Is India Better-off With Partition?

[Creder]

Well there is a other way of looking at it as well isnt ? if we had a united india i dont think either USSR or USA would have dared to capture afghanistan,

Thats other way of looking at it isnt ? we could have been as powerfull as what we are today 15 to 20 years ago.

Do we imagine how many precious lives and how many development years are lost cuz of this partition.

thats true tho if we "somehow" got over ALL our issues..we'd be beast !

 

[Kompromat]

Why do we always have to point towards the "Moderates within" whenever we talk in context of ISLAM? Why cant Islam be moderate by default? ..

Islam is moderate by Default but you need to update your Knowledge.

Why is it only the Muslims who need ISLAMIC States for themselves....

Because we cannot live under those whom we Ruled for 1000 years
History is evident , we always wanted our own dedicated land and we always will.

We Hindus too have but only one Homeland, our Dear Bharat, and even that is being snatcheded away from us in the name of SECULARISM....

I like This one at least you are honest with your views.

We have no problems adjusting with other communities..But that again would be on our terms.. And if the people of a community dare call me a KAFIR in my own homeland..

Are you trying to say that all Indian muslims are aliens and India ONLY belongs to Hindus !

threatens to TAKE OVER BY MY LAND BY FORCE, what is expected of me then?? .

Gujrat , Sikh holocaust , Kashmir , Samjhota Train , Babri Mosque etc

This is what is expected from Hindu Terrorists isn't it ?

to give in, accept a faith that originated in an alien land, and throw away thousands of years of values my Ancestors protected and kept close to their hearts

What did your Ancestors do to protect those "values" ? .. They were weak and coward enough to lose their homeland to a handfull Muslim generals.

passed on to me with a hope that I'll keep those values alive....

Are you sure that the Blood you are so proud of is "Really" of your ancestor's or their ancestor's and not of some mughal King or prince ? (No offense but history proves it ie Akbar & his Wife Jodha and he also had a sheer number of Hindu chicks as "keeps") so Hindu's "True Bloodline" has a question mark.

Sorry bro.. I'll revolt.. And am sure there are many more who will do the same, to protect their identities and their faith.. And when that happens, Secularism and communal brotherhood would become a joke..

It already has when a "Hindu party BJP" was Ruling "Secular India" WOW !!

Hope now you understand how difficult it would have been to live in this country with so much heterogeneity around.. ..

You created it didn't you ?

Partition was the best thing that happened to us Indians.. Wether we realize it or not, is a different matter altogather..

Agree with that

Regards:

 

[destiny]

Care to explain what do you find good in Rahul Baba?

nothing but a media hype.

 

[Pride]

Yes india is better off with partition and so is Pakistan.

Pakistanis are not like indian muslims at all, we are not afraid to tell a hindu that we are Muslims before anything and we rather side with Muslims from other countries than hindus.


Partition was the best idea ever although the way it happened was wrong like british awarding Muslim majority districts in Punjab, Ferozepur and Gurdaspur (that borders Pakistan) to india and today theres no Muslims left in those districts. Ferozepur housed a major arsenal, which was to be the only one in Pakistan territory, and was to ensure supplies to the Pakistan army. Originally Radcliffe, the person who made the borders of Pakistan and India, made Ferozepur and Gurdaspur part of Pakistan because it had Muslim majority (all Muslim majority districts in Punjab were to be given to Pakistan) but then Mountbatten awarded those districts to India which resulted in mass migration and slaughter and today theres no Muslims left in those district. Mountbatten then became the first governor general of India in 1947.

Thanks Sir for your comments.. What amuse me the best..that people from your side talk very happily when history starts about Mughals.. That we ruled You hindus for 500 years.. and suddenly those Mughal kingdom down and britishers came.. You suddenly started getting scared that Hindus will rule us... and the same thought you persist even today for Indian Muslims... Hypocrisy isn't it?

And So much Rant about Radcliff's award for Gurdaspur/Ferozepur.. Care to explain why Lahore has been awarded to Pakistan when it was Sikh major city?.. Till Aug end in 1947 nobody knows where Lahore was heading... Mr Radcliff awarded Lahore to Pakistan because Pakistan is not having any major city except Karachi as even Kolkata came to India..

hence sir request you to visit history books first than spewing some hatred towards others..

