India Partition What If Scenario Disaster

What If India Were Not Partitioned?
This is the quintessential What If question. It is counterfactual because now we can never know
what would have happened if India had not been partitioned. But we can speculate about the
possibilities and try and construct plausible scenarios for purposes of understanding and
discussion.
In this post we argue against the scenario presented by Aakar Patel in his op-ed in The News on
September 22, 2008. Aakar Patels one-line conclusion is that an unpartitioned India would have
been a disaster for both Hindus and Muslims.
Let us first list the points we aim to contend:
Unpartitioned India would be the words largest country (1.4 billion people), the worlds largest
Muslim country (500 million) and the worlds poorest country (over 600 million hungry).
In undivided India, religion would have dominated political debate, as it did in the 30s and 40s,
and consensus on reform would be hard to build internally. All energy would be sucked into
keeping the country together. Undivided India would have separate electorates, the irreducible
demand of the Muslim League and the one that Nehru stood against. A democracy with
separate electorates is no democracy at all.
Hindus would never have been able to rule Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan or the Frontier.
Without Partition there would have been no Nizam-e-Mustafa.
The fault line of national politics in undivided India would have remained Hindu versus Muslim.
Jinnah alone understood that from the start. Nehru and Patel understood it much later, agreeing
to Partition. Gandhi never understood it; if he did, he never accepted it.
Three parts of undivided India had a Muslim majority. The west became Pakistan, the east
became Bangladesh. Sooner or later, the north will become something else: the Muslims of
Kashmir do not want to be India. But Indians do not understand that.
Let us now respond in order and present a different perspective:
Undivided India need not have been the worlds poorest country. The resources, attention and
energy that have gone into the continued hostility since Partition could have been channeled into
development. (See the cost of conflict estimated by the Strategic Foresight Group, Mumbai). The
huge market and the complementarities of arbitrarily divided ecosystems could have yielded
great benefits. Huge investments went into making up for the division of the Indus water system,
for example.
!1
A democracy need not be a mechanical and rigid system. Malaysia, with three, not two, hostile
communities found a way to adjust its system of governance to suit its constraints. South Africa,
with its bitter history of apartheid, found a way in its constitution to work around the hostilities.
There was no reason India could not have found a similarly workable formula.
There is no reason to think in terms of one community ruling the other. Indeed, that is a
framework that is incompatible with democratic governance. The fact is that almost right up to
Partition, the Punjabs Unionist Party had found a mechanism to govern with a coalition of the
major communities.
Even after Partition there is no Nizam-e-Mustafa. The fact that a large number of Hindus in
India today want the Kingdom of Ram does not mean that their demand needs to lead to a
redefinition of India. These kinds of demands need to be resolved in the political arena.
Jinnah did not feel from the start that the fault-line in undivided India would have remained
Hindus versus Muslims. In fact, Jinnah was the advocate of Hindu-Muslim unity because he
believed it was possible. The management of any fault line is up to the leadership as shown by
the examples of Malaysia and South Africa mentioned earlier. Ireland is another example.
Three parts of undivided India had a Muslim majority but the demand for Pakistan did not
originate in these areas. In fact the Muslim majority areas of the west were the last to sign on and
even then very reluctantly. The Muslims of Kashmir seemed quite satisfied with the situation
under the Farooq Abdullah government. Their attitude is more a function of Indias
mismanagement (and post-partition Pakistans incitements) than of some innate hatred of
Hindus. There is no cure for mismanagement. Even the Muslim west and east could not coexist
in the face of political folly.
It is quite possible to argue that there were many possible resolutions of the situation that
prevailed in India in the 1930s and 1940s. It was a failure of leadership that the worst possible
alternative was chosen. India lacked a statesman of the caliber of Mandela who could see beyond
the immediate political gains and losses.
The cost of the Partition is hard to imagine almost a million deaths, ten million homeless, and
continued conflicts. Add to this the subsequent costs in Bangladesh and the ongoing ones in
Kashmir. If the inability of Hindus and Muslims to live together is given as the sole reason for
the Partition, it should be considered that in all the one thousand years that Muslims lived in
India, there was never once this scale of conflict or bloodshed.
It was possible to live together. In fact Hindus and Muslims continue to live together in India
even though their relations were poisoned and made immensely difficult by the fact of the
Partition.
!2
One could just as well argue that the Partition was a disaster for both Hindus and Muslims as also
for the Sikhs whose homeland was cut into two. A united India would never have allowed the
Saudis or the Americans to set up madrassas and train jihadis within its territories. Dim-witted
dictators would never have been able to occupy the positions of power they were in post-Partition
Pakistan and Bangladesh.
We can say that Manto in Toba Tek Singh had the right perspective on the partition of India.
341 Responses to What If India Were Not Partitioned?

Anil Kala Says:
September 27, 2008 at 12:36 pm | Reply
I think soon some kind of political stability would have emerged like a Hindu Prime Minister a
Muslim Dy. Prime Minister.
SouthAsian Says:
Anil,
Personally, I agree with you. Some formula would have emerged. Even in Lebanon, with its
intense differences, a power sharing formula was agreed upon and provided stability for a
considerable period of time. The fact that Lebanon was sucked into the Middle East crisis is a
different story.
I feel the main point is that there were a number of possible solutions, some proposed by the
British and some by the Unionists, all of which would have yielded less immediate pain and
suffering and less longer term instability.
So the question is: Why did reasonable, highly educated individuals, fail to arrive at a sensible
solution?
!3
If one reads Shameful Flight by Stanley Wolpert (2006), it would seem that a main contributor
was Mountbattens hurry to get back home to England. But, of course, there was more than that.
Zubair Osmani Says:
October 3, 2008 at 7:56 am | Reply
Without partition the subcontinent would have been a war turn region exploited by the world
powers pitching one group or one religion against the other for their own specific interests.
Unlike the present situation, one ethnic group would have striven to dominate the other, Hindus
who had not ruled in a thousand years would have been slaved easily; it would have made no
difference if there was a non Hindu ruler.
It would have been simple and easy to exploit the resources of the sub continent by keeping it in
constant turmoil.
Look at Africa, a demographically homogeneous continent has been turned into battle field of
tribes promoted by the ideology and corporate interests.
Partition was the best solution, even if Muslims were made to sacrifice more than the others.
patriot Says:
I do not agree with you. Partition did not solve anything it only worsened the situation. A leader
who considers his caste, community, or religion ahead of his nation is not a patriot.
It is not possible to devide nation on basis of religion, every nook and coner of india you have
people of different religions, can you drive them out of their houses and promise a new house in
a different land will they be happy? Has partition solved any problem?
People of different religions can coexist provided they dont mix community issues with national
issues. Individual rights are important but they must be fought as citizens of the country.
Religious rights of an individual is also important, even that can be fought for without harming
national interest.
In conclusion, partition only gave extra power to politicians to rule (more countries, more states
more polititians can rule) no benifit to the citizens, just loss of money time and lifes!!!!!
!4
Ahmed Bihari Says:

November 16, 2015 at 8:52 am | Reply
Heres democracy unlike Pakistan
Observer Says:
October 3, 2008 at 2:28 pm | Reply
Your argument is that the presence of more than one group in a country provides the
opportunity for outside powers to exploit the situation.
After partition, India still has more Muslims than Pakistan but outside exploitation is minimal.
Pakistan which was almost all Muslim was much more subject to outside exploitation. It seems
that the factors that promote exploitation are different.
Malaysia had three very large and different groups but once they found a formula to co-exist, no
one from outside could exploit them.
If diversity is a problem then it seems that partition is not the answer because it was Pakistan that
was partitioned again, not India.
Diversity can be a source of strength or a weakness. It is a function of the leadership how they
deal with diversity. It was for this that Nelson Mandela was awrded the Nobel prize.
Rohit Says:
December 3, 2008 at 7:44 am | Reply
One reason why Nehru and Patel agreed to parition was because they saw it as the only way that
a strong centralized state could be created which could implement the congress parties agenda be
it land reforms, nationalisation of industry, abolition of the caste system, Hindu law reform etc.
The alternative model of a loose federation would have made it more difficult.
On the other hand, it might have been a good thing if the congress had faced credible opposition
in the first 30 years of its rule.
!5
SouthAsian Says:
December 6, 2008 at 6:19 pm | Reply
Rohit,
Yes, this is a plausible reason for why Nehru and Patel agreed to partition. The alternative model
would have made some things more difficult.
But how difficult? The question is: Was the price the political leaders were willing to pay for
subsequent ease of operations worth the gains?
Would it not have made more sense for each side to have given up a little in order to preserve a
peaceful subcontinent in which 10 million people did not have to leave their homes.
It is in this sense that one feels none of the leading politicians were able to see the larger interest.
There was no one with the vision or stature of a Mandela.
suhail Says:
January 25, 2009 at 6:20 pm | Reply
I think partitioning India was something the Brits did to vent out their frustration of them losing
their JEWEL IN THE CROWN.and we indians(pro 1947) fell for it.India is a beautifull mix of
hindu and muslim culture.I have grown up in Post Independent India where people live in
harmony for most of their days.Politically motivated riots have happened in the past but India
has remained true to its values.I think its not too late.Pakistanis and Indians are the best of
friends when they are studyin overseas(my friends)which shows that we can live together without
the hatred.I think if we unite India again,stress will again come back to its culture,its diverse
beautifull people.How could we fall for The Brits after them having slaved us for 200 years.Shows
how we INdians/pakistanis are so easily deceived.I think rulers like AKBAR(MUSLIM) truly
understood the strenght of united India where the rich muslim and hindu culture would make
the country the worlds richest.Lets start with open borders ,think of each other as humans
first,pre 1947 Indians and reunite one day.
!6
SouthAsian Says:
January 27, 2009 at 1:48 am | Reply
Suhail, This is an experiment that can be tried any time. Put a some Pakistanis in a group
comprising Indians, Bangladeshis, Sri Lankans, Arabs and Iranis and more often than not they
will gravitate towards the other South Asians. With the Arabs and Iranis they may share a
religion but with South Asians they share much more and that is what determines ones level of
comfort. Your observation about students overseas is quite right. You can also see the interactions
of Punjabis abroad where the affinity of language between Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs outweighs
the differences of religion.
We should not wait for the subcontinent to be reunited in order to see each other as fellow
human beings. Who could have said that Germany and France in 1948 would be part of a united
Europe fifty years later. Fifty years is a long time and we have no way of knowing what the
politics of South Asia might be in the future. If we do away with the border lines in our minds
and hearts the physical borders would lose much of their meaning. The starting point is to reject
those who preach hatred.
man0jm Says:
Well said. To add to this, my personal experiences in US & EU 1. Many Pakistanis introduced
themselves as Indians if they were india haters, why would they do so? 2. I have been recipient
of many acts of kindness by Pakistanis, when indians werent.
I really think the way forward to peace and growth is not encouraging stereotyping and biases,
but both sides taking CBMs by controlling the hawks within them.
If Sudan & South Sudan can talk to each other, why cant India and Pakistan?
Kabir Altaf Says:
Sometimes Pakistanis introduce ourselves as Indians because we dont want to get into pointless
discussions with well-meaning people about whether we support the Taliban or our mothers are
covered in head to toe burka.
!7
Unfortunately, our nation has a bad reputation these days (some of it well-deserved and some of
it a result of highlighting certain aspects to suit various agendas)
Aakar Says:
The Daily Times has published an opinion piece on a new book about Jinnah. Very roughly put,
it argues that the trajectory of Pakistan was not negative (inspired by Jinnahs charisma, which
gathered Muslims under a two-nation banner), but positive (meaning to say that Indias Muslims
were are looking for something that they saw their faith promising them).
That Jinnah followed the Muslims into Pakistan rather than the other way around.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=20091\28\story_28-1-2009_pg3_5
Vikram Says:
February 6, 2009 at 6:19 pm | Reply
Well, Dr. Ambedkar;s perspective on this issue is very valuable, since he was one guy who was
neutral towards both Hindus and Muslims.
The movement for Pakistan was a mass movement, and it was backed up by the Leagues success
in the provincial elections held in the areas that comprise Pakistan today.
I think one problem is that most Pakistanis tend to view India as essentially homogenous and
Hindu, while Indians have very different (and contesting) views on the nature of their country.
National identity is a very problematic idea in an India of Punjabi Sikhs and Christian Tamils.
India is an idea that is still evolving, and it is an idea that might not succeed.
And it is difficult for me to see why the areas that comprise Pakistan today would have chosen to
remain in the Union once these divisions started surfacing. I think you are under estimating the
power of religious nationalism.
!8
SIranjeev Says:
Exactly my thoughts. Today, people consider Pakistan and the conflict in Kashmir as a major
problem. But the truth is, if the partition had been denied, the subcontinent would have
disintegrated into a full scale civil war. If we look around us, at each and every instance of a
country where a minority felt alienated, demanded a separate state, and was denied it, we would
see disasters. Be it Sri Lanka, be Syria, be it Ukraine. Ghandi and the leaders of the Congress of
that day saved us from this fate. Its hard to see so many people today, especially since the BJP
came to power, criticise Ghandi. To me personally, the partition is what distinguishes India from
every other nation. Its a mark of the greatness of our land and its values. For where every other
nation tried to take, we were willing to give. Jai Hind.
