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

[Fazlu]

There is nothing wrong with asking some tough questions. What was the reason of Pakistan if India has as many Muslims as Pakistan ended up with? If Pakistan was meant for Muslims, what sort of constitution the country will have. Will it be a theocratic state or a secular state?

It is my understanding that Pakistan is yet to wake up to these questions in earnest. Which is precisely why it flounders looking for its identity. Religious clergy has merit in laying claim to governance by rule of God, since they will always argue that a land for Muslims should be governed by religion of Muslims.

As far as Jinnah is concerned, refer to Ayesha Jalal’s revisionist theory that Pakistan turned out to be a different product from what Jinnah considered in the beginning. However countries have interesting ways of coming into being. Historic cataclysms frequently give birth to nations, and never are those countries more invalid because of why they came into being. I suspect there is an underlying fear in Pakistani psyche that prevents it from asking these tough questions, and consequently make a demon out of India to keep justifying the State of Pakistan.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I would consider birth of India in 1947, before that there were rulers and boundries kepts changing based on who one the battles. It was rule of kings and not of the people hence the wish of people was not taken into consideration.

Modern India was born in 1947 and I am not someone who will fight for the history that hardly matters. People talk about History too much when they have nothing in present to talk about.

With respect, the view in the bolded portion is an extremely silly view.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

It is true that most of asian history is actually a history of kings.Whereas in europe after 1789 it became a history of peoples.

 

[ejaz007]

Though I normally abstain from these kind of threads because the discussion is endless and normally lead to nowhere. However thought should share my view too.

It was the British Parliament who passed the Indian Independence Act on July 18, 1947 and granted independecne to the two countries. Therefore it was in a sense British empire that lost land and two new nations came into being. Now who named his or her country what is a useless issue since no one objected to it.

We named our land Pakistan and they India. End of story.

 

[Speaker]

He objected to India using the name ‘India’ - he preferred ‘Hindustan’. Perhaps he did not want to view Pakistan as splintering away from India, but rather India dividing into Pakistan and Hindustan.

You know it often amuses me when people object even now to using the name India. The usage is perfectly valid, and I would say India was never partitioned, rather Pakistan seceded from a united India. The fact that we decided to espouse and maintain our secular and diverse constitution, and continue to do it to this day means we are the true "heirs" of the concept of India. Jinnah may have had his own ideas of a secular Pakistan, but as his own grandson (Nusli Wadia) says, Pakistan no longer stands true to his vision, and is a entity that has distanced itself from British Indian values.

I am perfectly proud of being referred to us as Hindustanis or Bharatiya, but certainly the name India has an identity that extends for thousands of years.

 

[curioususer]

How about the fallacy that Muhammad Ali Jinnah is the Founder of Pakistan. The real Founder of Pakistan was Jawahar Lal Nehru who created Pakistan the moment he walked away from the " Cabinet Mission " Plan. Jinnah had already agreed to undivided India as envisaged under the Cabinet Mission plan. It was Nehru who walked away from the Cabinet mission plan after he already signed up on the plan but later reneged.

if this didn't happen, our region would be in a better state.

 

[Rig Vedic]

11. In a strange twist of history a name 'India' that had meant just the land adjacent to River Indus, came over time to mean the entire region we call South Asia and now in a total leap of disconnect it has come to refer to a nation state called Bharat.

You should look at the ancient Greek maps. There is no doubt that 2500 years ago, the term India was used to refer to the entire Indian subcontinent.

The proper Indic name has always been Bharat.

This locked sticky thread has many of the arguments on this point - http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...tions-behind-selecting-name-india-1947-a.html

 

[BlueDot_in_Space]

Bharat came first

Therefore, O thou of Puru's race, cherish thy high-souled son born of (Queen) Sakuntala
and because this child (Bharata) is to be cherished by thee even at our word,
therefore shall this thy son be known by the name of Bharata ("the cherished").

From Vishnu Purana:
uttaraṃ yatsamudrasya himādreścaiva dakṣiṇam
varṣaṃ tadbhārataṃ nāma bhāratī yatra santatiḥ


"The country (varṣam) that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bhāratam; there dwell the descendants of Bharata."

 

[Joe Shearer]

Jinnah himself appears to have been unsure of how to deal with partition and the creation of Pakistan. He came up with the bizarre notion that the Pakistan Constituent Assembly should meet in Delhi! He objected to India using the name ‘India’ - he preferred ‘Hindustan’. Perhaps he did not want to view Pakistan as splintering away from India, but rather India dividing into Pakistan and Hindustan. One gets the impression that Jinnah did not want to uproot himself from his beloved Bombay and move to Pakistan. He chose not to sell his house in Bombay, which was worth a fortune. Nor did he donate it to the new state of Pakistan (as Liaquat Ali Khan did with his). When, after independence, his house was in danger of being declared ‘evacuee property’, Jinnah pleaded with the Indian High Commissioner (Ambassador) to Pakistan. “Sri Prakasa, don’t break my heart. Tell Jawaharlal not to break my heart. I have built it brick by brick. Who can live in a house like that? What fine verandahs? It is a small house fit only for a small European family or a refined Indian prince. You do not know how I love Bombay. I still look forward to going back there.” This, after independence. It appears that the Quaid-e-Azam had very little desire of spending the rest of his life in Pakistan.



Hey Joe, would you mind posting links to those discussions ? It would helpful to others like me, looking for more information.

Certainly. Once I get back? I have to look at old threads. There are actually three separate sets of discussions, one set covering the name India and what it should properly describe; one is about the nature of the British grant of independence, whether it was to India with Pakistan sliced away, or whether it was to two equally sliced away formations; and the third is about other topics.

 

[Carl Johnson]

4. This label 'India' had been around in various forms since antiquity. It had derived from the Sanskrit Sindhu for the river Indus. The Greeks had used label 'India' and it's meaning would have been the land adjacent to Indus River. That is the Sindh Province, today in Pakistan.

You are wrong here.The ancient greeks and macedonians used to call India as the land east of Indus and not adjacent to indus.And todays india is certainly to the east of Sindhu river.
So according to them todays baluchistan,NWFP and KP were not part of India.
Hence the name India is totally justified.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Hey Joe, would you mind posting links to those discussions ? It would helpful to others like me, looking for more information.

You should look at the ancient Greek maps. There is no doubt that 2500 years ago, the term India was used to refer to the entire Indian subcontinent.

The proper Indic name has always been Bharat.

This locked sticky thread has many of the arguments on this point - http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...tions-behind-selecting-name-india-1947-a.html

Certainly. Once I get back? I have to look at old threads. There are actually three separate sets of discussions, one set covering the name India and what it should properly describe; one is about the nature of the British grant of independence, whether it was to India with Pakistan sliced away, or whether it was to two equally sliced away formations; and the third is about other topics.

RigVedic beat me to it.

That thread covers points 1 to 8 of Atanz' post. The rest is covered by other threads dealing with the Indian Independence Act and Pakistan's application for a UN seat.

More later. I really must rush.

 

[toxic_pus]

Legal existence of India didn't end with the change of the legal nature of its existence. From being a colony, under British rule, India simply became an independent State under sovereign rule, with altered boundaries - a case of continuous legal existence.

If Zafarulla Khan, probably the only other individual, at that time in Pakistan, who could match up to Jinnah and probably his equal in legal expertise, couldn't convince the UN, then I have serious doubts if our Pakistani friend - humility personified - would make much progress.

The Sixth Committee: The Legal Problems Raised By The Representative Of Argentina In Connection With The Admission Of Pakistan, appointed by the UN, laid out the general principle on this complicated legal issue. These were:

'1. That, as a general rule, it is in conformity with legal principles to presume that a State which is a Member of the organization of the United Nations does not cease to be a Member simply because its constitution or its frontier have been subjected to changes, and that the extinction of the State as a legal personality recognized in the international order must be shown before its rights and obligations can be considered thereby to have ceased to exist.

2. That when a new State is created, whatever may be the territory and the populations which it comprises and whether or no they formed part of a State Member of the United Nations, it cannot under the system of the Charter claim the status of a Member of the United Nations unless it has been formally admitted as such in conformity with the provisions of the Charter.

Beyond that, each case must be judged according to its merits.'​

Original Report

The above principle was put to vote and was passed thus:

1st para: 39 to 1, with 2 absentations
2nd para: 39 to 0 with 3 absentations
3rd para: 45 to 0 with 2 absentations

In Bengali there is a saying:

haathi, ghora gelo tol
mosha boley koto jol

[Elephants and horses got gobbled up whole,
Mosquito wonders how deep can it really be, that hole.]

 

[Subramanian]

Certainly. Once I get back? I have to look at old threads. There are actually three separate sets of discussions, one set covering the name India and what it should properly describe; one is about the nature of the British grant of independence, whether it was to India with Pakistan sliced away, or whether it was to two equally sliced away formations; and the third is about other topics.

I can understand the quaid totally in love with his mansion in Malabar Hill,

who wouldn't? It is an amazing place.Has no equals.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Legal existence of India didn't end with the change of the legal nature of its existence. From being a colony, under British rule, India simply became an independent State under sovereign rule, with altered boundaries - a case of continuous legal existence.

If Zafarulla Khan, probably the only other individual, at that time in Pakistan, who could match up to Jinnah and probably his equal in legal expertise, couldn't convince the UN, then I have serious doubts if our Pakistani friend - humility personified - would make much progress.

The Sixth Committee: The Legal Problems Raised By The Representative Of Argentina In Connection With The Admission Of Pakistan, appointed by the UN, laid out the general principle on this complicated legal issue. These were:

'1. That, as a general rule, it is in conformity with legal principles to presume that a State which is a Member of the organization of the United Nations does not cease to be a Member simply because its constitution or its frontier have been subjected to changes, and that the extinction of the State as a legal personality recognized in the international order must be shown before its rights and obligations can be considered thereby to have ceased to exist.

2. That when a new State is created, whatever may be the territory and the populations which it comprises and whether or no they formed part of a State Member of the United Nations, it cannot under the system of the Charter claim the status of a Member of the United Nations unless it has been formally admitted as such in conformity with the provisions of the Charter.

Beyond that, each case must be judged according to its merits.'​

Original Report

The above principle was put to vote and was passed thus:

1st para: 39 to 1, with 2 absentations
2nd para: 39 to 0 with 3 absentations
3rd para: 45 to 0 with 2 absentations

In Bengali there is a saying:

haathi, ghora gelo tol
mosha boley koto jol

[Elephants and horses got gobbled up whole,
Mosquito wonders how deep can it really be, that hole.]

Nicely argued. I am beginning to feel redundant. Time to retire?

I can understand the quaid totally in love with his mansion in Malabar Hill,

who wouldn't? It is an amazing place.Has no equals.

Well put.

I can't help feeling sorry for the old man. What a life! From the son of a simple merchant to the father of a country, with a tempestuous marriage to a legendary beauty on the way, and being father of a daughter who herself founded a dynasty of power and note. The house itself is so - right - I can't help but agree with him in his words to Sri Prakash.

Nehru ultimately won, his vision for his country lasted beyond him, but he was a mean guy, in a way that Jinnah could never have been. How I wish he had remained with the Congress!

 

[Subramanian]

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.