The British Raj in the sub-continent was a good thing for the muslims?

[Developereo]

We don't have Hindu version of Ummah.

Again you are wrong, Castism is 2000 year old phenomenon. Indian culture is 15000-30000 year old civilization. Since History start from 6th century, You will not agree to it....

Maurya Dynasty was not Rajput/Kshatriya by birth, so does Gupta and Nanda Dynasty.. There was no regional grouping as well from Himalya to Kanyakumari It was India/Hindusthan/Aryavrat/Bharat.. There were kingdom, but there was a country.. It was like United States of America, Though there were many state, there was one country...

You guys are talking about the same thing.
A magical, mystical bond that transcends political boundaries and unites all who believe.

You don't want to call it ummah -- fine --
A rose, by any other name, ...

 

[Contrarian]

As much as I respect Gandhi, I don't think the British were constrained by his wishes. Else they wouldn't have let Pakistan go in the first place.

The British, quite simply, could have formally carved out the dominion into explicit countries called Gujarat, Hyderabad, Bengal, TN, Kerala, UP, etc. To make sure that no one entity was strong enough to dominate militarily and unite the remaining pieces.

The regional rulers would mostly have welcomed it, and it would have been Gandhi's headache to rally the masses to rejoin in a federation.

The deal reached with the British was that they would leave as is in return for supporting Allies in WW2.
The Brits were already under heavy pressure world over to leave,all the Europeans were leaving their colonies. Even the US was pressuring Britain to leave India.

The Brits could not have suddenly decided one day that they want 10 other countries divided from what is British India. Primarily because British India amongst every one else had developed a very high level of Nationalism. Those in the Princely states had not.

We are now delving much further than we need to for this topic.
You said that British Raj was a gift without which India would not be united. I disagree.
India would have been united one way or other.

You said British gifted a United India. I disagree.
India was into hundreds of kingdoms when the British left, exactly like it was when ancient empires broke into hundreds of small kingdoms. It was the Indians this time round that United India. Britishers can be given as much credit as Mauryas or Guptas or Mughals. No more.

You said British gifted India civil infrastructure because of which India remained United. I disagree.
All the empires of India also left civil and administrative infrastructure and arguably much more for its time than British. The only difference is that Indians this time round gathered up, wisened up and decided to stick together so that no one else can conquer India - bit by bit again. That is the reason why British infrastructure is so visible to you. Because it was done in modern times as opposed to ancient times.

If I had to attribute ONE thing the British gave India - I would say its Rule of Law. Equality of everyone before Law. India had been united multiple times before, but the one thing it did not have was Rule of Law and Equality of Law. Had you said this, I would have given it to you. Not much else.

 

[INDIC]

You guys are talking about the same thing.
A magical, mystical bond that transcends political boundaries and unites all who believe.

You don't want to call it ummah -- fine --
A rose, by any other name, ...

Bharat varsha referred to a territory between mountains and the oceans while Ummah refers to people who are Muslims and their is mention of geography. Even in your Islamic tradition a place called 'Hind' exists.

 

[Developereo]

The Brits could not have suddenly decided one day that they want 10 other countries divided from what is British India.

I disagree with this statement, given what the British (and French) did all over the world. Thet could -- and did -- divide their colonial possessions into a dozen different entities, carved out precisely to create regional havoc.



We know -- and you yourself argued -- that the regional rulers were itching to go it alone. There was nothing stopping the British from obliging them.
The rest of your arguments are moot once this basic premise is challenged.

Bharat varsha referred to a territory between mountains and the oceans while Ummah refers to people who are Muslims and their is mention of geography. Even in your Islamic tradition a place called 'Hind' exists.

Bharat varsha is just your version of the glorious Caliphate that once united the ummah, and shall return...

 

[Contrarian]

I disagree with this statement, given what the British (and French) did all over the world. Thet could -- and did -- divide their colonial possessions into a dozen different entities, carved out precisely to create regional havoc.

We know -- and you yourself argued -- that the regional rulers were itching to go it alone. There was nothing stopping the British from obliging them.
The rest of your arguments are moot once this basic premise is challenged.

Again, whether or not the Independent Kingdoms remained so or not is moot. For all practical purposes they were indepedent. It was the GoI and Patel who forced them to join RoI.
Brits could not have done anything more for them. Yes they could have given them legal independence, but the end result would have been the same.

This can be argued based on the actions of RoI towards those Kingdoms that did not pledge either suzerainty or subservience to British Govt.

We invaded Goa, a completely separate nation.
We invaded Hyderabad, a kingdom that under Law gave its suzerainty to Pakistan.
We invaded Junagarh, a kingdom that under Laws gave its suzerainty to Pakistan.

Heck we took Sikkim 2 decades later as well.

So regardless of whether British gave formal/nominal independence/obliged them to the remaining kingdoms or not, Indian actions would have remained the same. Indeed for practical purposes, these nations were independent.
Patel and Nehru decided that there shall be no independent Kingdom in the Indian landmass. Patel ensured it happened using a variety of means including War.

So if you want to put it that way, RoI was the new up coming empire, regardless of whether Brits gave them independence by name, RoI would still have carried on with the exact same course of action that it did. The result was all the same. 'Join us voluntarily or we will make you' was the GoI mantra of the time.

Bharat varsha is just your version of the glorious Caliphate that once united the ummah, and shall return...

Bharat Varsha is a geographical space regardless of inhabitants.
Ummah is every Muslim anywhere.

 

[Developereo]

This can be argued based on the actions of RoI towards those Kingdoms that did not pledge either suzerainty or subservience to British Govt.

We invaded Goa, a completely separate nation.
We invaded Hyderabad, a kingdom that under Law gave its suzerainty to Pakistan.
We invaded Junagarh, a kingdom that under Laws gave its suzerainty to Pakistan.

That is why I wrote in my earlier post that the various political entities would be created very carefully to deny dominance to any one entity. This is what they did all over the world.

The British, quite simply, could have formally carved out the dominion into explicit countries called Gujarat, Hyderabad, Bengal, TN, Kerala, UP, etc. To make sure that no one entity was strong enough to dominate militarily and unite the remaining pieces.

Bharat Varsha is a geographical space regardless of inhabitants.

It is a reference to a geographical and political region which once united the faithful (possibly the Maurya Empire). In that sense it is comparable to a Caliphate which united its faithful.

 

[INDIC]

Bharat varsha is just your version of the glorious Caliphate that once united the ummah, and shall return...

That makes no sense.

 

[INDIC]

It is a reference to a geographical and political region which once united the faithful (possibly the Maurya Empire). In that sense it is comparable to a Caliphate which united its faithful.

Geographical sense is an important thing, Ummah has no geographical boundary . Bharat varsha can be linked to Hind as it has geographical meaning.

 

[INDIC]

Again, whether or not the Independent Kingdoms remained so or not is moot. For all practical purposes they were indepedent. It was the GoI and Patel who forced them to join RoI.
Brits could not have done anything more for them. Yes they could have given them legal independence, but the end result would have been the same.

This can be argued based on the actions of RoI towards those Kingdoms that did not pledge either suzerainty or subservience to British Govt.

We invaded Goa, a completely separate nation.
We invaded Hyderabad, a kingdom that under Law gave its suzerainty to Pakistan.
We invaded Junagarh, a kingdom that under Laws gave its suzerainty to Pakistan.

Heck we took Sikkim 2 decades later as well.

So regardless of whether British gave formal/nominal independence/obliged them to the remaining kingdoms or not, Indian actions would have remained the same. Indeed for practical purposes, these nations were independent.
Patel and Nehru decided that there shall be no independent Kingdom in the Indian landmass. Patel ensured it happened using a variety of means including War.

So if you want to put it that way, RoI was the new up coming empire, regardless of whether Brits gave them independence by name, RoI would still have carried on with the exact same course of action that it did. The result was all the same. 'Join us voluntarily or we will make you' was the GoI mantra of the time.


Bharat Varsha is a geographical space regardless of inhabitants.
Ummah is every Muslim anywhere.

Correction, Junagadh wasn't invaded, the Diwan Shah Nawaz Bhutto invited Indian troops in Junagadh and returned to Pakistan. Pakistani often talk about it when they want to abuse Bhutto family.

 

[INDIC]

We invaded Goa, a completely separate nation.

Portugal declared Goa as their overseas province soon India started demands to return it back after 1947. Ram Manohar Lohia is related to the freedom struggle of Goa and Indian National Congress party in Goa. When India invaded Goa in 1961, Pakistan was first one to came for open support for colonial rule, a Portuguese guy once told me that they felt very indebted to Pakistan's support for that they sold Daphne class submarine to Pakistan at very low cost.

 

[Contrarian]

That is why I wrote in my earlier post that the various political entities would be created very carefully to deny dominance to any one entity. This is what they did all over the world.

Think carefully about what you are saying.
You are saying that the British would create separate entities in which no one is powerful enough to dominate the others.
That would mean that the vast British India(not Princely States) would also have to be broken up into separate entities.

To do that, British would need to have popular support, as British were down to making deals with Congress leaders for anything they wanted. Like how they had to bargain with Congress leaders for support during WW2. And this is even post WW2 in which Britain had been further massively weakened and its territories wrested away.

In this situation. you are saying the British could have divided British India(inside the current modern India), which the people did not want, which Congress did not want.

And all this after the Govt of India Act 1935, which significantly changed the Govt structure and had Indians at almost all levels of decision making.

