What's new

What If Attlee Hadn’t Partitioned India?

Let's just take a look at what happened to Zoroastrians in Iran, something a little distant from us both and so not very personal.

After the Muslim conquest of Persia, Zoroastrians were given dhimmi status and subjected to persecutions; discrimination and harassment began in the form of sparse violence.

Zoroastrians were made to pay an extra tax called Jizya, failing which they were either killed, enslaved or imprisoned. Those paying Jizya were subjected to insults and humiliation by the tax collectors.

Zoroastrians who were captured as slaves in wars were given their freedom if they converted to Islam.


You can read the whole thing here and look up references if you want to. You can also talk to a few Parsis.

Persecution of Zoroastrians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And this "dhimmi" thing was not unique to them at all. You can be sure of that.



Sure does.
I agree totally.

If you read Milton's Paradise Lost, you will find every Muslim country of today had their own religion. Where did the religions go and how???
 
It can tell one what happened to the minorities population share during and after partition though.

And one can also look at the trajectory of minority population after that.

One can also see which country almost completely ethnically cleansed itself during partition and thereafter.

The mass migrations were not always voluntary. They tell a tale by themselves.



Numbers don't lie.

From 20% to 1.5% is a decade surely would be called "prima facie evidence for ethnic cleansing".

But as I said, there is a pattern. It was not unique at all.



OK, but I will just provide a start. In such issues, self drive with an open mind helps best. Anyone else leading you all the way (and spoon feeding) can be called biased or worse.

Let's just take a look at what happened to Zoroastrians in Iran, something a little distant from us both and so not very personal.

After the Muslim conquest of Persia, Zoroastrians were given dhimmi status and subjected to persecutions; discrimination and harassment began in the form of sparse violence.

Zoroastrians were made to pay an extra tax called Jizya, failing which they were either killed, enslaved or imprisoned. Those paying Jizya were subjected to insults and humiliation by the tax collectors.

Zoroastrians who were captured as slaves in wars were given their freedom if they converted to Islam.


You can read the whole thing here and look up references if you want to. You can also talk to a few Parsis.

Persecution of Zoroastrians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And this "dhimmi" thing was not unique to them at all. You can be sure of that.



Sure does.

The Jaziya tax for Hindus was also introduced in India by one more religious fanatic Aurangzeb which led to rapid fall of Mughal empire and ascendancy of Maratha empire.


Regarding religious persecution, skinning alive and doling out eyes of Sambhaji Maharaj (son of shivaji) and killing him because he did not convert to islam is quite known in Maharashtra.
 
I am so glad for partition looking at Hindostans current state and Hindotani Muslims.

I praise Iqbal & Jinnah for getting us seperate from Hindus.



Hindu population decreased as mamy fled to India.
Although Muslim population has barely grown in Hindo land.

Hindu population decreased due to forced conversion & violences..:pissed:
 
As an avid fan of History I can't imagine when I read these assertions spelled out by a credible Historian ! Perhaps you could help me.

OK, as a special gesture just for you, I am giving you one more tip.

Have you heard of Will Durant? His "story of civilization" is considered one of the most influential books in history.

For Rousseau and Revolution, (1967), the 10th volume of The Story of Civilization, they were awarded the Pulitzer Prize for literature; later followed the highest award granted by the United States government to civilians, the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Ford in 1977.

This is what he writes:

The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within.

Now it is up to you to either get defensive, deny the whole thing, assume that it happened to someone else (and not to Pakistanis' ancestors themselves as well) or to dig a bit deeper.

I am sharing this only because you specifically asked.

And keep me updated on the progress you are making with the topic. You owe me that much now. ;)
 
1) What if British had not taken over what they called India and all of them were left as independent states?

2) What if when Pakistan got Independence the British did not use the option for the states of what they called India to form a union and left them as independent states?
 
i am glad that my ancestors gave us this land to live free of Hindu oppression.
But then, not free of the terrorists' oppression! From the frying pan to the fire! And thanks to your generals especially the likes of Zia who've been responsible for the state of affairs that Pakistan is in today.

You guys have abdicated your responsibilities of nation building to those mullahs, and fundoos like Hafiz Saeed and Co, who keep ranting and preach nothing but hate, intolerance and jehad.

And there are those who would rather fight for Islam than Pakistan. I was surprised to hear this sentiment from many members here on PDF.
 
But then, not free of the terrorists' oppression! From the frying pan to the fire! And thanks to your generals especially the likes of Zia who've been responsible for the state of affairs that Pakistan is in today.

You guys have abdicated your responsibilities of nation building to those mullahs, and fundoos like Hafiz Saeed and Co, who keep ranting and preach nothing but hate, intolerance and jehad.

And there are those who would rather fight for Islam than Pakistan. I was surprised to hear this sentiment from many members here on PDF.

You are saying as if we had this terrorist infestation since our independence. My childhood was as peaceful as every persons should be untill American came down cracking in afghanistan. Terrorist are a recent phenomena and have no links to our independence. We are as free as we can ever be ...

General Zia did what every leader would have done. If not for Afghan Jihadists pakistans would have been in the hands of communist soviet forces.

I don't care about those radical mullahs as every nation has got some fools in their ranks. Still those radical mullah didn't even manage to get a single seat in parliament and that is the measure of their popularity.

Those nuts are more than welcome to fight in the name of Islam but i don't share their sentiments as for me Islam is way of life rather than necessity of time. I endorse islam because i believe in its peaceful message. People who speak of jihad should know that Jihad Bil Qalam (Jihad with Pen) is the highest form of jihad in islam so one just simply cant bypass islamic teachings and resort to violence as first choice.
 
I have a feeling that India would have broken into 3 or 4 parts ... east, west, north, south... :lol:
 
Job made easy,now they can all fight each other to death and we sit quiet in the middle,kudos to the 2 nation theory.
 
In your dreams.

See stats in HDI, Poverty elevation rate ,Literacy, Universal enrollment, Per capita income, spending of money in education and healthcare,RTI, Right to Job (MNREGA), Right to education,Right to food, infrastructure spending, R&D spending and so on.

Did you see world bank report of poverty in Pakistan and India? 27% in India and 17% in Pakistan, on top of that per capita now is similar but before 2008 it was always ahead of India. And also gap between poor and rich is alot less in Pakistan.
 
very lengthy post but away from fact. it was not attlee but winston churchil who divided india with the help of force 136 controlling from background. jinna, maharaja of patiyala, nawab of dhaka patel were just pawns, playing into his hands.
 
Did you see world bank report of poverty in Pakistan and India? 27% in India and 17% in Pakistan, on top of that per capita now is similar but before 2008 it was always ahead of India. And also gap between poor and rich is alot less in Pakistan.

Rising poverty in Pakistan | Pakistan Tribune

UNDP suggested that almost 49% of Pakistanis are living below poverty line. In 2011 Finance Minister Abdul Hafeez Sheikh only gave some hint about poverty situation in Pakistan. According to his statement a 10% increase in food inflation results in 2.2% increase in Poverty. By this yardstick, Poverty was estimated to be around 43% till 2011. Benazir Income Support Program Chairman, Farzana Raja said that according to survey held by this institution almost 45% Pakistanis are living below poverty line.
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom