proposal for a new division of south asia

[timetravel]

I know this mate , it was Nehru & his lust for power who rejected it, you will be amazed to learn that it was Qauid-e-Azam Md.Ali Jinnah & Mahatma Gandhi, who agreed to the cabinet mission plan , when Gandhi ji supported Md.Ali Jinnah in this, Nehru felt betrayed by Gandhi (note the role of Gandhi in negotiation with the British, diminished considerably after that , as Nehru made sure that Gandhi becomes symbolic rather then have a say in political matters in the real term) in fact the cabinet mission plan was the undisputed victory of both Qauid-e-Azam & Allama Iqbal , as the struggle from the beginning was to secure two large autonomous provinces within the framework of a federation , I think even Ayub Khan had also proposed a joint Indo-Pak defense agreement , in a federation with two autonomous province & Quaid e Azam Md.Ali Jinnah as its prime minister, the Quaid would almost certainly make sure that the arm forces had the maximum numbers of Muslims , & that would be the masterstroke with which, the power of running federal India would ultimately favour the Muslims , it was the best solution ,which power hungry Nehru & the ever deceitful British had to ruin it, & they did

he who has the Army, has the keys to Authority !

and without being rude I would like to point that as they say, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating".

The principal idea behind the plan was to avoid Hindus discrimination of Muslims. With Pakistan a separate homeland the problem of Hindus is completely removed. Any what Jinnah finally got by rejection of the Cabinet plan i.e a country Pakistan (with no fear of Hindus domination) was practically 20 times more better then the Cabinet Mission Plan.

So Jinnah did succeed in his Mission as what he got in the form of Pakistan is even better than the Cabinet Mission Plan.

But today you can see Pakistan (a much more better outcome then Cabinet Mission Plan) is struggling to develop (I hope they do well in future though). So clearly if even the ideal version of Jinnah's plan is struggling, Cabinet Mission Plan was doomed from beginning. If Nehru had not rejected it India would not have been able to progress.

Nehru had the right idea of no discrimination based on religion as the basis of new country. Jinnah was wrong from the onset as he made religion the first pillar for forming a new country. From my viewpoint Nehru was a visionary leader, while Jinnah unfortunately cannot look beyond religion (though both were great political leaders).

If today India is successful (albeit moderately) its due to Nehru's rightful rejection of Cabinet Plan.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

View attachment 145618

The Brits could have divided British India into independent countries called Bengal, Bihar, Assam, UP, Punjab, Madras, etc.

This is what they did in the rest of their empire.

The princely states would have had no single entity to which they could attach.



See above.

If the princely states did not have a large dominating entity into which they could coalesce, it would have turned out very differently.

Brits wanted to but it was Nehru and patel who stopped it. Muntbatten had decided upon a formula- states caneither join India or Pak or become independent. When the formula was shared with Nehru he went ballistic and eventually cut to 2 options- they Join India or Pakistan and no 3 rd option. Of course during the actual execution Patel proved himself greater than Bismarck in unifying India.

that very thing is mentioned in the libyan "green book" ( The Green Book - I )... section "popular congresses and people's committees".

decentralized and direct-democracy was how libya was organized until 2011...



saarc is a grouping of nations... each of which follows a different political ideology... each of which is enemy to each other... each of which will never progress unless they discard nationalism...



so, i am to be "deleted" because i proposed uniting people... people who were involved in immature fighting??

so, who must be the "deletor"... raw, ib, mossad, cia??

You are 'deleted' coz you have no idea of the true nature of socialists.

 

[dray]

the present anti-hindi situation in madras is because of the perception of hindi regionalism from the central governments... which has lead to tamil regionalism... and the tamil regionalists don't even see it...

I agree with this part.

 

[INDIC]

The Brits could have divided British India into independent countries called Bengal, Bihar, Assam, UP, Punjab, Madras, etc.
This is what they did in the rest of their empire.
The princely states would have had no single entity to which they could attach.

British couldn't have done it because there they knew it would have attracted resistance from the people of the provinces as nationalistic fervour was at peak. So, they just kept in confined to 'Lapse of Paramountcy' for 565 princely states.

 

[Developereo]

Brits wanted to but it was Nehru and patel who stopped it. Muntbatten had decided upon a formula- states caneither join India or Pak or become independent. When the formula was shared with Nehru he went ballistic and eventually cut to 2 options- they Join India or Pakistan and no 3 rd option. Of course during the actual execution Patel proved himself greater than Bismarck in unifying India.

I am talking about something even more fundamental.

The princely states were given two kernels (India and Pakistan) around which they could coalesce. The Brits could have created a dozen small countries called Bengal, Assam, Bihar, Punjab, etc. -- instead of India/Pakistan -- so the princely states had nothing to attach to.

British couldn't have done it because there they knew it would have attracted resistance from the people of the provinces as nationalistic fervour was at peak. So, they just kept in confined to 'Lapse of Paramountcy' for 565 princely states.

Anti-Brit fervor was at peak.
You can always find opportunistic noblemen anywhere to cash in on regional chauvinism.

 

[INDIC]

You can always find opportunistic noblemen anywhere to cash in on regional chauvinism.

So, you want to use the term anti-Brit instead of nationalistic fervour.

You can always find opportunistic noblemen anywhere to cash in on regional chauvinism.

You know there was an election in 1946, Muslim League taking three provinces while Congress rest of them. So, you logic has no truth.

 

[third eye]

I am talking about something even more fundamental.

The princely states were given two kernels (India and Pakistan) around which they could coalesce. The Brits could have created a dozen small countries called Bengal, Assam, Bihar, Punjab, etc. -- instead of India/Pakistan -- so the princely states had nothing to attach to.

The Congress was by then way too strong by then to allow a thing like this to happen.

IT would not have been in the interests of both Muslim League & Congress. Hence a non starter.

 

[timetravel]

I am talking about something even more fundamental.

The princely states were given two kernels (India and Pakistan) around which they could coalesce. The Brits could have created a dozen small countries called Bengal, Assam, Bihar, Punjab, etc. -- instead of India/Pakistan -- so the princely states had nothing to attach to.



Anti-Brit fervor was at peak.
You can always find opportunistic noblemen anywhere to cash in on regional chauvinism.

But Indians are happy with being integrated. Small countries like Bengal, Assam, Bihar, Punjab would be awefully weak in front of a country like China today or in face of onslaught from Islamic fundamentalists. Also the individual states would be fighting with each other on one pretext or other. It would have been a nightmare.

Thankfully to Nehru and Sardar Patel we have a successful country today. Indians have no liking for the plan of several small countries, and thankfully Nehru and Patel prevented any such plan if ever discussed by Brits.

and what you call opportunistic is what we call nationalism. Nehru/Patel did not invade Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia (so they cannot be termed as opportunistic). They only tried to unite their own people. It is not opportunistic to unite your own people and Nehru and Pate did the best thing by integrating the people of subcontinent/India. (though unfortunately Pak and BD fell out due to religious reasons).

 

[Guynextdoor2]

I am talking about something even more fundamental.

The princely states were given two kernels (India and Pakistan) around which they could coalesce. The Brits could have created a dozen small countries called Bengal, Assam, Bihar, Punjab, etc. -- instead of India/Pakistan -- so the princely states had nothing to attach to.



Anti-Brit fervor was at peak.
You can always find opportunistic noblemen anywhere to cash in on regional chauvinism.

They could not. They had very little influence by the time of independence. QUit India had proved that congress had support across the length and breadth of the country and that any decision around the future would have to be taken only in line with congress vision. Who will negotiate on behalf of your Bengal, assam, Bihar and Punjab 'kernels'? Not one leader of any stature who could claim to equal Gandhi around any of these 'kernels'. Hell by 1930s he had even started dismantling princely states by appointing 'political agents' of congress in the administartions.

 

[scorpionx]

I know this mate , it was Nehru & his lust for power who rejected it, you will be amazed to learn that it was Qauid-e-Azam Md.Ali Jinnah & Mahatma Gandhi, who agreed to the cabinet mission plan , when Gandhi ji supported Md.Ali Jinnah in this, Nehru felt betrayed by Gandhi (note the role of Gandhi in negotiation with the British, diminished considerably after that , as Nehru made sure that Gandhi becomes symbolic rather then have a say in political matters in the real term) in fact the cabinet mission plan was the undisputed victory of both Qauid-e-Azam & Allama Iqbal , as the struggle from the beginning was to secure two large autonomous provinces within the framework of a federation , I think even Ayub Khan had also proposed a joint Indo-Pak defense agreement , in a federation with two autonomous province & Quaid e Azam Md.Ali Jinnah as its prime minister, the Quaid would almost certainly make sure that the arm forces had the maximum numbers of Muslims , & that would be the masterstroke with which, the power of running federal India would ultimately favour the Muslims , it was the best solution ,which power hungry Nehru & the ever deceitful British had to ruin it, & they did

he who has the Army, has the keys to Authority !

There is a different version of it. As per this version, Wavell who was considered by Churchill as “calm” and “defeatist” was sent to India, a relatively “calm water” where the prime minister did not want him to make any political move during the course of war putting Britain into further trouble. But the following events would prove to be otherwise.

Wavell being the first veteran soldier assuming the office of the viceroy, his political stratagem was deeply motivated by his country’s military and strategic interests. When he was CoC in the face of Japanese invasion, he was immensely troubled by the thought that Congress after Independence will certainly not cooperate with Britain in the matters related to defence (belief that came from the Indian sabotage of British supply routes to Burma front) and he was shocked to see the switching of Indian soldiers to the Japanese camp immediately after the fall of Singapore. His apprehension about a belligerent independent India was strengthened by the ’46 naval mutiny. In this perilous condition of Great Britain struggling for a face saving retreat (as it will be behind “smoke screen” desired by Atlee later), Mr. Jinnah, unhappy, arbitrary, self centred, lonely but straighter and more sincere (than any Congressi leader) was an angel from heaven.