SouthAsian Says:
Siranjeev: I am not questioning your conclusion since there is no way of knowing that if the
partition had been denied, the subcontinent would have disintegrated into a full scale civil war.
You cant claim something is the truth simply by declaring it so.
However, I am questioning your logic because in the very next sentence you affirm your belief
that each and every instance of a country where a minority felt alienated, demanded a separate
state, and was denied it, we would see disasters. If that is indeed the case, one could ask why
India is not willing to give (your words) the areas in which minorities have felt alienated for over
60 years?
I am not stating India should do that. I am only asking why you dont recommend it doing so
given the logic of your argument.
Indian Says:
Hi South Asian, Indian congress did not have the power to split India, it was British who split
because Jinnah and Muslim League asked for it. Muslim League and Jinnah wanted to separate
electorate based on religion, this could have permanently divided the country and could have
been a source of conflict between politicians and us people. Off course this is a guess because we
cannot know what would be, only what is.
!9
SouthAsian Says:
January 8, 2016 at 2:34 pm
Indian: The way I look at this is different. Take your claim that it was British who split because
Jinnah and Muslim League asked for it. Did the British do everything that was asked of them?
If not, why did they agree to this particular demand? And why did Jinnah and the Muslim
League ask for a split of India? Did Congress actions have anything to trigger that demand?
Take the other claim that Muslim League and Jinnah wanted to separate electorate based on
religion. Dr. Ambedkar also wanted separate a separate electorate for Dalits. The Congress
accepted the first but rejected the second. Why? The effect of both would have been the same if
your claim is right that separate electorates divide and are a source of conflict. Did these
contradictory actions have any bearing on what happened?
You are quite right that we will never know for sure but these sorts of questions can point us in
the direction of useful research.
SouthAsian Says:
Vikram, It is difficult to underestimate the power of nationalism and religion after the conflicts of
the 20th century.
On this blog we are trying to answer a few issues that preceded the conflict in India. As you
mention, the idea of national identity is complex: the differences between Punjabi, Bengali and
Keralite Muslims were just as profound as the ones you have mentioned the subsequent
contempt of West Pakistani Muslims for East Pakistani Muslims is just one example by way of
evidence. So why did identity in British India get defined around religion and not around
ethnicity or langauage? This was not an accident and we have referred a lot to the excellent book
by Kamaljit Bhasin-Malik (In the Making: Identity Formation in South Asia) to explore this
question.
Those who are interested in these issues know that there is no homogeneity in India just as there
is none in Pakistan. The Muslim League tried to create a Muslim identity just as the BJP is trying
to create a Hindu one. These attempts can have temporary political payoffs but ultimately do
more harm than good.
!10
The movement for Pakistan was not a mass movement to begin with. The League did very poorly
in the 1937 elections but much better in the 1946 ones. What happened in the interim to change
the opinions of Muslims? Even so, in interpreting the movement one should keep in mind that
these elections were contested on the basis of separate electorates and a limited franchise. The
majority of Muslims did not have the vote and most who migrated had no choice because of the
scale of the riots in 1947.
The areas that comprise Pakistan today were the last to sign on to the Pakistan movement, if it
can be called a movement. That is not where the movement began or was the strongest. There is
no reason why they would not have remained in the Union given alternative representational
arrangements. And even if they had wanted to separate they could have done so without so much
loss of life and perpetual hostility as for example in the case of the Czechs and the Slovaks. We
have spent considerable effort on the blog establishing the crucial importance of electoral rules in
political outcomes see the posts on Malaysia and Japan.
The discussion on Dr. Ambedkar is a separate one. In brief, he was amongst the most highly
trained, analytical and forthright personalities of that time. He was unusual because he did not
start with a preferred position for which he then sought convincing arguments. On the contrary,
he led with an objective analysis and put his weight behind whatever position was supported by
logic.
It was in this sense that he was neutral. Otherwise he was bitterly opposed to the caste
discriminations in Hinduism and ultimately converted to Buddhism with his followers. As for the
Muslim League, irrespective of the merit of the case for Pakistan, he maintained that it was not
negotiating in good faith by continuing to ask for more when earlier demands were conceded.
Dr. Ambedkar was a huge intellect and an immense resource. It goes to the credit of Gandhi and
Nehru, that despite his criticisms of Hinduism, they included him in the first cabinet and
entrusted him with the leadership of the constitution committee. That his views were not popular
with the general voters is obvious from the fact that he failed to be elected to the Lok Sabha. His
contribution to the political stability of India was invaluable. There was no one of his calibre in
Jinnahs team.
!11
Vikram Says:
Very good reply.
My impression was that the Muslim Leagues movement was a mass movement, but I guess it was
not that clear cut. I still dont see how some kind of united South Asia would have survived,
when almost all the countries here have serious internal conflicts.
SouthAsian Says:
Vikram, If you read Ramachandra Guhas book India after Gandhi, you might find at least one
answer to your question. The book is an expression of surprise that India has stayed together as
one country when few expected it to do so.
There were serious internal conflicts in India (think of the separation sentiment in the South) and
there still are. India has stayed together because of a proactive policy of conflict management
and prevention the creation of states based on langauge was an important element of this
policy.
In essence this was strengthening a linguistic identity to tide over the time it would take to build
an Indian identity. An identity built around language rather than religion is much more stable
simply because there are many more languages than there are religions. A major Us versus Them
polarity is much less likely to emerge.
So we are back to our question: Why was identity in the frst half of the 20th century in British
India allowed (or encouraged) to emerge around religion rather than around language or
ethinicity?
There are few conflicts that cannot be managed with intelligent policy. South Asia could have
survived just as India has survived. At least there was a very good chance. After all, it had
survived for a very long time before it broke apart.
Arun Gupta Says:
July 13, 2010 at 2:40 am | Reply
!12
None of the movements in (divided) India has asked for parity of a numerically smaller
community with a larger community. Separate electorates and complete parity at the Center
were the All India Muslim League demands and there was no possible compromise that the
Indian National Congress could make with that.
If there was a formula that could have worked, those people would have found it they were in
general smarter and more honest and sincere than the politicians we have today.
In any case, weve had 60 years to bring about a European Union-like situation, and that hasnt
happened. SAARC is a joke. I dont need to invoke counterfactual history to prove this. If we
could not get that to work, how would a united India work?
We still see most of Pakistan and some of Bangladesh and India still fighting the religious fights
of the twentieth century. In Bangladesh the Supreme Court and in India the electorate seems to
have rejected religion-based politics. The fight continues in Pakistan.
SouthAsian Says:
July 13, 2010 at 10:14 am | Reply
Arun: People have managed to find workable solutions in even more complex situations
Malaya, Lebanon, South Africa to take just a few examples. Mandela and the ANC could have
done to the Whites in South Africa what Idi Amin did to Indians in Uganda but sometimes the
larger welfare calls for accommodations, even major accommodations. The historical accounts
that are being written after the release of the Transfer of Power papers (Khilnani, Seervai,
Wolpert, Jaswant Singh, etc.) are not agreed that the situation was one without a possible
solution.
I agree that SAARC is a joke but your inference is not valid. SAARC is a post-conflict
organization, United India would have been a pre-conflict one. The fact that SAARC does not
work does not imply that a United India would not have worked. It might have or it might not
have for other reasons.
You are right that religion-based politics continues in Pakistan but the counterfactual that is
relevant to this discussion is whether the area that now constitutes Pakistan would have seen the
same conflict had Pakistan not been created?
!13
Arun Gupta Says:

July 13, 2010 at 6:50 pm | Reply
Well, sometime between March 1940 and August 1947 was the point of no return regarding
conflict/pre-conflict; and I place it closer to 1940 than to 1947.
Once the rhetoric started that without Pakistan, Islam and Muslims will perish from India (e.g.,
here is Jinnah, March 1941, Aligarh : Pakistan is not only a practicable goal but the only goal if
you want to save Islam from complete annihilation in this country.), IMO, there was no going
back.
SouthAsian Says:
July 14, 2010 at 7:21 am
Arun: I agree. I would also locate the point-of-no-return close to 1940. There is a post on the
blog (The Road to Partition) that offers one chronology. It is open for discussion.
Vikram Says:
True, in fact my very first ever blog post was about the creation of linguistic states in India,
http://vikramvgarg.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/federalism-and-the-accomodation-ofminorities-in-india/
One note, please dont refer to the states of India as provinces, it is something that most Indians
would detest. The very first line of the Consti is that India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of
States.
Changed. Thanks for pointing out the slip.
