Is India Better-off With Partition?

[Indian_Idol]

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.

YouTube - Hina Khwaja interviews those who left India for Pakistan during Partition

but still India has more Muslims than pak does..

 

[Omar1984]

but still India has more Muslims than pak does..

That is not true. Pakistan's population is now 175 million.

Of the 175 million population of Pakistan, about 170 million are Muslims.

India has a Muslim population of 150 million (13.4% of India's population).

Also India counts Ahmadiyyas as Muslims while Pakistan doesn't.

 

[Indian_Idol]

That is not true. Pakistan's population is now 175 million.

Of the 175 million population of Pakistan, about 170 million are Muslims.

India has a Muslim population of 150 million (13.4% of India's population).

Also India counts Ahmadiyyas as Muslims while Pakistan doesn't.

yup the difference is abt 10 mln. 165mln in pak and 155 mln in India..

Source CIA factbook..

 

[Omar1984]

yup the difference is abt 10 mln. 165mln in pak and 155 mln in India..

Source CIA factbook..

Yes but Muslims make 97% of Pakistan's population while Muslims only make 13.4% of India's population.

 

[EjazR]

The Cabinet Mission Plan was a disaster. There was no way the CMP would have benefited either Muslims, Hindus or undivided India. You have to read the CMP to understand the futility of signing up to it. The late 1930s was probably the last chance were a partition could have been averted. Partition on the basis of religion was wrong. Fact remains that the most support that Pakistan had was in the muslim minority provinces of UP/Bihar and Bengal. The present day Pakistan because of their muslim majority were not strong advocates and the ML did not form govt. in either Punjab or NWFP. They were only able to form a govt. in Sindh because of a European member siding with them. So ML and Jinnah had far from overwhelming support but unfortunately did not have voting rights. But yes they did have overwhelming support among the elites and the landlord classes and who unfortunately did have voting rights..

It is interesting how even the Grandson of Iqbal says that in the 1930s he did not advocated the creation of a separate state. And how he says that India has taken the philosophy of Iqbal while Pakistan hasn't.

Some participants keep talking about the situation in Afghanistan and extremism in the FATA areas. But we forget the Abdul Gaffar Khan was one of the greatest pashtoon leaders who was completely transforming the tribal society by educating them. Partition resulted in this great PAshtoon leader being in prison longer than he had under the British. The PAshtoons particularity the FATA residents were used as pawns. GoP and the PA itself acted as an extension of the western powers which spooked USSR into launching its campaign in Afghanistan and its affect we see today. With Abdul Gaffar Khan at the helm, even possibly AFTER partition this would not have happened. Had the ML politicians given him the respect he deserves he could have even solved the Kashmir issue as well as transformed the Pashtoon society.

Ofcouse now its nonsenseical to talk about a united one single political entity. The next thing is we move towards a SAARC type EU style union asap. IT will benefit all south asian countries manifold if this happens.

 

[EjazR]

That is not true. Pakistan's population is now 175 million.

Of the 175 million population of Pakistan, about 170 million are Muslims.

India has a Muslim population of 150 million (13.4% of India's population).

Also India counts Ahmadiyyas as Muslims while Pakistan doesn't.

When was the last time Pakistan did its census? These are I believe projected figures and are not as reliable.

You are comparing current projected figures to the 2001 census of the Indian Muslim population. Not an apples to apples comparison

 

[Pride]

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

Sir you are talking again for lahore district while I am talking about whole Lahore division.. Lahore was a division like Ambala, Jalandhar and having districts (Lahore, Amritsar, Gurdaspur, Sialkot, Gujranwala, Shekhupura).. Initial thought from mr Radcliffe was to include whole Lahore division to India but that later on changed as district wise division where lahore is having more muslims in comparison to Hindu+Sikhs...

Fun fact: name Lahore is still based on Lord Rama's son Lava..

Anyways could you please explain why 53 % of Muslim population recieved 66% of Punjab?

 

[Omar1984]

Sir you are talking again for lahore district while I am talking about whole Lahore division.. Lahore was a division like Ambala, Jalandhar and having districts (Lahore, Amritsar, Gurdaspur, Sialkot, Gujranwala, Shekhupura).. Initial thought from mr Radcliffe was to include whole Lahore division to India but that later on changed as district wise division where lahore is having more muslims in comparison to Hindu+Sikhs...

Even then Muslims were a majority even before partition.

