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

kalaghoda
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1
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.
5
reply
Mr-Dangerous
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2
Report 7 years ago
#2
A united India would probably have arrived on the world stage much sooner then India has today.

63 years of massive military expenditure by both Pakistan and India to stare each other down would never have occurred.

The horrors of partition in 1947, the wars of 1949, 1965.1971 and the clashes in The Rann Of Kutch, Siachin and Kargil would never have happened.

A look at the map will show you that from a purely geographical point of view, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh are fated to co-operated if they are to escape poverty and tackle the myriad of problems they face.

63 years is long enough to sort things out but to do that would have required a sincere and dedicated leadership. Pakistan lacks this and has fallen prey to one set of self-servers after another.

India has benefited from a relatively more stable post colonial set-up. While Pakistan's founder was dead with 18 months, India's lived 17 years after independence and was able to use his moral authority to impose stability.

While we hear about the problems besetting Pakistan, we should also acknowledge that India in spite of its impressive economic growth has a serious and very violent Marxist insurgency in 20 of its 28 states. the gap between rich and poor has not been bridged and the sense that the state has failed them is growing among a caste riven population.

The UK's fault? Surely every colonial power is to blame for the problems of a former colony. By definition, a master cannot allow a servant to rise too high in his abilities. The Empire encouraged Brits to come out from the UK to rule and discouraged natives from ruling themselves. If this had not been the policy, India would have thrown off Imperial rule decades before it did.

Jinnah, Nehru, Gandhi and Lord Mountbatten, all played a part in allowing the dynamics of partition to become Irresistable. Jinnah didn't want partition and neither did Gandhi but Nehru thought that it was in his interests to have it and then when, as predicted Pakistan fragmented within mouths of Independence, Nehru could have re-united India and delivered a political death blow to Jinnah.

Partition gave India almost all of the industries and resource needed for a modern state. pakistan was basically agricultural with little or no industry or resources. ALmost all the railway lines were in India and designed to feed India from territory that was Pakistani. Most of the harbours and airports were in India and to add insult to enjury, the parts of India that were to be ceded to Pakistan were whittled down to create the best advantage to India.

In the years from 1947, Pakistan has sunk mines, built Dams, factories, power stations and shipyards. The step motherly treatment hand out by the British regarding the distribution of national wealth and gold reserves is a factor. Only a Fast by Gandhi forced nehru to let Pakistan receive her share of military supplies from the former British Indian Army.

Mountbatten agreed with nehru but dispute countless predictions of Pakistan's demise, it still struggle on. Why? Because despite the pathetic leadership, hostility of neighbors and natural calamities, people are tough and resilient and patriotic.
23
reply
rei dos reis
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#3
Report 7 years ago
#3
Yes, maybe Pakistan wouldn't be such a ****hole then. And Bangladesh shouldn't have been given to Pakistan either. Oh well.
20
reply
kalaghoda
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#4
(Original post by Mr-Dangerous)
A united India would probably have arrived on the world stage much sooner then India has today.

63 years of massive military expenditure by both Pakistan and India to stare each other down would never have occurred.

The horrors of partition in 1947, the wars of 1949, 1965.1971 and the clashes in The Rann Of Kutch, Siachin and Kargil would never have happened.

A look at the map will show you that from a purely geographical point of view, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh are fated to co-operated if they are to escape poverty and tackle the myriad of problems they face.

63 years is long enough to sort things out but to do that would have required a sincere and dedicated leadership. Pakistan lacks this and has fallen prey to one set of self-servers after another.

India has benefited from a relatively more stable post colonial set-up. While Pakistan's founder was dead with 18 months, India's lived 17 years after independence and was able to use his moral authority to impose stability.

While we hear about the problems besetting Pakistan, we should also acknowledge that India in spite of its impressive economic growth has a serious and very violent Marxist insurgency in 20 of its 28 states. the gap between rich and poor has not been bridged and the sense that the state has failed them is growing among a caste riven population.

The UK's fault? Surely every colonial power is to blame for the problems of a former colony. By definition, a master cannot allow a servant to rise too high in his abilities. The Empire encouraged Brits to come out from the UK to rule and discouraged natives from ruling themselves. If this had not been the policy, India would have thrown off Imperial rule decades before it did.

