory .. which combines all subcontinental muslims as one unit and rest as other unit. In reality, a Punjabi Hindu would have more in common with a Punjabi Muslim than a Keralite Hindu.. The entire division on religious lines was encouraged and promoted by British to make us fighting among ourselves and not present a united fight against them.
Pre-British, we were not fighting purely on communal lines. Mughals had a lot of Hindu generals. Marathas had many muslim generals.
We could have probably gone back to that setting where Hindu-muslim living as neighbors could have found common grounds in language and culture.

But long story short, all this is hypothetical. What has happened cannot be undone, so no point thinking about these scenarios. We just need to move on and make a fresh start.

I have heard a lot of Sikhs blame a Sikh leader can't remember his name for not get an independent Sikh state. Sikhs in large number wanted to join India aswell they fight the independence movement for a united nation but did not expect the state to be divided and how badly it would end with all the bloodshed in the state. Just checked the leader was Tara Singh

A small landlocked state meshed between Pakistan and India would never have lasted long. Moreover Sikhs and Hindus have too much in common.

 

[SABRE]

Let's get one thing straight here at the outset..I am not against the existence of Pakistan in fact all for it..But as towering a giant as Quaid-E-Azam was, this was one big blindspot in his vision...He backed the wrong Two Nation Theory...If he had backed the Indus Theory then the unnecessary blood shed and tragedy could have been avoided....Millions of Indus Sikhs and Hindus would not have had to leave the region and millions of completely alien people would not have come in giving the region a reverse cultural shock...the process of Partition would have been seamless...it would have been as easy devloving one state out of a bigger state in India...A bureaucratic nightmare? Sure...but not a human tragedy ...............The Indus river existed for millions of years...The distinct culture around Indus had existed for thousands and thousands of years....The genesis of Pakistan lies in the mists of time and the love people of Pakistan have for their land is certainly older than 570 AD..............What similiarity does an Indus Pashtun or Gilgiti have with a Tamilian? seriously?

If the Indus Partition theory was executed, the relations between India and Pakistan would have been very smooth and exemplary...Like that of between Czech Republic and Slovakia...where one PM visits another PM before the end of the term to say goodbye......I refuse to be held hostage to the wrong Two Nation Theory



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



EDIT:
Another side effect would have been that Kashmir,Jammu along with Buddhist Ladakh would have naturally ended up with Pakistan...Indus Nationalism being the driving force behind creation of Pakistan, India would not have been able to logically argue against Indus rationale....But on the upside for India would have been that present day Bangladesh would have fallen into Indian hands, along woth Theravada Buddhist Chittagong Hill Tract........Having CHT would have been way more of a boost for the legitimacy of the new Indian state than Kashmir ever could have been.......CHT is the only place in the subcontinental mainland that houses the original sect of Buddhism (Theravada) in an unbroken lineage ...Ladakh,Nepal,Sikkim,Bhutan,Arunachal,Spiti Valley house the newer Vajrayana sect

India being the birthplace of Buddhism, having CHT would have beeen the feather in the cap of atheistic, pro-Buddhist, anti-Hindu,anti-superstition Nehru



Kashmir conflict is entirely due to the wrong two-Nation Theory

Interesting point. The problem with this is that the politics of 1930s-1940s did not have much to do with ethnic politics and more to do with religious identities. IMO, on the broader level the whole debacle started with Congress' rejection of ML's demand for quota system for Muslims. Nehru thought India could be irreligious. Leadership in the ML thought otherwise. Clearly ML was right. There were strong seeds of Hindutva being sown and it was very visible. Gandhi portraying himself as a Hindu sage of a sort did not help matters much for either side. Then there was the linguistic and cultural issue, but mainly along the Muslim and Hindu lines. For instance, the population in modern day Pakistan was extremely less exposed to "Hindi" variant of "Hindustani." Urdu on the other hand was relatively well known since the Arabic style script was quite common throughout the land (Note: Urdu, however, was not a widely used language in the territories that constitute Pakistan today before partition).