 

[Draft]

I have been following modi's development yeah he is a good adminstrator i would accept him as a PM if he unites india but not splits on the base of religion,
Having said that dividing india on the basis of religion has been BJP's agenda and i can see how successfull they are after reading some posts from our right wings!

Well yeah manmohan can be finance mstr, PC can be home minister, we need a stronger defence minister is it okey if i recommended someone like narayan murthy from infosys.

See we all think alike - we all want to see our country develop and others envy!

When congress fights for muslims then it becomes secular however if a party decides to fight for equal rights for the hindus it becomes communal? How does raising voice for the majority equate to splitting the country on the basis of religion? Bro, I have no issues with Muslims, in fact I am proud that India has produced people like Abdul Kalam, but muslims need to understand that their playing of victim card every now and then will only cause more anger and resentment among hindus.

 

[chachachoudhary]

When congress fights for muslims then it becomes secular however if a party decides to fight for equal rights for the hindus it becomes communal? How does raising voice for the majority equate to splitting the country on the basis of religion? Bro, I have no issues with Muslims, in fact I am proud that India has produced people like Abdul Kalam, but muslims need to understand that their playing of victim card every now and then will only cause more anger and resentment among hindus.

Indian members, still not figuring out anything? Be smart.

 

[BJlaowai]

Yes.. I agree. Partition was and is a good thing for India.
If there was no partition, the sub-continent instead of divided into 3 parts, would have been divided into dozens of parts.

 

[Omar1984]

Thanks Sir for your comments.. What amuse me the best..that people from your side talk very happily when history starts about Mughals.. That we ruled You hindus for 500 years.. and suddenly those Mughal kingdom down and britishers came.. You suddenly started getting scared that Hindus will rule us... and the same thought you persist even today for Indian Muslims... Hypocrisy isn't it?

Muslims ruled India for a thousand years not 500 years. Mughals were just one of the several Muslim empires that ruled India, and no we are not scared of hindus, we just didn't want to deal with you hindus especially when theres so damn much of you especially in regions of the subcontinent that share nothing with the region of Pakistan.

And So much Rant about Radcliff's award for Gurdaspur/Ferozepur.. Care to explain why Lahore has been awarded to Pakistan when it was Sikh major city?.. Till Aug end in 1947 nobody knows where Lahore was heading... Mr Radcliff awarded Lahore to Pakistan because Pakistan is not having any major city except Karachi as even Kolkata came to India..

hence sir request you to visit history books first than spewing some hatred towards others..

Its you who is ranting and showing your ignorance. Lahore was Muslim majority even before partition.

TABLE 1: Percentage Composition of selected Punjab District Populations by Religion: 1941 and 1951

District--Hindu---------Sikh--------Muslim
---------1941 1951-- 1941 1951-- 1941 1951
Lahore (16.3) (1.0)-- (18.4) (0.0)-- (61.0) (94.7)


District----Hindu----------Sikh------------Muslim
------------1941 1951-- 1941 1951------1941 1951
Ferozepur (19.6) (38.1)-- (33.7) (58.8)-- (45.1) (0.4)

Gurdaspur (25.9) (49.6)-- (18.8) (41.7)-- (50.2) (1.3)

http://paa2004.princeton.edu/download.asp?submissionId=41274 (page 12)

Here's another source:

Accordingly to the 1941 census, Lahore city had a total population of 671,659. It had crossed the 700,000 mark by 1947. It had an absolute majority of 64.5 per cent Muslims and the rest were Hindus and Sikhs as well as a small Christian community. In the district as a whole, Muslims were 60.6 per cent and Hindus and Sikhs together made up 39.4 per cent of the population. However, many of the new localities and most of the commercial and trading areas in the city were owned by Hindus and Sikhs, whose presence in the life of the city was very visible and prominent. They owned 80 per cent of the total wealth in it. Thus despite the statistics which showed a Muslim majority, many of the Hindus and Sikhs believed that they together were in a majority. A widely held belief among them was that Lahore will remain in India come what may.

http://www.apnaorg.com/articles/news-25/



By the way, the people who thanked you are just as ignorant as you.

 

[RAHUL INDIAN]

Muslims ruled India for a thousand years not 500 years. Mughals were just one of the several Muslim empires that ruled India, and no we are not scared of hindus, we just didn't want to deal with you hindus especially when theres so damn much of you especially in regions of the subcontinent that share nothing with the region of Pakistan.