Jinnah, Nehru, Gandhi and Lord Mountbatten, all played a part in allowing the dynamics of partition to become Irresistable. Jinnah didn't want partition and neither did Gandhi but Nehru thought that it was in his interests to have it and then when, as predicted Pakistan fragmented within mouths of Independence, Nehru could have re-united India and delivered a political death blow to Jinnah.

Partition gave India almost all of the industries and resource needed for a modern state. pakistan was basically agricultural with little or no industry or resources. ALmost all the railway lines were in India and designed to feed India from territory that was Pakistani. Most of the harbours and airports were in India and to add insult to enjury, the parts of India that were to be ceded to Pakistan were whittled down to create the best advantage to India.

In the years from 1947, Pakistan has sunk mines, built Dams, factories, power stations and shipyards. The step motherly treatment hand out by the British regarding the distribution of national wealth and gold reserves is a factor. Only a Fast by Gandhi forced nehru to let Pakistan receive her share of military supplies from the former British Indian Army.

Mountbatten agreed with nehru but dispute countless predictions of Pakistan's demise, it still struggle on. Why? Because despite the pathetic leadership, hostility of neighbors and natural calamities, people are tough and resilient and patriotic.
Interesting to hear your views. Just out of interest, are you Indian or Pakistani(doesn't really matter since I consider both to be the same)
6
reply
Mr-Dangerous
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#5
Report 7 years ago
#5
(Original post by kalaghoda)
Interesting to hear your views. Just out of interest, are you Indian or Pakistani(doesn't really matter since I consider both to be the same)
Pakistani
5
reply
Mr-Dangerous
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#6
Report 7 years ago
#6
(Original post by neo112)
1 chicken balti please with 2 naan bread.
garlic naan or normal ?
0
reply
HighestKungFu
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#7
Report 7 years ago
#7
(Original post by neo112)
1 chicken balti please with 2 naan bread.
Despite the seriousness of this topic, this made me lol.
3
reply
kalaghoda
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#8
(Original post by Mr-Dangerous)
Pakistani
My grandparents used to live in Lahore before Partition. In 1947, my grandfather was only 17 years old yet he still remembers some of his friends from Lahore and he says they used to live together without any problem. It's so sad that the country was separated due to RELIGION! That's the worst part really.
Anyway, he crossed the border into Delhi and ultimately settled in Mumbai.
2
reply
wanderlust.xx
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report 7 years ago
#9
It was going to happen. There was just far too much tension fuelled by religious wars and beliefs. It was probably better that it did; India was apparently warning the US to be wary of Pakistan when they first agreed to help each other with the war on terror... then we find that either Pakistani government has been corrupted/bought off by extremists, or that the Pakistani government is too inept to search for one man inside their own country.

If India and Pakistan were still joined, there would be massive amounts of tension in the government, the people, the states right now... and indeed since 9/11.
5
reply
kalaghoda
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#10
(Original post by Mr-Dangerous)
garlic naan or normal ?
"I'm going for the Grand Slam of naans tonight.Peshwari, Garlic, Keema & Plain"-David Lloyd
0
reply
kalaghoda
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#11
(Original post by wanderlust.xx)
It was going to happen. There was just far too much tension fuelled by religious wars and beliefs. It was probably better that it did; India was apparently warning the US to be wary of Pakistan when they first agreed to help each other with the war on terror... then we find that either Pakistani government has been corrupted/bought off by extremists, or that the Pakistani government is too inept to search for one man inside their own country.

If India and Pakistan were still joined, there would be massive amounts of tension in the government, the people, the states right now... and indeed since 9/11.
Read the post above yours. My grandfather was just one of thousands of Hindus and Muslims who lived together without any problem for centuries. It was the leaders at the time and even now who have a problem with each other.
0
reply
Anthony_k
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#12
Report 7 years ago
#12
my great grandmother, who is still living and was living through this used to talk to us about everything that happened around that time, and she clearly remembers that muslims and hindus didnt get along "peacefully" as you say, well not a lot of them anyway, and many still currently dont. There were constant fights, some over the smallest issues.
1
reply
wanderlust.xx
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#13
Report 7 years ago
#13
(Original post by kalaghoda)
Read the post above yours. My grandfather was just one of thousands of Hindus and Muslims who lived together without any problem for centuries. It was the leaders at the time and even now who have a problem with each other.
I disagree... there seemed to have been rising tensions in Gujarat around that time according to my Grandmother, which was created by the problems between the leaders. All in all, I don't think it's difficult to say that it was all indeed fuelled by religion.

Nonetheless it would be nigh on impossible for such conflicting ideologies to remain together for so long without something happening, especially since most Hindus/Muslims are very religious indeed.
0
reply
ibysaiyan
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#14
Report 7 years ago
#14
(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.
You're right about jinnah.He was secular and not in a million year did he wish to have an "Islamic republic of Pakistan" but it was in the mid 50's and General zia's era which provided the food and shelter to extremism.
0
reply
kalaghoda
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#15
(Original post by wanderlust.xx)
I disagree... there seemed to have been rising tensions in Gujarat around that time according to my Grandmother, which was created by the problems between the leaders. All in all, I don't think it's difficult to say that it was all indeed fuelled by religion.

Nonetheless it would be nigh on impossible for such conflicting ideologies to remain together for so long without something happening, especially since most Hindus/Muslims are very religious indeed.
yeah but how on earth did they live together for what, 2000 years almost then? And while there may be some Indians and Pakistanis who do hate each other, I have a lot of Pakistani friends and we get along just fine. It's the two governments(if you can call Pakistan's government a government) who have a problem IMO.
0
reply
kalaghoda
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#16
(Original post by wanderlust.xx)
I disagree... there seemed to have been rising tensions in Gujarat around that time according to my Grandmother, which was created by the problems between the leaders. All in all, I don't think it's difficult to say that it was all indeed fuelled by religion.

Nonetheless it would be nigh on impossible for such conflicting ideologies to remain together for so long without something happening, especially since most Hindus/Muslims are very religious indeed.
It's really interesting, something drastic must have happened for Jinnah to demand Pakistan. He did not practice Islam at all. I narrate an incident from the same book;
Jinnah invited Lord and Lady Mountbatten to Karachi in August 1947 to celebrate the creation of Pakistan and organized a lunch for them. However, at the last moment he was told that it was the month of Ramzan and the lunch was thus shifted to dinner.
Do you think a man like that would want to divide a country based on religion? It will remain one of history's greatest mysteries, don't you think?
0
reply
kalaghoda
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#17
(Original post by Anthony_k)
my great grandmother, who is still living and was living through this used to talk to us about everything that happened around that time, and she clearly remembers that muslims and hindus didnt get along "peacefully" as you say, well not a lot of them anyway, and many still currently dont. There were constant fights, some over the smallest issues.
People will always fight. There are plenty of Hindus and Muslims living in India today as well(along with Christians, Sikhs and Zoroastrians). Yes, there is the occasional riot and tension but by and large, we all live together in harmony.
0
reply
rei dos reis
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#18
Report 7 years ago
#18
(Original post by kalaghoda)
It's really interesting, something drastic must have happened for Jinnah to demand Pakistan. He did not practice Islam at all. I narrate an incident from the same book;
Jinnah invited Lord and Lady Mountbatten to Karachi in August 1947 to celebrate the creation of Pakistan and organized a lunch for them. However, at the last moment he was told that it was the month of Ramzan and the lunch was thus shifted to dinner.
Do you think a man like that would want to divide a country based on religion? It will remain one of history's greatest mysteries, don't you think?
I think its more to do with power. Noone would have let zinnah or any other major muslim at the time to rule india, zinnah was butthurt and wanted his own country to rule.
0
reply
G550NDH
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#19
Report 7 years ago
#19
You forgot about Sikhs as well mate
3
reply
kalaghoda
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#20
(Original post by /raees.rahim)
I think its more to do with power. Noone would have let zinnah or any other major muslim at the time to rule india, zinnah was butthurt and wanted his own country to rule.
probably. However, as a last-ditch effort to keep the country united, Gandhi did offer Jinnah the post of Prime Minister in a united India which Jinnah refused.
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! (443)
37.86%
No - but I will (88)
7.52%
No - I don't want to (80)
6.84%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (559)
47.78%

Watched Threads

View All