Unfortunately, in the ensuing Muslim-Hindu tussle both Muslims and Sikhs became a systematic targets.

Once Pakistan became a separate country the Two-Nation Theory based on religious identity became irrelevant and ethnic identities took primacy. Unfortunately, the Pakistani leadership failed to realise that Pakistan existed now because of its provinces, which had distinct ethnic identities, and that the provinces did not exist because of Pakistan, which was now reeling through an identity crisis. Eventually, Pakistan paid for it with the breakup of East Pakistan. India, due to its diverse state structure, did not create room for any single ethnic group to form majority. Moreover, the Nehruvian restructuring of India ensured that on state level Indian politics is dominated more by political ideologies and less by ethnic identities. Nehru further ensured that certain institutions and bureaucracies never truly became powerful enough to challenge democratic setup of India. Thus, at least on ethnic lines, India has seen less troubles. This, however, does not mean that the problem of ethnic divide does not exist there.

 

[magra]

Free and fair elections also didn't occur after 1947 on multiple occasions. Complete rigging is well documented. Let us not even start on the imposition of governorship in order to enforce constitutional amendment without consulting the representative of the state itself. It's a bit rich preaching democracy and rule of law when Hindustan trampled over both just two years ago.

If you are talking about revoking Article 370, I dont really get what Pak's issue with that is. That is an Indian law which we had and we removed it. That has no bearing on Pak or the Kashmir it controls. The Parliament was within its rights to revoke the article as it saw fit.
Although, I dont agree with house-arresting the Kashmiri leaders (especially the elected ones) and keeping the internet blocked for so long.

You and your friends will need to be constantly reminded that Hari began these pogroms before accession. This act triggered the Muslim retaliation from Pakistan to preserve the lives of other Muslims. It's a very simple equation. Whatever jinnah or nehru or Patel wanted or didn't want, all that really matters is the killings in Jammu forcing Pakistan's hand at the critical moment. Ultimately this is what genocidal maniacs do and perhaps this is why Nehru was somewhat at odds with the Dogras, especially in terms of his support for Abdullah. Blame jinnah or Pakistani tribals as much as you like - the harsh reality is that if the Hindu chieftain had not embarked upon a genocidal campaign, Kashmir may have been solved on day zero. Pakistan had to intervene on basic humanitarian grounds, and we had no assurances that the killings would cease in our absence. Pakistan's intervention and annexation of part of Kashmir saved lives.

If your only reason for intervention was to protect Kashmiri muslim lives, why did you not approach UN?
Also, your irregulars started doing the same thing once it captured some area - selectively killing and raping non-Muslims. This actually helped Indian forces with valuable time to defend Srinagar. Had those irregulars been more disciplined, they would have captured Srinagar before Indian forces could land.

Once India approached UN and there was a ceasefire, why did Pak not agree to UN resolution which called for Pak forces to vacate Kashmir so as to conduct a plebiscite under UN observation?

 

[yuba]

The entire premise for partition was 2 nation theory .. which combines all subcontinental muslims as one unit and rest as other unit. In reality, a Punjabi Hindu would have more in common with a Punjabi Muslim than a Keralite Hindu.. The entire division on religious lines was encouraged and promoted by British to make us fighting among ourselves and not present a united fight against them.
Pre-British, we were not fighting purely on communal lines. Mughals had a lot of Hindu generals. Marathas had many muslim generals.
We could have probably gone back to that setting where Hindu-muslim living as neighbors could have found common grounds in language and culture.

But long story short, all this is hypothetical. What has happened cannot be undone, so no point thinking about these scenarios. We just need to move on and make a fresh start.

A small landlocked state meshed between Pakistan and India would never have lasted long. Moreover Sikhs and Hindus have too much in common.

This is what i tell Khalistanis in the UK a landlocked state with India and Pakistan on each side. But most Khalistani don't think this far ahead . In the US Many used the Khalistan issue to get political asylum and love going back to punjab and spend each evening getting drunk something that would be banned in a Sikh state. The centre did a lot of wrongs and many young men were killed because of land issues quarrels and outright killed in fake encounters but I also had a family member killed simply because he was for the union. None came out of it clean and much could be done to right the injustice that we faced in the Delhi riots

 

[hussain0216]

"Indus nationals" are the modern Pakistanis. No matter how you twist it the fact is that Pakistanis are the inheritors of anything even remotely related to the mighty Indus, the civilizations that sprung around it, the kings, peoples, religions, books, arts and basically everything it produced. Heck even the name India is our loan to your country my friend.

So what are you on about? Some people and some areas of Indus got left behind in 47. They'll come back to the motherland when the time comes. Vast majority is already here and its called Pakistan.

PAKISTAN is simply the modern state of this ancient land

I think Indians are just confused

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Agreed...Jinnah was monumental to the movement.

Partition or no partition...it is hard for hate to disappear. It is easy for ppl to hate the "other" and escape goat...
...and even easier for any retard extremist(in ideology) to use that to further their goals(whether political or any others).

IMO what Nehru promised was idealistic...and what Jinnah saw was more realistic.
...I don't want this thread to go on a tangent of philosophical discussion around the topic of partition.
...but just consider this example below.
Beef ban...
...there are some places in India that have this. You will find Hindus who would want to implement it all over India. Why should they not? After all it is according to their beliefs...and Hindus are the majority...so being a democracy means majority rules.
Then there will be Muslims who will feel that this is the state interfering in their religion...even though they were promised religious freedom in a secular country. They would say that they do not slaughter cows to offend Hindus...they do it as per their religious beliefs of commemorating Prophet Abraham's sacrifice. Yes it is true that they don't have to slaughter a cow...and can slaughter other animals...but that doesn't mean the state should dictate what they can or cannot do in their religious matters...and they would also be right.

...for a moment try imagining that u r some neutral person(neither Hindu nor Muslim setting aside biases)...who is right?

Other examples that come to mind are things like triple talaq, azaan on loud speaker, love jihad, "correcting" the past by tearing down masjids and building mandirs, etc. It is impossible to divorce religion from the matters of the state...especially when two religions are forced to coexist...that are specially at odds with each other in their ideology.

In conclusion the hatred wouldn't have disappeared anywhere if no partition occurred...
...no partition would've increased India's Muslim population more...and all the strife that occurs in modern day India over religion(including the massacres) would have only increased in intensity bcuz Muslims would have felt emboldened to strike back(being more in numbers)...and it will just go tit for tat from there.

India is a Republic....Majority cannot override the basic character of the Constitution even if they majority votes

 

[masterchief_mirza]

If you are talking about revoking Article 370, I dont really get what Pak's issue with that is. That is an Indian law which we had and we removed it. That has no bearing on Pak or the Kashmir it controls. The Parliament was within its rights to revoke the article as it saw fit.
Although, I dont agree with house-arresting the Kashmiri leaders (especially the elected ones) and keeping the internet blocked for so long.


If your only reason for intervention was to protect Kashmiri muslim lives, why did you not approach UN?
Also, your irregulars started doing the same thing once it captured some area - selectively killing and raping non-Muslims. This actually helped Indian forces with valuable time to defend Srinagar. Had those irregulars been more disciplined, they would have captured Srinagar before Indian forces could land.

Once India approached UN and there was a ceasefire, why did Pak not agree to UN resolution which called for Pak forces to vacate Kashmir so as to conduct a plebiscite under UN observation?

Only language understood by Dogra filth is that of the gun. Even Nehru didn't like Hari Singh. Lives were saved by Pakistan. The UN you say? That's funny because I thought Nehru's fatal mistake was going to the UN. Why do you think Pakistan would have been able to achieve anything quicker?

India is a Republic....Majority cannot override the basic character of the Constitution even if they majority votes

President can override the constitution though.

Once India approached UN and there was a ceasefire, why did Pak not agree to UN resolution which called for Pak forces to vacate Kashmir so as to conduct a plebiscite under UN observation?

You slaughtered kashmiris. That's why we didn't leave. Why should we trust you and the Dogra allies you had taken?