District----------Hindu-----------Sikh------------Muslim
-----------------1941 1951-----1941 1951------1941 1951
Gurdaspur---- (25.9) (49.6)--- (18.8) (41.7)--- (50.2) (1.3)
Amritsar------ (17.7) (27.7)----(35.2) (70.6)-- (45.4) (0.3)
Lahore-------- (16.3) (1.0)----- (18.4) (0.0)---- (61.0) (94.7)
Sialkot---------- 19.4 1.0-------- 11.7 0.0--------- 62.1 93.8
Gujranwala------ 11.8 0.1-------- 10.9 0.0--------- 70.5 94.3
Sheikupura------- 9.1 0.0--------- 18.9 0.0--------- 63.6 95.0

http://paa2004.princeton.edu/download.asp?submissionId=41274

Sikhs were NEVER the majority in Lahore city, Lahore district, or Lahore Division.

Fun fact: name Lahore is still based on Lord Rama's son Lava..

Fun Fact: today less than 1% of Lahore's population follow your lord rama or his son. It makes no difference what the people of Lahore believed in thousands of years ago today the vast majority of people of Lahore are Muslims.

Anyways could you please explain why 53 % of Muslim population recieved 66% of Punjab?

Yes Muslims made the majority population (well above 50 percent) in United Historical Punjab thats why all of Punjab should've been made part of Pakistan.

 

[Justin Joseph]

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



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.



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



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



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

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





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



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.



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



You created it didn't you ?



Agree with that

Regards:

For your crap like riot, harmony and brotherhood, my 2 cents.



BBC NEWS | South Asia | Pakistan's Shia-Sunni divide

BBC News - Pakistan double bombing kills Shia Muslims

Tradition of Sectarian Violence in Pakistan Continues-3: Sign of no End by Ajoy Roy

Early Divisions at Root of Sunni-Shia Conflict : NPR

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org%5Cpapers25\paper2469.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/06/pakistan-mosque-bomb-igni_n_164558.html

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/in...1-sunni-sunni-conflict-too-comes-surface.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/06/pakistan-mosque-bomb-igni_n_164558.html

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/pakistan/terroristoutfits/Ssp.htm

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...to-hand-over-Sunni-terrorist-Abdul-Malik-Rigi

http://www.saag.org/common/uploaded_files/paper2161.html

 

[Omar1984]

The Cabinet Mission Plan was a disaster. There was no way the CMP would have benefited either Muslims, Hindus or undivided India. You have to read the CMP to understand the futility of signing up to it. The late 1930s was probably the last chance were a partition could have been averted. Partition on the basis of religion was wrong. Fact remains that the most support that Pakistan had was in the muslim minority provinces of UP/Bihar and Bengal. The present day Pakistan because of their muslim majority were not strong advocates and the ML did not form govt. in either Punjab or NWFP. They were only able to form a govt. in Sindh because of a European member siding with them. So ML and Jinnah had far from overwhelming support but unfortunately did not have voting rights. But yes they did have overwhelming support among the elites and the landlord classes and who unfortunately did have voting rights..

It is interesting how even the Grandson of Iqbal says that in the 1930s he did not advocated the creation of a separate state. And how he says that India has taken the philosophy of Iqbal while Pakistan hasn't.

Some participants keep talking about the situation in Afghanistan and extremism in the FATA areas. But we forget the Abdul Gaffar Khan was one of the greatest pashtoon leaders who was completely transforming the tribal society by educating them. Partition resulted in this great PAshtoon leader being in prison longer than he had under the British. The PAshtoons particularity the FATA residents were used as pawns. GoP and the PA itself acted as an extension of the western powers which spooked USSR into launching its campaign in Afghanistan and its affect we see today. With Abdul Gaffar Khan at the helm, even possibly AFTER partition this would not have happened. Had the ML politicians given him the respect he deserves he could have even solved the Kashmir issue as well as transformed the Pashtoon society.

Ofcouse now its nonsenseical to talk about a united one single political entity. The next thing is we move towards a SAARC type EU style union asap. IT will benefit all south asian countries manifold if this happens.

Muhammad Aslam Khan Khattak was also one of the greatest Pakhtun leader. He was the President of Pakistan Movement in U.K with Dr. Abdur Rahim as Vice President and Chaudhry Rehmat Ali as Secretary. This Organisation gave the world the name "PAKISTAN".

