Pakistan, Bharat, British India - What came first, what came after?

[danger007]

Amidst World War II, on 8th August 1940, the British Government announced dominion status to India through its famous 'August Offer' which was rejected by the Indians.

The Cripps Mission of 1942 was another step ahead which suggested full dominion status to India and also the right to secede from the British Commonwealth of Nations. This proposal was also rejected by the people of India.

The Quit India Resolution was passed on Saugus, 1942 by the All India Congress Committee, at Bombay that urged for the immediate end of the British rule in India. Addressing the people of India, Gandhi told, "Every one of you should from this moment onward consider yourself a free man or woman and act as if you are free.... I am not going to be satisfied with anything short of complete freedom. We shall do or die. We shall either free India or die in the attempt." To Gandhi, it was last struggle of his life to win the freedom of India. In the next day, the prominent Congress leaders including Gandhi were behind the bars.

Thus began strikes, processions, meetings and functions by the Indians all over the country. The Government, unaware of the change of Indian mind, started repressive measures to quell movement. In this second stage, the people went ahead and attacked railway stations, post offices, police stations etc.

As Government became more repressive, the people became violent and resorted to armed attacks at different places in U.P., Bengal, Madras, Bombay, Orissa. Arena Assar Ali, Jayprakash Narnia, Ram Menorah Lochia organized the underground movement and became constant headaches for the British Government. Anyway, with gradual march of time, the Government took all possible measures to quell the movement. When it realized that there is no harm from the side of the people of India, it freed Gandhiji from the jail in 1944 A.D.

The Quit India Movement failed stupendously due to several reasons. The Muslim League did not extend its support to it. B. R. Ambedkar, the leader of the depressed class described the Movement as "irresponsible and an act of madness".

V. D. Sarvarakar, the leader of the Hindu Mahasabha, directed the Hindus not to participate in the Movement. The apathetic attitude of different organizations towards the Movement contributed a lot for its failure. As the prominent Congress leaders remained behind the bars, the Movement could not receive proper direction. The faithfulness of the British officials also helped a lot for the failure of the Movement.

The importance of the Quit India Movement can never be undermined. It witnessed nationalistic feeling of the people at the zenith. For the first time, the government was astonished by observing the powerful nationalistic feelings of the Indians added with anti-British feeling.

Further, it convinced the British Government that their days were numbered in India and they had to free the country from their clutch. It hastened the process of India's march towards freedom. Realizing the anti-British feelings of the Indian people, the British Government changed its attitude. The Quit India Movement quickened the process of freedom.

 

[Mirza Jatt]

Jinnah wanted a SEPERATE state....obviously you have to name that state...he chose PAKISTAN...India never chose its name (so stop the utterly BS claim of theft)....India stuck to whats it has been called forever.

I dont understand why you people cry all the time...that too for all the decision that YOUR OWN leaders and your previous generation took. Now you have found another silly reason to complain...why this question at all ?? Either you are ashamed of the name of your country Pakistan or you are jealous of the name of of our countr India. If there no such reason..then stop posting these BS threads....who knows the next thread we'll see might be titled "India chose to seperate from Pakistan in 1947".

 

[Joe Shearer]

Honestly JS,

There are too many people in the sidelines also who contribute,

I personally dont reall know the real sentiments of Nehru/Jinnah.

In a party fill of hardliners(Rajaji+ Patel) Nehru and Gandhi were real softies,


Whereas again Jinnah was the softie(perceptibly) in a party full of Heavy Hands(Rehmat Ali+Allama Iqbal), So the Brtis played their cards very nicely.

As much as we talk,our Army is not so soft as we percieve and their Army not so hard as the image is.

I just admire the Brits for weaving it so damn well.

I have to admit, very reluctantly, that this was a classy post. Wish I had written it. Yes, many people contribute, but how many think things through first? About 50% of what we read is chewing gum for the eyes.

AN AFTERTHOUGHT

Rajaji wasn't a hardliner. It was just that he had a relentless intellect, and measured everything in rational terms. Sometimes to the point of seeming inhuman. Typical Iyengar.

 

[danger007]

http://www.new.dli.ernet.in/rawdataupload/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005abd_215.pdf

industries in India during 18th and 19th century ...

http://www.new.dli.ernet.in/rawdataupload/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005abd_215.pdf

HISTORY OF INDIA - THE SUBCONTINENT

 

[Subramanian]

I have to admit, very reluctantly, that this was a classy post. Wish I had written it. Yes, many people contribute, but how many think things through first? About 50% of what we read is chewing gum for the eyes.

AN AFTERTHOUGHT

Rajaji wasn't a hardliner. It was just that he had a relentless intellect, and measured everything in rational terms. Sometimes to the point of seeming inhuman. Typical Iyengar.

Yeah,very typical Iyengar.

