Was Partition worth it?

[RVS_108]

lets discuss







lets have a healthy discussion (No flames ,No Gaali Galich)

 

[VCheng]

This book is a good read on this topic:

from: Pakistan: Future unrosy | The Economist

Future unrosy
Was Partition always going to be violent?
Jan 20th 2011 | from PRINT EDITION

Tinderbox: The Past and Future of Pakistan. By M.J. Akbar. HarperCollins India; 343 pages; 499 rupees

WHEN India and Pakistan began, in 1947, they shared many of the same peoples and a legal and administrative history going back five centuries. What explains their subsequent divergence, with India now broadly stable and prosperous and Pakistan crisis-ridden? According to M.J. Akbar, an erudite Indian journalist who is a Muslim, “The idea of India is stronger than the Indian; the idea of Pakistan is weaker than the Pakistani.”

India was founded as a secular democracy. Given its great diversity, it is hard to think how it could have been otherwise. Pakistan was created to be a homeland for India’s Muslims, an idea that was weak on two counts. First, because it implied a threat to Muslims, or Islam, in Hindu- majority India that in retrospect appears bogus. India’s 160m Muslims are free and no worse off than Pakistan’s 180m. Second, the Islamic rationale for Pakistan contained an ambiguity about the role of Islam in the new state, which has given rise to extremism. As Mr Akbar writes, “the germ of theocracy lay in Pakistan’s genes.”

No one would have been more appalled by this than Pakistan’s founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah. A whisky-drinking anglophile, he envisaged Pakistan as an India-style democracy. Yet he also helped begin its descent by playing upon chauvinist Muslim fears for political gain. A stalwart of the independence movement, he had been a late convert to the cause of Pakistan, swayed to it only after the early collaboration between Hindu and Muslim freedom-fighters had broken down.

There were many reasons for this. Indian Muslims had a history of violent opposition to the British that was at odds with Gandhi’s non-violence. Their elite felt superior to Hindus—a hangover from the Mughal empire—and feared losing their residual privileges under Hindu rule. The leaders of the Congress party, including Jawaharlal Nehru, were insensitive to these fears. It also suited India’s British rulers to worsen the schism. Had any of these parties acted differently, the calamity of partition, in which perhaps a million perished, might perhaps have been avoided.

Among many recent books on Pakistan, Mr Akbar’s stands out. Above all, it is a fine and detailed history of Indian Muslim anger and insecurity, spawned by the 18th-century decline of the Mughals, and the way this played out in the freedom struggle. It is a lively read; Mr Akbar is a stylish writer with an excellent eye for a gag. Of the Mughal emperor Babur, he writes, he “was equally adept at writing poetry, art criticism, military strategy and piling rebel skulls in the shape of a pyramid.”

The book’s final chapters, on Pakistan’s recent struggle with militancy and extremism, are less good. That may have to do with Mr Akbar’s nationality. Denied much access to Pakistan, Indian analysts sometimes struggle to keep abreast of it. But that Mr Akbar is Indian, let it be said, is largely immaterial: his book is fair and balanced. So, too, were his opening remarks at its launch, attended by an array of Indian leaders. “If Salmaan Taseer had been an Indian Muslim, he would be alive today,” he said, referring to the Pakistani governor of Punjab, murdered by a fanatic this month. That was provocative; also true.

from PRINT EDITION | Books and Arts

 

[Last Hope]

Ofcourse it was! Do you want to live in a place, as a beggar, where you once ruled and getting pushed and pulled with Hindus plus the moaning britishers taking away with your skin and using it to make leather?
Or even denied education and jobs, that would result in people dying with hunger and the Muslims being wiped away from the heart of Asia?

 

[mjnaushad]

I think we discussed this 5 or 6 times before...

 

[Choppers]

It's high time this topic should be banned from this forum and any thread starter should be banned rightaway.

 

[W.11]

pakistan was the biggest blessing, inspite the fact there is huge corruption and illeteracy, but im still proud to be a pakistani, i will die as a black african then as an indian, i wished my abortion if i was to be born an indian

im so proud so much diversity in pakistan, on one side is balochistan, a touch of middle east, KP, azad kashmir a touch of central asia, punjab, land of agriculture and five rivers, sindh has port, a touch of all other provinces, and karachi the super multi ethnic city.... and we all live as muslims brothers...

 

[RVS_108]

may be the partition was an idea to save both community of India frm destroying eachother and jinnah was a real hero in this. I think i was wrong abt jinnah earlier and now i started to respect him.

 

[Ignited Mind]

we all live as muslims brothers...

Not really. Do you?

 

[Spring Onion]

I think we discussed this 5 or 6 times before...

Bharatis love to keep up with day dreaming that too the wet ones.


their denial mode will never change. Its time they should wake up to reality and accept Pakistan is a reality.

No going back to Saffron terrorists

 

[rockstarIN]

I feel it was good to part, sad part is both are alien to each other.

 

[Spring Onion]

This book is a good read on this topic:

from: Pakistan: Future unrosy | The Economist


from PRINT EDITION | Books and Arts

MJ Akbar is another bharati moron who would be the last person to present any neutral view on Pakistan specially after his moronic claim that Pakistan is going to break because it has different ethnic groups lolzzzz


one should tell this A$$ that Indian has more diverse ethnicity and by his criterion India should break the same way

 

[Truth Teller]

There was NO partition. Both Pakistan and india were created in 1947.

So why ask this stupid question about "partition".

 

[Jet Li]

I feel it was good to part, sad part is both are alien to each other.

why? north, south, east, west indians all hate each other. everybody hates indian punjabis and vice versa. kashmiris hate everybody. all indians hate each other and discriminate against each other (caste system, etc.). sikhs don't like to mingle with hindus in india, muslims in india keep their distances from hindus.... non-black skinned indians discriminate against black skinned indians. indians hate themselves --fair and lovely, etc.

what are you sad about? if there was no partition there would be just more hating and violence..... its better we are seperate and have nothing to do with each other.

 

[Ignited Mind]

why? north, south, east, west indians all hate each other. everybody hates indian punjabis and vice versa. kashmiris hate everybody. all indians hate each other and discriminate against each other (caste system, etc.). indians hate themselves --fair and lovely, etc.

 

[Desert Fox]

Oh great! Not another one of those threads.......