All the 4 provinces of Pakistan and Bengal decided in a referendum to be part of Pakistan in 1947. The people of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa dont share anything with bharatis, nothing at all. The majority chose Pakistan over india in 1947 and thats why they're a province of Pakistan. You are south indian what do you know what the people of Pakistan wanted or not, one man's opinion does not count as millions of people who voted in the referendum to join Pakistan.

By the way, Pakhtuns all over the world are very proud of the fact that they defeated the Soviet Union (the former superpower). If Pakistan was part of india, india would've never helped U.S. but allowed Soviets to control Afghanistan, and even allow the Soviets to use the soil of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to easily control Afghanistan. And it is a known fact that people of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and other parts of Pakistan were involved in the jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

And no thanks we dont even want a EU style union with bharat. No union at all. Accept Pakistan as a sovereign independent nation, thats all.

 

[A.R.]

lets come back to the topic....
I think India may or may not be better off after partition in some ways....

first of all... if India were united then the population percentage of muslims would be around 22%.. means there would be mainly two nationalist parties one would support muslims and other would support hindus...

there would be less defence budget resulting more money would be spent on public welfare.....

perhaps we could have dominate all of the Asia.... USA, Russia, China all would have to worry about us....

but i think politics would be even worst if we were united

 

[Justin Joseph]

@ we ruled for 1000 year type BS

1. I can't belive this type of false popogenda you people used to get taught.

2. Who is "we", as per history the people living in the pakistan was always under the rules of foreigners?

3. Also, if people living in that area or muslims at that area was powerfull so how can invader get inside India and behaded their own muslim king.

4. As the majority of invader has attacked and replaced Muslim rulers of Delhi.

This means a muslim invader kills, beheaded a fellow muslim ruler and remove him from the throne to sit on thorn till another Muslim invader behead him.

5. On the order of Shah of Persia, Humayun convert from Sunni to Shia Islam.

6. Akbar the most famous and the biggest of the Mougal was not a muslim as he get converted into Din E ilahi. A new religion.

7. The Delhi is not whole India, no Muslim ruler or group of Muslim rulers at any point of time in the history have not ruled whole India even for a single day.

8. India is very vast From Assam to Rajasthan, Jammu & Kashmir to Kerala to Andaman & Nicobar Islands.

 

[Justin Joseph]

Aurangzeb was the only so called muslim with the largest empire, any other muslim ruler have never ever able to achieve this.

Even after trying his full force to the maximum strength and personal campaign.

He's not able to defeat the Marathas in west and the Sikhs in the north.

Forget about ruling whole India.

Even Aurangzeb's own armies grew restive — particularly the fierce Rajputs, who were his main source of strength. Aurangzeb gave a wide berth to the Rajputs, who were mostly Hindu. While they fought for Aurangzeb during his life, on his death they immediately revolted against his successors.

a.) Above proves that no muslim able to rule India even for a single day.

b.) Hindus were the part of Muslim army as they also got the bigger post, respect and share.

 

[harish]

With the luxury of hindsight, something denied to our forefathers during the smelting of our nations in the crucible of the Independence movement, we can say with a pretty high degree of certainty today that India has done pretty good in the intervening years post the Partition. What however is impossible to say with any level of assurance is whether we did good because of or in spite of the event. There will always be two ways of looking at things, and while no Indian will ever agree to the need for Partition at the time, it is equally true that no Pakistani, or Bangladeshi, can truly say today that he or she would have been worse off today had they continued to remain Indians, versus the forked path history had in store for them. And as any student of history knows, one can never really go back in time. As for an EU type of arrangement, looking at the stark reality of India versus Pakistan and Bangladesh today, economically alone it would need a couple of decades at least before one could even start the process of standardisation and normalisation required for common currency parity. So imho, instead of the question reading 'Is India better off with Partition', the more logical recipients of such a question should be the people of the nation who asked for it in the first place.

 

[Justin Joseph]

Why no Arab dare to invade India after Muhammad bin Qasim, because they got spanking so brutal they have developed deep fear of Indians


The Battle of Rajasthan

Junaid probably died from the wounds inflicted in the battle with the Gurjara Pratiharas. His successor Tamin[original research?]organized a fresh army and attempted to avenge Junaid’s defeat towards the close of the year 738 CE. But this time Nagabhatta Pratihara, with his Chauhan and Guhilot feudatories, met the Muslim army before it could leave the borders of Sindh. The battle resulted in the complete rout of the Arabs who fled broken into Sindh with the Rajput clans close behind them.

In the words of the Arab chronicler Suleiman, “a place of refuge to which the Muslims might flee was not to be found.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rajasthan