On a sidenote, Lot of people do Iyer vs Iyengar fight,

But the real fight is between Vadagalai Iyengar and Vadama Iyer,crazy loonies both,u know which one I am.

Rajaji is a an extremely balanced man,too damn smart,very very smart.

if he was not there, DMK would have never won.

He made and sabotaged the Congress in TN,well whatever, we nonetheless thank him for his existence.

PS: Please do pardon my erstwhile emotional outbursts,even though my differences with u exist,let me just play it down.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

I said at (11) above that this mix up with nomencature can through up some strange results today which goes to the 'false identity' issue i brought up.

Large majority of people, if asked where is Harappa? Reply will be India. We all know it is in Pakistan.
Again if asked where is Mohenjo Daro? Reply will be India. We all know it is in Pakistan.
Ask people where Gandhara was/is? Reply again will be India. We all know it is in Pakistan.
Ask people when Alexander crossed the Hydaspes which country was in? Reply India. We know that is modern Jhelum in Pakistan.
Ask people which country would you go to to follow Alexander's march in South Asia? Reply will be in India.

Well we know they could chose to go to India but hell other the claim to the name India they would not be marching in the footsteps of Alexander. I make these points to show how this mix up of nomenclature has created a very wrong impression. I have had to correct people. These have been reasonably read and intelligent people. Some have even laughed when I said Pakistan. Only when challanged to check their facts did they realize their incorrect understanding.

For ur reply, its not our fault, pakistan is islamic today and asked for a separate country !!
During those days, the land beyond the indus was called India, and whether u like it or not, it was the truth..
And currently pakistani people try hard to differentiate from indians, as they dont want themselves to be associated with anything indian or hindu...
Pakistani history books show no records of hindu rulers in region of pakistan...
next those civilasations were excavated in british india, and during those days , traditions and civilisation was nearly same in whole subcontinent...
So when u guys distance urself from indian civilisation, we too have a right on those civilisations, just a boundary line cant separate that civilisation from us...
And those civilsation continuities are seen in india, not in present pakistan...
Pakistan was just a reality for the past 60 years, yet bharat or india had been a reality for the past 4000 years...
And from ur thread i get the impression, u dont want to be associated with anything with india, yet will proudly associate urself with outside invaders,...
Be proud of ur kings and civilisation first...

 

[Black Widow]

British India??





It was India captured by British, It was not Parental property of Brits. Please don't call british Inida. They don't own it. It is a propaganda that India was not a country.. India is country since many millenium...
1. Indica (Arrian) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. Megasthenes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3. Herodotus count of India.

Though there were many kingdom within India but the country was always recognized as India. In India just model of govt changed
1. Earlier it was group of Janapad (Similar to democracy)
2. Then it was organized under one rule (Gupta, MAuryans, Mughals etc)
3. Some point of time it was group of kingdom.
4. Before Brits enslaved us, It was grouped under Marathas (80% of India was under Marathas and there tributary )

So one who believe that India never exist before 1947, take a chill pill (Bhoot Jhulakia) .

 

[Joe Shearer]

Yeah,very typical Iyengar.

On a sidenote, Lot of people do Iyer vs Iyengar fight,

But the real fight is between Vadagalai Iyengar and Vadama Iyer,crazy loonies both,u know which one I am.

Rajaji is a an extremely balanced man,too damn smart,very very smart.

if he was not there, DMK would have never won.

He made and sabotaged the Congress in TN,well whatever, we nonetheless thank him for his existence.

PS: Please do pardon my erstwhile emotional outbursts,even though my differences with u exist,let me just play it down.

LOL Guess what my in-laws are, Vadagalai or Thengalai! Actually, they are half a shade loonier than you lot; they are Hebbar Iyengars (your JJ is also Mysore, but Mandyam Iyengar).

I'd guessed you were Vadama; nobody else could be such a pain. Just my bad luck to run up against a Paapaan.

No hard feelings about the differences. You and I don't agree on social issues, but that doesn't kill me personally. It's ideological. And I can't keep disliking a smart arse who 'gets' things as quickly as you do. So let me tip my hat to you from a distance; that won't stop me from taking a shot if the chance comes up.

 

[SQ8]

India has been there since the IVC.
Its the people that make India, not borders.
If they were able to coherently unite under one banner or the other continuously than they make a nation.

Then came Muslim India.. and the Hindu-Muslim.. which is a separate entity...yet not.
It a separate religious and cultural entity that has its own aspirations and aims.
This community was target by the british since they were the ruling class when the Company raj was established.
Then you had the Company India.. then British India..
and finally came Pakistan and "India that is Bharat"
in a nutshell...

somewhat...

 

[Subramanian]

India has been there since the IVC.
Its the people that make India, not borders.
If they were able to coherently unite under one banner or the other continuously than they make a nation.

Then came Muslim India.. and the Hindu-Muslim.. which is a separate entity...yet not.
It a separate religious and cultural entity that has its own aspirations and aims.
This community was target by the british since they were the ruling class when the Company raj was established.
Then you had the Company India.. then British India..
and finally came Pakistan and "India that is Bharat"
in a nutshell...

somewhat...

Thats perfect,

I think this discussion is highly useless,as it has always been.

People are right when they say Pakistan existed in a way,

That is because people were able to convince Hindu Upper Castes of the North West to give up Orthodoxy and appreciate things that Desi Muslims have carved for themselves outside the orthodoxy of the Arab Culture.It is this success that makes the valid reason for an argument of Pakistan.

And logically the real limit starts in UP.

The culture northwards is pretty much mixed and composite and not as appreciated by the Orthodoxy of both religions.

Thats the reality.

LOL Guess what my in-laws are, Vadagalai or Thengalai! Actually, they are half a shade loonier than you lot; they are Hebbar Iyengars (your JJ is also Mysore, but Mandyam Iyengar).

I'd guessed you were Vadama; nobody else could be such a pain. Just my bad luck to run up against a Paapaan.

No hard feelings about the differences. You and I don't agree on social issues, but that doesn't kill me personally. It's ideological. And I can't keep disliking a smart arse who 'gets' things as quickly as you do. So let me tip my hat to you from a distance; that won't stop me from taking a shot if the chance comes up.

They are a little loonier but its not a natural loonyness but just to prove a point to the other Vadamas as to why they are different from us by a hairline.

And i am extremely sorry for trash talking with you,you can take a shot at me anytime,i wont respond,i dont like badmouthing people my grandfather's age.

JJ is Tam Iyengar only,Hebbars are those living in Mysore for centuries.JJs has been moving in between,same as Hema Malini.

And yeah,sorry again,even more so that u r a soldier.

And yeah 2 of my aunts and a damn good friend is hebbar and their chicks are great like Meenakshi Seshadri & Vasundhra Das/No disrespect.

 

[AnnoyingOrange]

Bharat Varsh was created first..as a Kingdome... Moguls created Hindustan....then British conquered the landmass and created British India and then in 1947... both India and Pakistan were born as new Nations....now where is the conflict...and why the hell are we banging our heads over this 6decades down the line.

 

[Developereo]

I haven't read the other threads -- I glanced at them long time back -- but here's the deal.

Given the Indian trend to shed the foreign names and revert to indigenous names (Mumbai, Kolkata, Bengaluru, etc.), the logical progression would be to shed the foreign name India and revert back to the indigenous Bharat.

Why are you still calling yourselves by the Greek name?

 

[LaBong]

I haven't read the other threads -- I glanced at them long time back -- but here's the deal.

Given the Indian trend to shed the foreign names and revert to indigenous names (Mumbai, Kolkata, Bengaluru, etc.), the logical progression would be to shed the foreign name India and revert back to the indigenous Bharat.

Why are you still calling yourselves by the Greek name?

Because we never have been colonized by Greeks, so India, unlike Calcutta, Bombay, Bangalore etc, hasn't been imposed on us.

If we start discarding everything foreign, then we might have to stop calling us Hindus.

Anyway as someone has said, it's written in our constitution - "India, that is Bharat".

 

[Mirza Jatt]

I haven't read the other threads -- I glanced at them long time back -- but here's the deal.

Given the Indian trend to shed the foreign names and revert to indigenous names (Mumbai, Kolkata, Bengaluru, etc.), the logical progression would be to shed the foreign name India and revert back to the indigenous Bharat.

Why are you still calling yourselves by the Greek name?

then according that logic....we should call it Indus..isnt it ??

Bomaby reverted back to Mumbai because of the name of the city based on the Mumbra devi temple.
Calcutta became kolkata because the city got its name from the Kali mata temple.
thats the actual trend..we're not shedding the name just because calcutta and Bombay were foreign names.

so according to that trend, we should continue using it India..as it is derived from the river Indus.

 

[Subramanian]

I haven't read the other threads -- I glanced at them long time back -- but here's the deal.

Given the Indian trend to shed the foreign names and revert to indigenous names (Mumbai, Kolkata, Bengaluru, etc.), the logical progression would be to shed the foreign name India and revert back to the indigenous Bharat.

Why are you still calling yourselves by the Greek name?

Names dont matter man,after the name changes the cities are becoming more modern.

then according that logic....we should call it Indus..isnt it ??

Bomaby reverted back to Mumbai because of the name of the city based on the Mumbra devi temple.
Calcutta became kolkata because the city got its name from the Kali mata temple.
thats the actual trend..we're not shedding the name just because calcutta and Bombay were foreign names.

so according to that trend, we should continue using it India..as it is derived from the river Indus.

I dont like Chennai though,it is a random name of the guy who sold a small part with the harbour to the Brits.