I'm doing a schoolproject were one of the questions sounds like this:
"Why did India split into India AND Pakistan in 1947" ?
My schoolbook tells me that under the WW2 the British empire wanted India to take a part on their side in the war. And the British used the promises "independent state" as baite to this.
When the WW2 was over, the muslims wanted their own state to get away from the chaos, and that is why they splitted India into two countries... but that doesen't say it all..
Can someone please tell me the answer on my schoolproject-question, or atleast try??
Muslims start a secession movement anywhere they are in local majority
Muslims were in local majority in bangladesh and pakistan
They achieved secession by means of mass rioting
Kashmir, Chechnya, Thailand, Xinjiang are all part of the same process
Your own nation of Norway is now being flooded with muslim illegals.
I am sure you can understand what they are going to do your nation after studying the India/Pakistan situation.
Yeah it's alot of them here. In our country we have about 8% immigrants. wow!
I read in the newspaper for some weeks ago about some muslims, whining about our food-products. "They couldn't read our language, so they demanded to get the list of ingredients on their mothertongue"! what the hell is that ?? I dont come to India and demands Norwegian language on their food-products. This is just the start, muslims love our soil, and just want more!
Trinitonn a lot of Europeans seem to be asleep to the Muslim threat, Islam itself preaches intolerance. You can just read some of the online books at the link given in this thread. Just to give u an example of Muslim intolerance, a couple of yrs ago there were Bradford riots in England (Bradford is about 25% Muslim I think), the media as usual dubbed it as Asian vs White riots but no Hindu and Sikh participated in the riots (infact some Hindu shops were burned by Muslims), the riots were actually Muslim vs White riots. Also in France in major cities like Paris there a lot of Muslim ghettos where even the police are afraid to go. Also in England Hindus and Sikhs are the most prosperous of communities while Muslims are the bottom (we are of the same race but diff religion). In Europe birth rates are falling, especially in Scandinavian countries u ppl should have more kids to match Muslim brith rate or else u are screwed. The best example of a demogarphic takeover of a country through breeding is Lebanon, Lebanon was 60% Christian and 40% Muslim once but now it is 70% Muslim and 30% Christian (see what Muslims accomplished through their breeding).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This is just the start, muslims love our soil, and just want more!
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They don't just love your soil, they want to rape your girls and circumcise your boys.
The whole problem with Europe is that Christianity destroyed your traditional native religions. This reduced the traditional loyalty that one has for the ways of his ancestors.
So now you are mentally demoralized and islam is stepping into this vaccum.
So first get rid of Christianity, which is a middle eastern hoax anyway closely allied to Islam. Then get back to worshiping your traditional Gods - Odin, Thor etc...
Finally, round up all the muslims and kick them out of your country.
Interesting reading you got there =) Makes me want studying this closer.. I'll do!
mitradena:
Why did I suddenly get the impression of you dont love the muslims so well <!--emo&<img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />--><img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo-->
You have som good points worth take in mind, and in other cases actually should have been enlighted!
My land is seen on as a Christian country, though many people aren't Christians. So I guess you have right, get rid of the Christianity!! But it ain't that simple when our prime minister is a preast!! hehe
I can almost guarantee that most our citizens dont want the Christianity.. and in the same slant we can put our king and his stupid realm!
This may interest you Madrasah in Oslo & Shariah Coming Soon <!--emo&:lol:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='laugh.gif' /><!--endemo-->
From the above link:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"4. Islamic relief fund: Deserving Muslims all over the world are given financial assistence, the afflicted are given timely relief. Regular payments are provided to such individuals in <b>Afghanistan, Bosnia Hersegovina, Somlia, Kashmir, Chechenia, Pakistan,</b> and other countries."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Trinitonn coming back to ur original question, the reason India was split was not because Muslims wanted to get away from the chaos. The real reason was that they ruled over India for hundreds of yrs and butchered dead millions of Hindus (no exaggeration) and generally had a privileged position. Even during Biritish they had a privileged position (they had a very high representaion in the British army even though they were only 23% of the total popualtion), this just is an example of their being better off than Hindus because they actively collobarated with British. Trinitonn by 1940's they soon realised that British were going to leave soon and also that they will no longer be able to rule over Hindus, on the contrary Hindus will finally have political power after centuries, so they wanted Pakistan so that they can escape the rule of Kaffir's (In Islam an unbeliever is a Kaffir). Also u will notice in the West a lot of nonsense statements about Hindus and Muslims being equally resposible for partition riots, actually Muslims started murdering Hindus and Sikhs as soon as they got Pakistan and sent us dead bodies of Hindus and Sikhs on trains with the slogan "Pakistan's gift to Hindustan", this enraged Hindus and Hindus began retaliating. If we were equally responsible then why is that Hindu popualtion is not even 2% in Pakistan now (they were 25% during 1947). Now look at Indian Muslim population, it was 9% after Hindu retaliation ended and now they are 15%, so how is it that Muslim pop keeps on increasing if Hindus are persecuting Muslims. Massive retaliation occured in Punjab, West Punjab got cleansed of non muslims and Hindus and Sikhs retaliated and cleansed East Punjab of Muslims. Just to give an example of what Muslims did to Hindu and Sikh women, they inserted dagger's into the vaginas of Hindu and Sikh women, and did not even spare children and old ppl, they paraded Hindu women naked in Pakistan and sent us thousand of Hindu and Sikh dead bodies. There are hundreds of stories of how Hindu and Sikh women jumped in well's to committ mass suicide to save their honour from Muslim rapists, sometimes Hindu and Sikh men killed their womenfolk so that no Muslim can rape them. All this continued uninterrupted with the police and army collobarating with Muslims (Muslims were in a very high % in both police and army). After partition we allowed some Muslims to stay back because they didn't to leave unlike Pakistanis who cleansed Pakistan of Hindus and Sikhs, now instead of being grateful to Hindus for allowing them to stay, they resumed their old behaviour. In india Muslims can have 4 wives (so they have sharia law in civil matters), they get hajj subsidy from gov't and many other special privileges. Even recently in 1989 they ethnic cleansed Kashmiri Pandits and these ppl have been living in refugee camps for 14 yrs, the gov't doesn't care for them because they are Hindus. Have u ever seen such an ungrateful community, instead of thanking us for our genorosity they again want to rule over Hindus. If u have any more questions ask me.
crosspost
SirâThis refers to the report, âLeft beats Gandhi with communal stickâ (April 17). Zahoor Siddiqui, Reader in the Department of History, in his book prescribed for BA Pass students has reportedly held Mahatma Gandhi responsible for failing to enthuse Muslims and selling the idea that Ram Rajya alone was ideal swaraj.<b> He has also blamed the Congress for not devising appropriate social, political and economic measures to bring the minority community into the Congress. This is complete distortion of historical facts. In this context, it will be pertinent to recall what Pattabhi Sitaramaiyya said in 1947 on being asked as to what concessions had the Congress made till then to Muslims. He replied, âIn 1906 separate electorates were carved out for Muslims and in 1916 weightage was given so that a State like Madras with seven per cent Muslims got 15 elected seats; in 1931, residual powers were given to provinces; and in 1945, parity in interim government was agreed to under Liaquat-Bhulabhai pact. As demanded by the Muslim League, in 1946 double majority in legislatures on Muslim questions was accepted by the Congress. In 1947, Congress agreed to the Muslim Leagueâs demand for Pakistan along religious lines (Current History by Dr Sitaramaiyya, Calcutta, 1947, p 26). Ultimately, Mahatma Gandhi went on fast to pressure Government to release Rs 55 crore to Pakistan despite the fact that the country had invaded Kashmir. This shows that it was not Gandhi who was responsible for Partition but Muslims of UP who were in the forefront, raising the demand for Dar-ul Islam. In the elections held in 1945-46, Muslims overwhelmingly voted for a separate nation. In spite of all this Muslims did not migrate to their new homeland. Was it the fault of Hindus? </b>
KR Phanda
I just wanted to ask something, during partition some Hindu majority districts were given to Pakistan, does anyone know how many such districts were there, for example:
1) Thar Parkar of Sindh (was 80% Hindu I heard)
2) Sylphet (was 53% Hindu but some basta*d named J.N Mandal asked OBC's to vote to join Pakistan which they did, afterwards he got ethnic cleansed)
So are there any more such districts which Muslims grabbed and how the hell did Hindus give up districts like Thar Parkar in which they were in an overwhelming majority.
Tharparkar was 52% hindu
but it was in Sindh and the congress failed to make any demands on sindh
like the muslims made on Assam
Sylhet in Assam was 60% muslim and we lost 53%- 47%
Undoubtedly the swing margin came from the scumbag JN.Mandal, a Dalitist
who deservedly got ethnic cleansed to India along with commie leadership of
west bengal such as Jyoti Basu
We lost Chittagong hill tracts 97% hindu-buddhist
We traded Khulna 51% hindu for Murshidabad 40% hindu, so that we got control of the headworks of the Ganges
We Got Gurdaspur 51% muslim
The nawab of Mirpurkhas in Sindh wanted to accede to India, but Nehru turned him down
With more foresight we could have grabbed a few more districts and expelled a few more muslims
The failure to do population exchange on the eastern front will lead to another partition
If we had expelled muslims of west bengal and assam,
the muslim % in residual India will now be just 10%, not 13.4%
Thanks very much GS for the info, where do u get all this info from (is it from any book) if it is give me the name of the book
"JN.Mandal, a Dalitist
who deservedly got ethnic cleansed to India along with commie leadership of
west bengal such as Jyoti Basu"
Actually I wish all these traitors got killed right there in East Bengal.
I also heard we gave away Kulna and Kishanganj which I heard were Hindu majority, is this tru or not.
"The nawab of Mirpurkhas in Sindh wanted to accede to India, but Nehru turned him down"
Was Mirpurkhas Hindu majority.
GS can u also confirm this, a lot of ppl said that in the 1900's many Muslim Kashmiris wanted to reconvert but that Benares Hindu University truned them down (after Kashmiri Maharaja contacted the university about the reconversion). Is this tru or not, i heard that this is discussed in detail in Nehru's book "Discovery of India" (i don't know pg number), if u know about this can u provide me with a reference.
06-06-2005, 09:17 AM (This post was last modified: 06-06-2005, 09:18 AM by G.Subramaniam.)
Kishangunj is in North east bihar
Well within India, but 70% muslim and home to the notorious Taslimuddin
a Laloo supporter
Khulna was 51% hindu
We exchanged Khulna for Murshidabad to control the headworks of the Ganges
If we had lost Murshidabad, the pakis or BDs could dry up the hoogly and dry up Kolkata
Mirpurkhas was 80% muslim, but in the provincial elections of 1946,
Jinnah only won 60% of the Sindhi muslim vote and many Sindhi muslims did not want pakistan
Per my recollection the kashmiri muslim reconversion episode happened in 1880
Cross post
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->N S Rajaram's Response to Dr. J. K. Bajaj's Statement
[Start]
Dr Bajaj has given an excellent summary. Jinnah's statement was an aberration, that is a contrast to the ground reality. Mr Advani, like most Indian leaders has shown a profound ignorance of history. At the same time there cannot be much doubt that Jinnah was primarily a secular figure who used Islam as a political tool-- just as Ram Vilas Paswan is using it today.
But the blame for the partition and its horrors cannot be placed exclusively on Jinnah. Gandhi and the Congress-- Gandhi's "religious sophistry" (to paraphrase Sri Aurobindo) and the Congress loss of nerve were no less to blame. And a point that is unpleasant but must be faced-- Bengali character of lack of will to fight were no less responsible.
This is a truth that must be faced: there is a serious problem, still with us and may divide India agains by losing large parts of the East to Bangladesh. For this Bengalis and their leaders are to be held responsible. I see Communism in West Bengal also as a mark of dhimmitude, preparation for the day when they may have to live under Bangldeshi Muslims. They see what is happening to the minorities in Bangladesh and are looking apprehensively to the future when they too might have to live under a similar regime. So they are whitewashing history and also ignoring the plight of the Hindus in Bangladesh (and turning back on Tasleem Nasrin).
After all many of the Communist leaders in West Bengal are victims of the Partition but still their fear of Islam makes them curry favor with their tormentors in the hope that they will be spared. They won't be-- see what happened to the Communists in Iran after Khomeini and also in Pakistan. There are no Communists in Bangladesh either, or in Jammu and Kashmir for that matter.
As Churchill once said: "An appeaser is one who keeps feeding a crocodile in the hope it will eat him last."
But Gandhi is a different matter. He, not Jinnah legitimized Muslim separatism by sponsoring the Khilafat and the Ali Brothers. But unlike Jinnah who made no secret of his aims, Gandhi and the Congress deceived the public by claiming that they would never allow Partition.This was the promise on which the Congress won the election.
And now Gandhi, the sponsorer of the Khilafat, supporter of the Ali Brothers, apologist for the Moplah atrocities-- is being held up as a 'secular' figure!
It is not clear that Indians are mature enough to face the truth about their history. They seem still to live in denial or fear of Muslim violence.
One good thing that can come out of this Advani fiasco is that there may be an open debate about Gandhi and Congress role in the Partition.
For more on this, see my book GANDHI, KHILAFAT AND THE NATIONAL MOVEMENT. It is available on internet at: Click
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
<b>Jinnahâs estrangement</b>
Mr LK Advaniâs recent statements in Pakistan about Mohammad Ali Jinnah have stirred a hornetâs nest in the country. Much is being talked about the course of events that turned a âsecularâ Jinnah into the eventual creator of Pakistan, foremost among them being his relationship with Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. In this connection, their three encounters between 1915 and 1920 assume great significance. Jinnah was in the forefront as the chairman of the Gujarat Society, welcoming Gandhi when he came back from South Africa in 1915. The first meeting itself destroyed Jinnahâs ambition of becoming the leader of India and not of Muslims alone. He did not relish Gandhiâs remark, who was glad to find âa Mohammedan not only belonging to his regionâs sabha, but (also) chairing itâ. To borrow a sentence from Stanley Wolpertâs Jinnah of Pakistan, âThat first statement set the tone of their relationship, always at odds with deep tensions and mistrust.â The second major encounter took place at the War Conference in Delhi in 1918 where Gandhi supported the resolution that endorsed recruitment of Indians for the British war efforts. Jinnah opposed the move. In a telegram sent to the Viceroy, he observed, âWe cannot ask our young men to fight for principles, the application of which is denied to their own country... India... must be a partner in the Empire... not as a dependency.â During the meeting, Jinnah was ruled out of participation in the debate. This might have hurt the sentiments of a person for whom the very idea of being anything less than number one was repugnant. The 1920 Congress session attended by 14,582 delegates further pulled the two leaders apart. It was a turning point in the history of the Congress when Gandhiâs resolution on the non-cooperation and civil disobedience was carried by 1886 to 884 votes. Jinnah vehemently opposed the resolution and wanted the continuation of moderate constitutional means to achieve the goal of self-governance. Such was the heat generated during the debate that Jinnah was hooted down, sealing the chances of cooperation between the two leaders in building the future of India.
BP SrivastavaÂ
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Perhaps the most intriguing speculation about recent Indian history and politics - in the wake of the furore surrounding remarks made in Pakistan by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader LK Advani - is what would have happened if Mohammmad Ali Jinnah had accepted Mahatma Gandhi's offer of being prime minister of undivided India.
Although Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel were averse to the idea when it was put to them by the Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, there is little doubt that if Gandhi had insisted, they would have had no option but to accept it. Gandhi may not have been an ordinary member of the Congress, his moral stature was so high that no one could have opposed his express wishes.
Nehru and Patel were of course appalled at the suggestion, with the former being "shocked to learn", as historian Stanley Wolpert says in his biography of Jinnah "that the Mahatma was quite ready to replace him as premier with the Quaid-e-Azam". Jinnah, on the other hand, was not unresponsive. Mountbatten noted, "Mr. Gandhi's famous scheme may yet go through on the pure vanity of Mr Jinnah!"
Yet, if it was never seriously considered, it is apparently because of the viceroy's personal animus towards Jinnah, whom he considered to be a "psychopathic case". As Mountbatten said: "Until I met him, I would not have thought it possible that a man with such a complete lack of administrative knowledge or sense of responsibility could achieve or hold down so powerful a position."
<b>So, probably, the last chance to save India from partition floundered, first, on Gandhi's failure to insist that his idea be given a fair try. Secondly, because of Nehru's and Patel's objections, presumably because they were keen on the top positions for themselves. As Nehru later said, they were getting on in years and did not want to wait for too long for India's independence. And thirdly, because Mountbatten was unable to interact with the "frigid, haughty and disdainful" Jinnah as freely as he did with Nehru.</b>
There were others, too, who were less open to the idea of the Quaid-e-Azam as the prime minister. George Abell, one of Mountbatten's aides, expressed the fear that there might be a civil war since Jinnah's cabinet would be wholly subordinate to the Congress majority in the central legislature while the civil servant VP Menon said that the move might create political complications since it would "place Jinnah in the position of having to adjust his views to those of the Congress".
Even if Gandhi's suggestion is seen as utopian and "unrealistic", as Nehru had said, it nevertheless shows that on the eve of partition, Jinnah did not have the kind of unflattering image as he would later have in India. That image is the result of the communal riots that accompanied the division of the country and in the aftermath of the call for "direct action" given by the Muslim League in August 1946.
Notwithstanding these negative aspects of Jinnah's politics, no student of Indian history can forget his role as the "ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity", as he was called by Gopal Krishna Gokhale and Sarojini Naidu in the 1920s and 1930s. It is evidently this reputation of being the ambassador to which Gandhi was harking back when he wanted him to be the prime minister.
As is obvious, therefore, Jinnah's career in politics can be divided into two halves. The first half saw him in the secular camp, engaged in the task of bringing Hindus and Muslims together. That his belief in secularism never died is evident from the speech on August 11, 1947, to the Pakistan Constituent Assembly which Advani referred to while in Pakistan.
But the second half of Jinnah's political career undoubtedly saw him abandoning secularism for the sake of communal politics, as when he projected the Muslim League as the only party which could save the Indian Muslims from coming under a Hindu raj ushered in by the Congress after independence.
This stance followed the resounding defeat suffered by the League at the hands of the Congress in the 1937 elections which convinced Jinnah and other Muslim leaders that their party had little chance of defeating the seemingly all-powerful Congress in the foreseeable future. It could only do so by whipping up communal sentiments and identifying the Congress as a party only of the Hindus. In arguing his case against the Congress's claim to represent all the communities in India, Jinnah floated his two-nation theory, which portrayed Hindus and Muslims as belonging to two separate "nations".
Arguably, he did not believe in it as ardently as he claimed, for, otherwise, he would not have accepted the Cabinet Mission's plan for a federal India in which the Muslim-majority states of what is today Pakistan and Bangladesh would have been a part of the Union of India. If this plan fell through, the reason is, as Maulana Abul Kalam Azad says in his book "India Wins Freedom", that Nehru said that the Congress would enter the Constituent Assembly unfettered by any agreement. Jinnah used this disclaimer to withdraw his acceptance of the Cabinet Mission plan and call for "direct action".
There were two opportunities, therefore, for avoiding the partition. One was Gandhi's offer to Jinnah to be prime minister. And the other was the Cabinet Mission plan, which had secured the approval of both the Congress and the Muslim League, <b>till Nehru made his fateful observation</b>.
(Ganguli is a political analyst. He can be reached at aganguli@mail.com)
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Was forwarded via email..
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In 1941 Dr Ambedkar wrote a masterpiece 'Thoughts on Pakistan' wherein
he supported the creation of Pakistan by providing rare insights into
the sub-continent Muslim mind and how Hindu India (that generated the
economic wealth) was supporting a British Army that was predominently
Muslim. What I have reproduced are main excerpts with analysis.
7. Weakening of India's Defences  -  contains Questions of
frontier, resources and armed forces, examines the myth that martial races
belonged to Punjab, data on changes in communal composition of the Army. Â
A MUST READ. http://www.esamskriti.com/html/new_inside....id=149&count1=6
8. Pak & Communal Peace  -   will creation of PAK solve the
Communal question, how will its creation affect the position of Muslims in
Hindustan, does the creation of PAK solve the communal problem in India. http://www.esamskriti.com/html/new_inside....id=149&count1=7
9. Hindu alternative to PAKÂ Â - outlines Savarkar's thoughts on
Hinduism. It analysis Gandhi's approach, Khilfat Movement and its impact on
Hindu Muslim relations 1920-1940.              A MUST
READ. http://www.esamskriti.com/html/new_inside....id=149&count1=8
13. Communal Aggression  -  political aggression of the Muslims,
how the British aided Muslim separaticism starting 1892, how the Muslims
exploited Hindu weakness, an excellent analysis of the Muslim mind.   Â
A MUST READ. http://www.esamskriti.com/html/new_inside....d=149&count1=12
14. National Frustration  -  understanding Muslim mind on
Independence, key tenets of Islam, Gandhi & Jesus, attempts at Hindu-Muslim
unity, causes of the Hindu Muslim divide, evidence that PAK was conceived
before 1923, summary & epilogue. http://www.esamskriti.com/html/new_inside....d=149&count1=13
' />--><img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo-->