How do you propose it would happen. This is nothing but a flight of fantasy mate. They were incapable of bringing about any massive change that did not have Congress's approval.

It is a reference to a geographical and political region which once united the faithful (possibly the Maurya Empire). In that sense it is comparable to a Caliphate which united its faithful.

Again. You are trying to equate 2 distinct things.
Bharat Varsha is not comparable to the Ummah.
Distinct meanings, distinct references. And Bharat Varsha is very specific geographical entity.

 

[Developereo]

You are saying that the British would create separate entities in which no one is powerful enough to dominate the others.

We are not talking about division during British rule, but when they decided to leave and grant independence (mid 1940s). They could have done to India what they did to the Middle East (Sykes-Picot accord) or to Malaysia (Anglo-Siam Treaty) or to any number of places when they left.

You are saying India was different and the British didn't have that option in India, and I am saying that is not so. They were the masters of creating artificial countries whose main determinant was that they would embroil the region in conflict for generations to come. If they had wanted to bestow that legacy on the Indian subcontinent, rest assured they were capable of creating the same Balkanized mess that they did in the rest of the world.

Again. You are trying to equate 2 distinct things.
Bharat Varsha is not comparable to the Ummah.
Distinct meanings, distinct references. And Bharat Varsha is very specific geographical entity.

Here's what I am saying:

Bharat varsh is to Caliphate
as
Hindutva is to ummah

 

[Contrarian]

We are not talking about division during British rule, but when they decided to leave and grant independence (mid 1940s). They could have done to India what they did to the Middle East (Sykes-Picot accord) or to Malaysia (Anglo-Siam Treaty) or to any number of places when they left.

Apples to Oranges comparison.
The situation in India was very very different.
A massively national level Indian Organization called Congress was negotiating on behalf of Indians.
The situation for Britishers was so bad that they had to strike deals just to get India to support the WW2.

Now after WW2, the situation is further worse for the British in every sense of the word. They have a committed schedule in which they are to leave house. No one wants them around. Congress is embedded in every Province of the country and is the single largest party and the GoI Act 1935 changes the way Govt is run and decisions are made in India.

In all of this situation, you think they can simply declare different Kingdoms before they leave? Something that Indians dont want in the first place.

And all that with Gandhi present who has extreme pull all over the country and can stop the country at will with his Non Cooperation Movement?

Comparison with Arabs is not even close.

Not possible by even the remotest stretch of imagination.

Here's what I am saying:

Bharat varsh is to Caliphate
as
Hindutva is to ummah

If you insist.
A clarification for me though - Can a caliphate not be declared in any part of the world and bring any part of the world under it?

 

[Developereo]

Comparison with Arabs is not even close.

The Brits made similar deals with the Arabs to rebel against the Ottomans. They promised them a united Arab homeland.

Behind the scenes, the Brits and the French had signed the Sykes-Picot accord to divide the region between themselves and then into small countries.

As we both agree, the regional rulers within India were eager for independence. The Brits would have found them willing partners in their plan, had they so chosen.

Gandhi's ability to move the masses would have been irrelevant if the Brits and the regional rulers were decided on their strategy.

PS. Once again, my point is that this is what the Brits did across their empire. You are suggesting that India was somehow different and the Brits couldn't have pulled it off here. I don't buy that. India could have been carved up into a dozen separate countries, just like other parts of the Empire were.

A clarification for me though - Can a caliphate not be declared in any part of the world and bring any part of the world under it?

Sure, but the concept remains the same: a glorious time in the past which was the golden age for the faithful.

 

[Contrarian]

The Brits made similar deals with the Arabs to rebel against the Ottomans. They promised them a united Arab homeland.

Behind the scenes, the Brits and the French had signed the Sykes-Picot accord to divide the region between themselves and then into small countries.

As we both agree, the regional rulers within India were eager for independence. The Brits would have found them willing partners in their plan, had they so chosen.

Gandhi's ability to move the masses would have been irrelevant if the Brits and the regional rulers were decided on their strategy.

Thats exactly the point I was trying to make. All the regional kingdoms were not significant enough to match British India(India that was directly under British rule).

And so, unless British divided the India they directly ruled into different piece's, British India was always going to dominate the different kingdoms.

And dividing British India was almost impossible without the support of the people because there was a powerful Congress in the Government.

And even if the British struck a deal with the Kingdoms to make them independent, India would simply have invaded and cajoled them right after independence. Because they were not powerful enough to withstand India. And India did just that after Independence with those kingdoms that did not fall in line when GoI asked them to.

Sure, but the concept remains the same: a glorious time in the past which was the golden age for the faithful.

Now that we are clear on that. Bharat varsha is not a time of glory. Its a place. We can make it glorious or we can screw it up. Bharat Varsha at different times has been glorious and has been ruled as well.