Its you who is ranting and showing your ignorance. Lahore was Muslim majority even before partition.

TABLE 1: Percentage Composition of selected Punjab District Populations by Religion: 1941 and 1951

District--Hindu---------Sikh--------Muslim
---------1941 1951-- 1941 1951-- 1941 1951
Lahore (16.3) (1.0)-- (18.4) (0.0)-- (61.0) (94.7)

------------1941 1951-- 1941 1951-- 1941 1951
Ferozepur (19.6) (38.1)-- (33.7) (58.8)-- (45.1) (0.4)

Gurdaspur (25.9) (49.6)-- (18.8) (41.7)-- (50.2) (1.3)

http://paa2004.princeton.edu/download.asp?submissionId=41274 (page 12)



By the way, the people who thanked you are just as ignorant as you.

Everyone in this world has the right to choose which religion to practise or which culture to follow....

All are humans first....THIS IS THE REALITY and the best practise...

peace..... no one should have any foolish belief of trying to change the other person's religion or culture.... or thinkg of killing other for this reason....

Religion is not true... it is just what you follow.....all religions are just social guides for proper moral conduct...... ppl have just distorted the meaning of religions and using them to kill other humans......

WE SHOULD RESPECT A PERSON'S RIGHT TO PRACTISE HIS RELIGION, CULTURE AND RIGHT TO HIS PRIVACY AND PERSONAL LIFE.

Human first..All religions are equal coz all ppl are equal.... if anyone says other religion is not good and we should kill other ppl from other religions , i will say his/her learnings/teachers/guides are not good....and he deserves better education then what he has got....

 

[Indian_Idol]

guys dont be so narrow minded and plz dont bring religions into this... India is not a country for one religion rather its a mini world has many religion and many culture... but lets discuss the topic on the economic and geopolitical front... i think that would be much constructive than arguing in the religion front... just my view..

 

[Indian_Idol]

upto my knowledge the communal clashes in India are mainly due to the hardcore brainwashing of some parties... they find whatever possible method to disrupt the society just for some mere votes and we people fall prey for them... plz wake up fellow Indians... hatred is not going to make Our country great...

jai hind

 

[Pride]

Muslims ruled India for a thousand years not 500 years. Mughals were just one of the several Muslim empires that ruled India, and no we are not scared of hindus, we just didn't want to deal with you hindus especially when theres so damn much of you especially in regions of the subcontinent that share nothing with the region of Pakistan.



Its you who is ranting and showing your ignorance. Lahore was Muslim majority even before partition.

TABLE 1: Percentage Composition of selected Punjab District Populations by Religion: 1941 and 1951

District--Hindu---------Sikh--------Muslim
---------1941 1951-- 1941 1951-- 1941 1951
Lahore (16.3) (1.0)-- (18.4) (0.0)-- (61.0) (94.7)

------------1941 1951-- 1941 1951-- 1941 1951
Ferozepur (19.6) (38.1)-- (33.7) (58.8)-- (45.1) (0.4)

Gurdaspur (25.9) (49.6)-- (18.8) (41.7)-- (50.2) (1.3)

http://paa2004.princeton.edu/download.asp?submissionId=41274 (page 12)



By the way, the people who thanked you are just as ignorant as you.

Thanks Sir for your remarks and bashing.... Well what you mentioned here is district census calculation of Lahore.. while you should know Lahore was a division and Amritsar was part of it.. when Mr Radcliff could not find out a way to pass few major cities from east Punjab to west punjab and vice versa he took a "notional division" and took out Amritsar and few tehsils from Lahore to India and rest to Pakistan to have one more major cities...

references:-
Boundary Commission, Partition of India
Partition of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scoop by Kuldip Nayar - Read interview with Mr Radcliff

 

[Omar1984]

Thanks Sir for your remarks and bashing.... Well what you mentioned here is district census calculation of Lahore.. while you should know Lahore was a division and Amritsar was part of it.. when Mr Radcliff could not find out a way to pass few major cities from east Punjab to west punjab and vice versa he took a "notional division" and took out Amritsar and few tehsils from Lahore to India and rest to Pakistan to have one more major cities...

references:-
Boundary Commission, Partition of India
Partition of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scoop by Kuldip Nayar - Read interview with Mr Radcliff

You said Lahore had a Sikh majority which is a false statement. Lahore never had a Sikh majority, Sikhs and Hindus had lots of businesses in Lahore so they thought they were majority but Muslims were always a majority in Lahore for centuries. Lahore city had a Muslim majority before partition and Amristar city had a non-muslim Majority before partition.