Vinod Says:
Vikram, SA can one of you educate me on why referring to the states of India as provinces
would cause Indians to squirm? Thanks.
!14
sameer Says:
i think that if there had not been a partition atleast what pakistan is right now would not have
been this way Muslims wanted to be indipendent but they never were as dictatores in pakistan
ruled the way they wanted if there had been one united india we surely would have become a
superpower by now
SouthAsian Says:
February 15, 2009 at 9:43 am | Reply
Sameer, Your comment raises a number of important points that need to be discussed further:
1. Did Muslims want independence? What is the evidence for this assertion? Some answers to
this question are provided in the post On the Emergence of Pakistan (https://
thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com/2009/01/29/on-the-emergence-of-pakistan/). More Muslims
stayed behind in India than moved to Pakistan. How is this fact reconciled with the claim?
2. What made it easier for military dictators to take over power in Pakistan compared to India?
3. What is the basis for the claim that an undivided India would have been a superpower by now?
What are the essential requirements for achieving the status of a superpower?
Bloody Civilian Says:
May 11, 2009 at 7:56 pm | Reply
an involved discussion about the possibilities of a non-partitioned india, and not even once does
it mention the Cabint Missions Plan! how amazing!
not a single commentor, nor even the author has challenged the false assertion about separate
electorates. it was swallowed line, hook and sinker.
the CMP was based on a single, joint electorate for all indians. there were no separate electorates.
jinnah had long been making clear his disdain for separate electorates, and disuading his
electorate from espousing them.
!15
all indian leaders envisaged india to have universal adult franchise.

the CMP did not envisage a partition of any province. group B = united punjab, nwfp, sindh,
baluchistan. group C = united bengal + assam. group A = the rest of british india.
the following is the picture after the success of the league in the 1946 elections (on a separate
electorate, limited frnachise basis):
1. in the punjab, the ministry was formed by a congress + unionists + akalis coalition, not the
league and their partners the communists.
2. nwfp had a congress ministry.
3. in group C, league had a lead of merely 3 seats, i.e 35:32.
so this was hardly a communal grouping. rather it was staunchly anti-majoritarian in case of
groups B and C.
the CMP required the absolute minimum of the three subjects defence, extrenal affairs and
communications to be central subjects.
group A, with its overwhelming congress majority could make the centre as powerful as it wished
by giving it all conceivable government subjects, and the centre would still have controlled the
defence and comms over the other two groups and held external affairs. that is, a unified military
institution and command.
there was no parity at the centre, neither between the groups nor the two communities. each
group had the power of veto, which is not the same as power to vote.. which was 201 to 73 in the
INCs favour.
grouping was compulsory only till the first general elections. that is, it was for the sole purpose of
constitution making, as was the group veto. after that, provinces were free to abandon groups, or
change from one to another.
!16
under the CMP, no province was allowed to secede from india (notwithstanding INCs long held
stance that they would never deny a provinces democratic right to do so).
the league accepted the CMP. the congress claimed it accepted it without accepting the
compulsory grouping explained in the above paragraph.
Arun Gupta Says:
No, the Cabinet Mission Plan called for Groups A, B, C to have their own assemblies to make
their own constitutions. There was no center to speak of.
http://sites.google.com/site/cabinetmissionplan/
Bloody Civilian Says:
May 11, 2009 at 8:12 pm | Reply
dr ambedkars book: it was written in december 1940. it could not have forseen 1946, let alone
answer the question: why did the league accept the CMP?
Arun Gupta Says:
Ambedkars book has a Jan 1, 1945 edition.
http://www.ambedkar.org/pakistan/
harsh vardhan Says:
partition is right.
Editors comment: Perhaps, but opinions differ. This is what Sunil Khilnani writes in The Idea of
India: Partition is the unspeakable sadness at the heart of the idea of India: a memento mori
that what made India possible also profoundly diminished the integral value of the idea. It
conceded something essential in the nationalist vision, the conviction that what defined India was
its extraordinary capacity to accumulate and live with differences. (pp. 201-202)
!17
Whether it was right or wrong, it was clearly a failure of the human imagination and of human
skills since no one started out wanting an outcome that cost a million lives, ten million displaced,
and endless strife.
On this blog we are not trying to reverse history, only to understand why it turned out in a
particular manner and what other possibilities were foregone. Is there something to be learnt
from that history?
Vinod Says:
Harsh Vardhan, are you THE Harsh Vardhan? The IAS officer who resigned to do a
tremendous job at providing relief for the victims of the Gujarat pogrom?
