For Indians and Pakistanis(and brits too if you want to comment) Watch

lonely14
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#21
Report 7 years ago
#21
(Original post by G550NDH)
You forgot about Sikhs as well mate
:rofl2:
0
reply
kalaghoda
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#22
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#22
(Original post by G550NDH)
You forgot about Sikhs as well mate
I'm sorry. Yes sikhs as well.
This isn't relevant to this discussion, but the Sikhs wanted a separate state around the early 80's I think. I don't know much about that, do you know why that came about?
Thank god you guys didn't get your own country though, sikhs are awesome people. Besides, who would we laugh at then? :P ..Jokes..
0
reply
username247300
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#23
Report 7 years ago
#23
Just image the cricket team if they were still one country........... I didn't read the entire post, it was too long, so I'm not going to give proper answer to the question.
2
reply
kalaghoda
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#24
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#24
(Original post by King-Panther)
Just image the cricket team if they were still one country........... I didn't read the entire post, it was too long, so I'm not going to give proper answer to the question.
Haha yeah, on a lighter note, imagine Kapil Dev and Imran Khan in one team. Or Sachin and Inzamam, and now Zaheer Khan and Umar Gul opening the bowling. Lol
0
reply
The Lyceum
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#25
Report 7 years ago
#25
(Original post by kalaghoda)
I'm sorry. Yes sikhs as well.
This isn't relevant to this discussion, but the Sikhs wanted a separate state around the early 80's I think. I don't know much about that, do you know why that came about?
Thank god you guys didn't get your own country though, sikhs are awesome people. Besides, who would we laugh at then? :P ..Jokes..
Well the thing is, Punjab was essentially the Sikhs country wasn't it? You can even hear that in the language, descended from the Tsausareni prakit (I'm a historical linguist)

From a historical point of view partition was pretty ****ty, especially considering the central importance of the Punjab to the formation of Indian culture re language and religion.

I can't say I know much, or am overly interested in really modern history though. Who do people tend to blame for partition in India/Pakistan? This should prove an interesting discussion.
1
reply
kalaghoda
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#26
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#26
(Original post by King-Panther)
Just image the cricket team if they were still one country........... I didn't read the entire post, it was too long, so I'm not going to give proper answer to the question.
And also, **** players like Ajit Agarkar and Shoaib Malik wouldn't get into the team. Good times.
0
reply
kalaghoda
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#27
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#27
(Original post by The Lyceum)
Well the thing is, Punjab was essentially the Sikhs country wasn't it? You can even hear that in the language, descended from the Tsausareni prakit (I'm a historical linguist)

From a historical point of view partition was pretty ****ty, especially considering the central importance of the Punjab to the formation of Indian culture re language and religion.

I can't say I know much, or am overly interested in really modern history though. Who do people tend to blame for partition in India/Pakistan? This should prove an interesting discussion.
The three main people blamed are Jawaharlal Nehru, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Lord Mountbatten, I think.
0
reply
Hemzo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#28
Report 7 years ago
#28
Even now, if you talk to the Indian/Pakistani born Brits, they don't care if their friends are Muslim or Hindu. We've grown up in England around different faiths and views of different people.

In India, before the partition, I believed that this was the same case. Both Muslims and Hindus got on along well with eachother. Sai Baba of Shirdi preached peace between Muslims and Hindus, he was neither Hindu or Muslim, but encouraged everyone to follow their religion with devotion.

Most likely that our grandparents who were born after the partition still have hatred for one another, but why did it start? Did they orgininally hate them? No, of course not. The partition split the Muslims and Hindu's into two different countries, which I believe was the great fault of Jinnah. Why would you segregate two different cultures and religions when the majority originally got along with eachother? It doesn't make sense.

If you segregate the two cultures into different countries, it will obviously mean that they are not as open or as understand as they would have been prior to the partition. In Pakistan, Muslims will have only heard about Islam and in India, Hindus would of mainly heard about Hinduism, Sikhism and maybe some parts of Islam (Indian cricket team has a few Muslims.)

Call it patriotic or call it pride, it was a stupid idea, which should have never occured. When Gandhi was fasting to stop the violence between the two, I believe it was a story of Gandhi giving a Muslim boy (his father had been killed) to a Hindu, telling him to teach him everything about Islam and to make sure he grows up to be a faithful Muslim. I accept all religions and faiths, as should everyone else in society, but this hatred between Indians and Pakistani's (in Pakistan/India border) will not end until the conflicts in Kashmir are addressed and each Indian person will be able to call their fellow Pakistani's a friend (and vice versa).
0
reply
Ventura7
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#29
Report 7 years ago
#29
If it wasnt for the british your countries would still be a mess, still run by tribal leaders, no real democratic government and no real cities.
3
reply
User570431
Badges: 15
#30
Report 7 years ago
#30
The CRICKET TEAM would be even more AMAZING!
We would have tendulkar and shoeb akhtar and Dhoi we would have a bad ass team!
0
reply
kalaghoda
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#31
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#31
(Original post by Ventura7)
If it wasnt for the british your countries would still be a mess, still run by tribal leaders, no real democratic government and no real cities.
True, but they did have a role to play in the partition as well. I'm pretty fair as far as this is concerned. The British certainly did help the Indians/Pakistanis a lot HOWEVER, they did exploit us mercilessly, looted us and did everything for their own selfish gain.
This also warrants a different thread. This thread is about whether a united India would have been better. Cheers
0
reply
kalaghoda
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#32
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#32
(Original post by Hemzo)
Even now, if you talk to the Indian/Pakistani born Brits, they don't care if their friends are Muslim or Hindu. We've grown up in England around different faiths and views of different people.

In India, before the partition, I believed that this was the same case. Both Muslims and Hindus got on along well with eachother. Sai Baba of Shirdi preached peace between Muslims and Hindus, he was neither Hindu or Muslim, but encouraged everyone to follow their religion with devotion.

Most likely that our grandparents who were born after the partition still have hatred for one another, but why did it start? Did they orgininally hate them? No, of course not. The partition split the Muslims and Hindu's into two different countries, which I believe was the great fault of Jinnah. Why would you segregate two different cultures and religions when the majority originally got along with eachother? It doesn't make sense.

If you segregate the two cultures into different countries, it will obviously mean that they are not as open or as understand as they would have been prior to the partition. In Pakistan, Muslims will have only heard about Islam and in India, Hindus would of mainly heard about Hinduism, Sikhism and maybe some parts of Islam (Indian cricket team has a few Muslims.)

Call it patriotic or call it pride, it was a stupid idea, which should have never occured. When Gandhi was fasting to stop the violence between the two, I believe it was a story of Gandhi giving a Muslim boy (his father had been killed) to a Hindu, telling him to teach him everything about Islam and to make sure he grows up to be a faithful Muslim. I accept all religions and faiths, as should everyone else in society, but this hatred between Indians and Pakistani's (in Pakistan/India border) will not end until the conflicts in Kashmir are addressed and each Indian person will be able to call their fellow Pakistani's a friend (and vice versa).
As someone has said before on this thread, it was partly a power and ego issue too. Both Nehru and Jinnah craved power and wanted to rule a free India. Jinnah probably realized that Nehru would have the backing of the Hindu majority and thus demanded a new state. Maybe.
2
reply
User570431
Badges: 15
#33
Report 7 years ago
#33
How long before they unite? I think it will be long and hard many many years...
0
reply
EssexDan86
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#34
Report 7 years ago
#34
The British were to blame for a lot of the problems coming out of colonial rule and the partition.

However, without the British, there would never have been such a thing as 'India'. The subcontinent was a mishmash of different disunited and warring kingdoms, empires and ethnic groups, and by binding it together with a strong civil service and railway (which is still vital to modern India), it laid the ground for the creation of an Indian national identity.
0
reply
kalaghoda
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#35
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#35
(Original post by blueray)
How long before they unite? I think it will be long and hard many many years...
Never. Atleast not in our lifetime.
0
reply
kalaghoda
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#36
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#36
(Original post by EssexDan86)
The British were to blame for a lot of the problems coming out of colonial rule and the partition.

However, without the British, there would never have been such a thing as 'India'. The subcontinent was a mishmash of different disunited and warring kingdoms, empires and ethnic groups, and by binding it together with a strong civil service and railway (which is still vital to modern India), it laid the ground for the creation of an Indian national identity.
That is true Dan. The British also had a role to play in abolishing some horrible social customs.
However, we want OUR Kohinoor Diamond(still in the Tower of London) back. On second thoughts, it's better if you keep it. There'd be yet another fight between India and Pakistan to determine who gets it.
0
reply
Josh_Dey
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#37
Report 7 years ago
#37
Yes, I agree. India should have stayed as one. Not partitioned.

It's a shame really...
0
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#38
Report 7 years ago
#38
(Original post by kalaghoda)
Don't you think India should never have been partitioned into India and Pakistan? Hindus and Muslims were living together in peace for centuries before the British adopted the 'Divide and Rule' policy and influenced certain Muslim leaders to push for Pakistan.
Jinnah was the most secular person and didn't even practice Islam. I don't know how he ever got the idea of creating a separate state for Pakistan. I'm reading a book 'The true story of India's Partition'. The author has stated that Jinnah, on his deathbed, remarked, "I have got what I wanted, but I have committed the greatest blunder of my life".
I just feel that it would have been so much better and life would be so much easier today if India had never been partitioned.
I'd say it should not have been done. But only if Britian did not launch the divide and rule policy. By 1947 it was starting to flare into violence. At this point partition was the only way to stop an even bigger bloodbath
0
reply
Tonn
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#39
Report 7 years ago
#39
I think you guys are paying too much attention to the 'great man' school of thinking on this one.

The people at the top had very little impact apart from drawing up maps and seperating areas. what drove the conflict was an inflated sense of nationalism, religion, and economic factors.

I highly doubt even if partition had gone well there wouldnt still have been deepseated nationalist feeling on behalf of the pakistanis, especially if they were being ruled by a secular state.

The Brits failed miserably to prevent conflict. but to continue blaming them for the problems of partitioning detatches from the agency that the Indian and Pakistani people had at the time, it was their choices to undertake certain actions which led to war.

Events and individuals are over-rated, look at the clergy and economics to understand why conflicts occur
1
reply
The Lyceum
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#40
Report 7 years ago
#40
(Original post by EssexDan86)
The British were to blame for a lot of the problems coming out of colonial rule and the partition.

However, without the British, there would never have been such a thing as 'India'. The subcontinent was a mishmash of different disunited and warring kingdoms, empires and ethnic groups, and by binding it together with a strong civil service and railway (which is still vital to modern India), it laid the ground for the creation of an Indian national identity.
On the other hand I can imagine the country being put together on the basis of somelike Ashoka or Chandragupta or many of the other similar figures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka

Though I see your point, I thought I'd make a post mainly just to share an interesting figure with a bizarre textual history.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (481)
37.93%
No - but I will (98)
7.73%
No - I don't want to (88)
6.94%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (601)
47.4%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise