Partition of India-the story

[Xeric]

Okay! people, let's keep the following out of this thread:
"Islamic State failed to implement that and an indian state succecced in this-debate!"

Without getting into specifics....'Bad' happen eveywhere, so it doesnt mean that those states should be abolished.

 

[Xeric]

PARTITION OF BENGAL
Bengal was an unwieldy province with a population of 78 million people. Viceroy Curzon divided it into two provinces in 1905. By combining its eastern part with Assam, a new province of Eastern Bengal and Assam was created. The majority of population in the new province were Muslims who were now in a dominant position with chances of progress and development at their doors. The Bengali Hindus who had progressed on the toil of the Muslim peasants of Eastern Bengal, found this partition a grave threat to their cultural, economic and political domination and were not prepared to see Muslims in a superior position. A violent agitation for the annulment of the partition of Bengal was launched by Hindus and Congress.

Mass meetings and protest marches were organized. The movement for the boycott of the British goods was started. There was an outburst of terrorist activities. Religious and nationalist colour was given to this movement. The Muslims because of their backwardness in education, wealth and modern means of publicity, could not counter the Hindu and Congress propaganda. They relied on the promises of the government and were soon disillusioned. The British government yielded to the Hindu agitation and in 1911 the partition of Bengal was canceled to the great dismay of the Muslims of Eastern Bengal who reverted to their previous position of subservience to the Hindus.

 

[Jako]

Now now enigma.....did you really support the british rule,because they somehow did you good by partitioning bengal?? The bengal partition was a result of the most agitations against the british rule in india........they illusioned it in a way to show off as a hindu vs muslim effect,which is evident from your post......but still the british faced more agitation from bengal itself.......ever wonder why only bengal and punjab were partitioned?? Btw,how can the hindus only uproot the british decision........the hindus and muslims were equal in number then,so it is illogical to brand only the hindus as anti-partition protesters of bengal..........

 

[Xeric]

Now now enigma.....did you really support the british rule,because they somehow did you good by partitioning bengal?? The bengal partition was a result of the most agitations against the british rule in india........they illusioned it in a way to show off as a hindu vs muslim effect,which is evident from your post......but still the british faced more agitation from bengal itself.......ever wonder why only bengal and punjab were partitioned?? Btw,how can the hindus only uproot the british decision........the hindus and muslims were equal in number then,so it is illogical to brand only the hindus as anti-partition protesters of bengal..........

You seem to be confused bro

 

[Xeric]

SIMLA DEPUTATION

Lord Minto, who was known for his administrative qualities, came to India in 1905 as Viceroy. With his arrival in India, it was felt that some constitutional reforms would be introduced in India. The Muslim leaders decided to avail the opportunity and decided to meet the Viceroy in order to apprised him of Muslims’ demands.

The viceroy was vacationing at Simla where a delegation Muslim leaders, led by Sir Agha Khan, called upon him in 1906. The deputation, which came to be known as Simla Deputation in the history of freedom movement, included some eminent leaders of Muslims from all over the country.s

The deputation apprised the Viceroy of Muslims demands and asked that the representation of Muslims should be commensurate not merely with their numerical strength but also with their political importance and the value of contribution which they made to the defence of the empire. The deputation demanded seats in the legislatures, quota in government services and seats of judges in the courts for Muslims. The deputation also demanded separate electorate for Muslims with separate constituencies which meant that the Muslim voters shall vote for Muslim candidates only.

Lord Minto gave a patient hearing to the demands of the Muslims presented by the Simla Deputation. He promised to give sympathetic consideration to the demands and assured the deputation that he would do all what was possible to accept the demands.

It was a great achievement of the Simla Deputation to have convinced the Viceroy about the genuineness of Muslims’ demands. The Muslims were now convinced that organized efforts were always essential to press for the acceptance of the demands. At this time Muslims had left the Congress and had no organization of their own to project their demands. They badly needed a forum for the projection and safeguard of their interests to counter the false propagenda of Congress.

 

[Jako]

No buddy theres nothing confusing bout my post.....just said the bengalis as a whole didn't support the partition,but the british enforced it to lower the agitations..,.......and now that we are partitioned and sovereign some like you take the bengal partition as a achivement,while it was a black day for bengal......,...which is evident from the fact that all bengalis worked together to uproot it.....

 

[EjazR]

A violent agitation for the annulment of the partition of Bengal was launched by Hindus and Congress.

Are these sourced from somewhere or a figment of someone's imagination. Both extremist Hindus and muslims where FOR the partition falling prey to the obvious policy of divide and rule of the British to suppress the azadi movement and direct them towards hindu-muslim animosity. Mainstream Hindus and Muslims alongwith the congress opposed the partition on strictly religious basis.

It was because of this that eventually when the east Bengal ended up joining East Pakistan many years later, there was considerably less violence and mass killings compared to Punjab. Possibly because Bengali culturalism still cut across the religious divide.

 

[EjazR]

Okay! people, let's keep the following out of this thread:
"Islamic State failed to implement that and an indian state succecced in this-debate!"

Without getting into specifics....'Bad' happen eveywhere, so it doesnt mean that those states should be abolished.

No one wants to tread that path. But the posts by some that indicate that because some Indian muslims are on the face of it not following Islam does not mean that its the Indian state or government FORCING them into that path. It is there personal choice. Case in point is the situation of some Pakistani muslims who are not following Islamic teachings as well. Even in an Islamic state.

Indian muslims have been following Islam for centuries and will continue to be a beacon of Islam in the world and contribute to it. Examples of contribution of Indian muslims not just to Islam but to society as a whole in science arts literature, technology e.t.c. are many. That is what we must realise.

 

[Coolyo]

There was no partition of Pakistan! On August 14, 1947, The Islamic Republic of Pakistan gained independance and the Republic of India a day later.

As for what REALLY happened, Zaid Hamid tells the truth, and how Pakistan gained it's independance!

AMAZING VIDEOS:

Part 2 - YouTube - Zaid Hamid:BrassTacks-Independence Day Special Part2

Part 3 - YouTube - Zaid Hamid:BrassTacks-Independence Day Special Part3

Part 4 - YouTube - Zaid Hamid:BrassTacks-Independence Day Special Part4

Part 5 - YouTube - Zaid Hamid:BrassTacks-Independence Day Special Part5

Part 6 - YouTube - Zaid Hamid:BrassTacks-Independence Day Special Part6

Part 7 - YouTube - Zaid Hamid:BrassTacks-Independence Day Special Part7

Part 8 - YouTube - Zaid Hamid:BrassTacks-Independence Day Special Part8

Part 9 - YouTube - Zaid Hamid:BrassTacks-Independence Day Special Part9

Part 10 - YouTube - Zaid Hamid:BrassTacks-Independence Day Special Part10

Part 11 - YouTube - Zaid Hamid:BrassTacks-Independence Day Special Part11

 

[Jako]

Huh!!! More of zaid hamid?? No thanks.....that guy speaks utter rubbish and bs to gain some amazing fans like coolyo.....

 

[Sky_123]

Please don't quote Zaid Hamid. This guy say lot of blabla.... just to gain cheap popularity...

 

[destiny]

This is from the Indian History Textbook for Class VIII


The Doctrine of Lapse

The final wave of annexations occurred under Lord Dalhousie who was the
Governor-General from 1848 to 1856. He devised a policy that came to be known as the Doctrine of Lapse. The doctrine declared that if an Indian ruler died
without a male heir his kingdom would “lapse”, that is, become part of Company
territory. One kingdom after another was annexed simply by applying this
doctrine: Satara (1848), Sambalpur (1850), Udaipur (1852), Nagpur (1853)
and Jhansi (1854).

Finally, in 1856, the Company also took over Awadh. This time the British had an added argument – they said they were “obliged by duty” to take over Awadh in
order to free the people from the “misgovernment” of the Nawab! Enraged by the humiliating way in which the Nawab was deposed, the people of Awadh joined
the great revolt that broke out in 1857.


More coming .......

 

[destiny]

Setting up a New Administration

Warren Hastings (Governor-General from 1773 to 1785) was one of the many important figures who played a significant role in the expansion of Company power. By his time the Company had acquired power not only in Bengal, but also in Bombay and Madras. British territories were broadly divided into administrative units called Presidencies. There were three Presidencies: Bengal, Madras and Bombay. Each was ruled by a Governor. The supreme head of the administration was the Governor-General. Warren Hastings, the first Governor-General, introduced several administrative reforms, notably in the sphere of justice.

From 1772 a new system of justice was established. Each district was to have two courts – a criminal court (faujdari adalat ) and a civil court (diwani adalat ). Maulvis and Hindu pandits interpreted Indian laws for the European district collectors who presided over civil courts. The criminal courts were still under a qazi and a mufti but under the supervision of the collectors.

A major problem was that the Brahman pandits gave different interpretations of local laws based on different schools of the dharmashastra. To bring about uniformity, in 1775 eleven pandits were asked to compile a digest of Hindu laws. N.B. Halhed translated this digest into English. By 1778 a code of Muslim laws was also compiled for the benefit of European judges. Under the Regulating Act of 1773, a new Supreme Court was established, while a court of appeal – the Sadar Nizamat Adalat – was also set up at Calcutta.

The principal figure in an Indian district was the Collector. As the title suggests, his main job was to collect revenue and taxes and maintain law and order in his district with the help of judges, police officers and darogas. His office – the collectorate – became the new centre of power and patronage that steadily replaced previous holders of authority.

More Coming ...........

 

[destiny]

When People Rebel
1857 and After

Nawabs lose their power

Since the mid-eighteenth century, nawabs and rajas had seen their power erode. They had gradually lost their authority and honour. Residents had been stationed in many courts, the freedom of the rulers reduced, their armed forces disbanded, and their revenues and territories taken away by stages. Many ruling families tried to negotiate with the Company to protect their interests. For example, Rani Lakshmibai of Jhansi wanted the Company to recognise her adopted son as the heir to the kingdom after the death of her husband. Nana Saheb, the adopted son of Peshwa Baji Rao II, pleaded that he be given his father’s pension when the latter died. However, the Company, confident of its superiority and military powers, turned down these pleas.

Awadh was one of the last territories to be annexed. In 1801, a subsidiary alliance was imposed on Awadh, and in 1856 it was taken over. Governor-General Dalhousie declared that the territory was being misgoverned and British rule was needed to ensure proper administration. The Company even began to plan how to bring the
Mughal dynasty to an end. The name of the Mughal king was removed from the coins minted by the Company. In 1849, Governor-General Dalhousie announced that after the death of Bahadur Shah Zafar, the family of the king would be shifted out of the Red Fort and given another place in Delhi to reside in. In 1856, Governor-General Canning decided that Bahadur Shah Zafar would be the last Mughal king and after his death none of his descendants would be recognised as kings – they would just be called princes.

More Coming .......

 

[destiny]

The peasants and the sepoys

In the countryside peasants and zamindars resented the high taxes and the rigid methods of revenue collection. Many failed to pay back their loans to the
moneylenders and gradually lost the lands they had tilled for generations.

The Indian sepoys in the employ of the Company also had reasons for discontent. They were unhappy about their pay, allowances and conditions of service. Some of the new rules, moreover, violated their religious sensibilities and beliefs. Did you know that in those days many people in the country believed that if they crossed the sea they would lose their religion and caste?
So when in 1824 the sepoys were told to go to Burma by the sea route to fight for the Company, they refused to follow the order, though they agreed to go by the land route. They were severely punished, and since the issue did not die down, in 1856 the Company passed a new law which stated that every new person who took up employment in the Company’s army had to agree to serve overseas if required.

Sepoys also reacted to what was happening in the countryside. Many of them were peasants and had families living in the villages. So the anger of the peasants quickly spread among the sepoys.