Jainulabideen_Proud 2 B an Indain Muslim Says:
August 17, 2009 at 5:21 pm | Reply
im not able to gues wat wudve hapend in unpartitioned India. coz xcept Bangladesh, der r
separatist movements all over india n pak wo want der own countries n regions.. but if india
emerges sucessful in controlling it, it wud surely b 1 of d powerful Ctries in wrld 2day..coz 2 of
us obtained N-power independently
SouthAsian Says:
August 17, 2009 at 6:58 pm | Reply
Jainul: What do you think are the chances of India controlling the separatist movements? What
does India need to do to control them?
Jaswant Singhs new book, Jinnah India, Partition, Independence, was released on August 17,
2009. The following is a quote from the book:
The cruel truth is that this partitioning of India has actually resulted in achieving the very reverse
of the originally intended purpose; partition, instead of settling contention between communities
has left us a legacy of markedly enhanced Hindu, Muslim, Sikh or other such denominational
identities, hence differences
!18
Raza Says:
September 6, 2009 at 9:21 am | Reply
@SouthAsian
South Asia could have survived just as India has survived. At least there was a very good chance.
After all, it had survived for a very long time before it broke apart.
Could you please explain that when and how long it [South Asia] had survived before it broke
apart.
SouthAsian Says:
Raza: I have been thinking how best to illustrate this. Let us see if this would work: Let us move
back from 1947, year by year, and identify another time when one million people died and ten
million became homeless because two communities wanted to live in separate countries of their
own. Of course, if we move forward from 1947, we would arrive at another such date in 1971.
We would also come to the unfulfilled demands of Khalistan, Nagaland, Mizoram, Pakhtunistan,
Balochistan, Tamil Eelam, etc. that have been the cause of violence and deaths. Does this
characterization seem reasonable?
Ganpat Ram Says:
The real paradox of Partition is that Hindus produce so many characters who spend their days
fantasising about an impossible dream of undoing Partition, taking it for granted in their brainfree skulls that Hindus, Muslims and the rest will then live as one happy family..
Whereas the whole history of India since the Muslim invasions has shown graphically and
conclusively that Muslims hate the guts of Hindus, have always done so and always will. They
follow a tough, extremely intolerant Mosaic religion, and are the last to accomodate mere
idolators.
If Hindu India with 150 mllion Muslims lives on the edge of catastrophic explosion, tense with
fear of Muslim eruptions, the solution of the INCREDIBLY stupid sick Hindu intellectuals
!19
like the donkeys clown Puri is to introduce another 300 million Muslims into the explosive brew
by undoing Partition!!!!
I ask you !!!!!
Partition, by getting rid of two-thirds of a endlessly demanding and violent Muslim population to
Pakistan, actually allowed Hindus the possibility of breathing in a free country.
No sane person wants to go back to Hell. That is what India would be if Partition were undone.
The paradox is that Hindus, who were SAVED by Partition, kept nearly all the good land in
India, were given the chance for the first time in a thousand years to unite in one big state where
they had a hige majority, often produce donkeys who want top undo the basis of this salvation.
Without Partition, in a couple of generations Muslims would be a MAJORITY in the Subcontinent. A camel brain like Puri doesnt realise this.
Muslim Pakistanis almost NEVER, paradoxically, want Partition undone. They are PROUD of
Pakistan and want to keep away from Hindus if they possibly can.
ANWAAR has pointed out that no less than two million of three million Bengalis pitilessly
slaughtered by the butcherous Paki armies were Hindus ! This is a country in which Hindus were
a helpless minority of hardly 10 per centThey were put to wholesale Nazi-style genocide for
no other reason than that they were Hindus.
Such are the Muslim brothers of Hindus. No people on earth hates Hindus even one-millionth
as much.
kabir Says:
Ganpat Ram,
Im a Muslim Pakistani and I want Partition undone. That disproves your thesis all together.
!20
Ganpat Ram Says:

KABIR:
You are the exception that proves my rule.
No wonder you want Partition undone, though. As I pointed out, if India, Bangladesh and
Pakistan were united, in two or three generations Muslims would ge a MAJORITY. Foolish
Hindus dont realise this.
No, we sensible Hindus know Partition was our communitys salvation and DO NOT WANT
YOU BACK, THANKS.