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

Accordingly to the 1941 census, Lahore city had a total population of 671,659. It had crossed the 700,000 mark by 1947. It had an absolute majority of 64.5 per cent Muslims and the rest were Hindus and Sikhs as well as a small Christian community. In the district as a whole, Muslims were 60.6 per cent and Hindus and Sikhs together made up 39.4 per cent of the population. However, many of the new localities and most of the commercial and trading areas in the city were owned by Hindus and Sikhs, whose presence in the life of the city was very visible and prominent. They owned 80 per cent of the total wealth in it. Thus despite the statistics which showed a Muslim majority, many of the Hindus and Sikhs believed that they together were in a majority. A widely held belief among them was that Lahore will remain in India come what may.

Amritsar had a total population of 391,010. Although Muslims were the biggest single group they were not in a majority. In the city as a whole they constituted 47 per cent of the total population while Hindus and Sikhs together made up 53 per cent of the population. In Amritsar district as a whole too Hindus and Sikhs were in a majority of 54.5 per cent while Muslims were 45.5 per cent. Amritsar was the only city and district in the Lahore division that had a Hindu-Sikh majority (other districts besides Lahore were Gujranwala, Gurdaspur, Sialkot and Sheikhupura). Although Hindus and Sikhs were the richer communities of Amritsar the Muslims were also well-represented in trade and small-scale manufacturing. Amritsar was the holiest Sikh city, but among the Muslims there was a very strong belief that Amritsar will become a part of Pakistan.

The battle for Lahore and Amritsar

 

[PlanetWarrior]

As a matter of curiosity and no flaming/trolling intended. Could somebody please explain to me why such a significant percentage of the Muslim population of India rejected partition (and in essence the creation) of Pakistan and remained behind in India? Please let me have historical facts and not some psycho - religious bigoted imagination which was created in your head. Was it due to economical constraints ? Fear of losing property rights in India? A rejection of the ideology of separating India into a Muslim versus Hindu-Sikh-Jain-Buddhist-Christian alliance? Or was it just a belief on their part that partition was unnecessary and hence a rejection of it? I believe that the Muslim Alliance headed by Mr Jinnah enjoyed a significant (I once read about 90&#37 support from the Muslims of then India which included now Pakistan and Bangladesh. Then East Pakistan had a large population of Muslims who just remained put and became a part of Pakistan. But current India also had a large population of Muslims who refused to migrate to Pakistan. I always wonder why and hope that somebody here has a historically factual reason/s for their refusal. After all it must have been sheer hell and rejection of the Muslims who remained behind after all the violence etc during partition?

 

[Omar1984]

As a matter of curiosity and no flaming/trolling intended. Could somebody please explain to me why such a significant percentage of the Muslim population of India rejected partition (and in essence the creation) of Pakistan and remained behind in India? Please let me have historical facts and not some psycho - religious bigoted imagination which was created in your head. Was it due to economical constraints ? Fear of losing property rights in India? A rejection of the ideology of separating India into a Muslim versus Hindu-Sikh-Jain-Buddhist-Christian alliance? Or was it just a belief on their part that partition was unnecessary and hence a rejection of it? I believe that the Muslim Alliance headed by Mr Jinnah enjoyed a significant (I once read about 90%) support from the Muslims of then India which included now Pakistan and Bangladesh. Then East Pakistan had a large population of Muslims who just remained put and became a part of Pakistan. But current India also had a large population of Muslims who refused to migrate to Pakistan. I always wonder why and hope that somebody here has a historically factual reason/s for their refusal. After all it must have been sheer hell and rejection of the Muslims who remained behind after all the violence etc during partition?

Most of the Muslim population of India are in areas far away from Pakistan. Kashmir doesnt count as it is a disputed territory. Almost all the Punjabi Muslims that were in the indian side migrated to Pakistan or were killed on their way to Pakistan.

Migrating and crossing the border into Pakistan was not safe during that time because of Muslim-Sikh/Hindu clashes.

Those who migrated sacraficed everything to be part of Pakistan.