So, Wavell was too much keen to secure India’s strategic North West and the port of Karachi from where Britain could monitor and control its operations in Middle East, whose oil fields were going to prove vital in the coming Jet age. As Churchill wanted him to be in charge of just a provincial golf club, he proceeded slowly and cautiously without giving any hint to his superiors. His first step was to take Mr. Jinnah into confidence who was emphatically insisting that ML will not take part in any interim government unless a prior declaration accepting the principle of Pakistan comes up.

As per the counter thesis, cabinet mission plan left a bigger loophole in the way of an United India, when it provided the clause that after ten years constituents of the groups B and C would have the option of opting out of the Union on the basis of the voting of its group legislators and individual provinces will have no say in the matter. According to Woodrow Wyatt, Jinnah who was suspicious about the whole cabinet mission plan from the beginning was said to have hit the table with his hand and said, “That’s it. You have got it.”The counter belief of the existing one is, Cabinet Mission plan just as Simla conference failed as these two were designed to fail by Wavell. Simla conference where Wavell refused to veto Jinnah’s “pretensions” to represent all the Muslims,the cabinet mission plan left bigger possibility of separate Pakistan (of which Jinnah got the clue) under the of British camouflage of an United India which was only hastened by Nehru’s 10th July press conference at Bombay after which Jinnah got the casus belli to repudiate the plan and the British quite smartly put the blame of partition on the shoulder of Indians abating the mounting pressure from the Americans and the oppositions at home.

 

[Joe Shearer]

There are a lot of "must"s in your proposal. The first thing you need to do is to replace Indian democracy with a dictatorship which can impose all those musts. Pakistan and Bangladesh are effectively dictatorships, so that part of the job is already done.



I am not sure I buy your premise.

If Britain wanted to retard the spread of socialism/communism in the region, it would have created a dozen states in the subcontinent which would continually be at each other's throats, not posing a threat to anyone outside the region. That's what the Brits did in the Middle East, Africa and the rest of their dominions.

Also, contrary to Sir @Joe Shearer view that Brits were anti-Hindu, I would say the Brits were exceptionally pro-Hindu. They gave the Hindus a united political entity in India -- something which hadn't existed for thousands of years. As noted above, this was very uncharacteristic;.the standard colonial practice was to create a mosaic of small countries, deliberately carved out to create mischief for years to come.

A gentleman is someone who can make a detailed refutation of that statement, but chooses not to

 

[Kinetic]

View attachment 145618

The Brits could have divided British India into independent countries called Bengal, Bihar, Assam, UP, Punjab, Madras, etc.

This is what they did in the rest of their empire.

The princely states would have had no single entity to which they could attach.



See above.

If the princely states did not have a large dominating entity into which they could coalesce, it would have turned out very differently.

That wasn't possible because the people residing in those regions you mentioned were Indians, Britain tried but failed.

From the image you can see what I have said already kingly states consisted vast regions.

 

[mujhaidind]

No , partition in my opinion was a mistake, it weakened the Muslims , by dividing them in to three zones , while uniting the Hindus into one platform, I believe in this very strongly , thanks to Partition today, close to 55 crore Muslims that's 550 million Muslims ! of south-Asia is divided , & close to 900 million Hindus are united, how is this a good thing is beyond me , so NO Bhai, thanks but, no thanks ! no more partition or division, if anything this is the time for a "Confederation"

What you said is true.

But Muslims in India are like 35 crore. While in BD and Pakistan they are between 200-250 unofficially. Muslims in Indian sub-continent are more than 700 million easily.

It was matter of few decades, Muslims would have become a majority. A huge country undivided India with a Muslim majority would be a superpower and a threat to the west and other regional powers. It's no suprise that British sowed the seeds of partition. With largest Muslim population in the world, we would also have great influence over other Muslim countries.

Imagine if the money and energy we spent on fighting each other was spend on development. And if uneccessary extremism and terrorism would have been avoided. We would have overtaken China.

The leaders who championed the cause of partition were more British than Muslim. Most of them were not even practising Muslims. Hard for a lot of people to swallow.

In the end, partition hurt Muslims more. Some Muslims will disagree with me. but its the truth.

 

[Kinetic]

What you said is true.

But Muslims in India are like 35 crore. While in BD and Pakistan they are between 200-250 unofficially. Muslims in Indian sub-continent are more than 700 million easily.

It was matter of few decades, Muslims would have become a majority. A huge country undivided India with a Muslim majority would be a superpower and a threat to the west and other regional powers. It's no suprise that British sowed the seeds of partition. With largest Muslim population in the world, we would also have great influence over other Muslim countries.

Imagine if the money and energy we spent on fighting each other was spend on development. And if uneccessary extremism and terrorism would have been avoided. We would have overtaken China.

The leaders who championed the cause of partition were more British than Muslim. Most of them were not even practising Muslims. Hard for a lot of people to swallow.

In the end, partition hurt Muslims more. Some Muslims will disagree with me. but its the truth.

Partition was masterminded by Britain and implemented by Jinnah and Muslim league. I thank them for that.

 

[HariPrasad]

But Muslims in India are like 35 crore.

Bull sheet of Highest order.