Away to Arabia !!!!!
kabir Says:
Ganpat Ram Bhai,
Away to Arabia! I am not an Arabian. I am an Indian. My family is Indian. My culture is
Indian. The languages I speakUrdu and Punjabi are Indian langauges. The classical music I
sing is Hindustani classical. The food I eat is Indian. I have no interest at all in Arabs or Arabia.
Sincerely,
Kabir Mohan
!21
kabir Says:
Ganpat Ram Bhai:
In the the words of Bhagat Kabir a great Indian: koee bolay ram ram koee khudai. This is
the true essence of Indian secularism, and what allowed Hindus and Muslims to live together for
centuries with minimal issues. It was only when the British introduced seperate electorates and
the competition for political resources became intense that communalism became an issue.
The motto of India is Unity in Diversity. Why do you want to turn Bharat into the Hindu
equivalent of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan?
Ganpat Ram Says:
KABIR:
You are harping on an old tune, and it does not convince.
Muslims with few exceptions feel far more for Arabia than for India, and certainly loathe
Hinduism.
I dont blame them. It is their religion and choice. Only, dont try to fool Hindus.
Bhagat Singh was a brave but foolish man.
In a united India, Muslims will rule as they will in as few decades be the majority.
Under Muslim power Hinduism will be finished. It led a slave existence in previous Muslim
regimes. WE DO NOT WANT TO GO BACK TO THAT.
Arabia is the place for you.
!22
SouthAsian Says:
Ganpat: This is not a fruitful line of argumentation. You cannot decide what would be the right
place for anyone else it is their choice. You could just as easily be asked to move to Nepal where
there would be no danger of your being ruled by anyone else in a few generations. Nor would
you have to live with people you dont like. That would be equally pointless. You have to decide
where you want to live and what you want to make of that place. You seem to have given up on
the secular and democratic vision of India that Jawaharlal Nehru had espoused. I am intrigued
what your vision of an ideal India looks like and if you were in the drivers seat what would be
the first half dozen policy measures you would put in place to get there?
Hayyer Says:
Ganpat Ram:
If over 700 years of Muslim rule could not reduce Hindu majority in India it is unlikely that a
few decades would have done so.
Hindus dont live tense in fear of Muslim eruptions. If anything it is Muslims who have reason to
live in tension.
The three countries are separate now; what is done is done. The best that they can do is to try
and get along.
Ganpat Ram Says:
SouthAsian:
It seems you will not accept that Hindus and Muslims do differ profoundly in their loyalties and
allegiances and that is the fundamental reason why they formed separate nations once the British
decided to quit.
Blaming the British is very callow.
Islam is an extremely powerful religion. Muslims in the Subcontinent feel the terrific pull of
Arabian history and culture and have huge contempt for the Hindu heritage. They identify with
!23
their Arab converters not their now remote Hindu ancestors. Jinnah is a good example. He came
from a Hindu family a couple of generations back, but totally rejected any Hindu links.
Fair enough. No one is obliged to love Hindus or Hinduism.
However, Hindus do have to try and survive. Under Islamic rule, there was no equality or hnour
for Hinduism. At best it hung on as a despised slave religion.
Now, Hindus are concentrated in one big state, and have a big majority. Partition got rid of twothirds of the endlessly threatening and violent Muslimas, who have their own countries.
I have read the bitter old arguments prior to Partition, and was chilled by the extent of hatred
and contempt for Hindus they show.
Let us not go back to all that. It was a terrible world.
Steps to help India?
Eradicate illiteracy. Make healthcare universal. Carry out serious land reforms. Make hiring
people in industry easy. Fence the borders to prevent Muslim illegal immigration. Get a tough
army to withstand Pakistan and China. Ensure equality for monorities.
Such are my thoughts.
SouthAsian Says:
Ganpat: All your steps to help India make sense. I am not sure though how you will go about the
last one ensure equality for minorities?
Ganpat Ram Says:
SouthAsian:
!24
I notice you seem to be avoiding the major part of my message.

However, so be it.
By equality for minorities I mean exactly what any civilised state would have. India is certainly
Hindu-dominated and ought to be a Hindu state to give Hinduism honour. But that does not
mean in the least that Muslims should be discriminated against. They should have equality in law
and their religious observances and places should be respected. There should be a single legal
code all should be subject to and steps should be taken to help Muslim women escape the
particular disabilities they suffer. All this is commonplace.
SouthAsian Says:
Ganpat: The specification is ideal and perfect. I am not sure how it can be achieved
simultaneously with intense hatred, contempt, bitterness, resentment, and the desire to send all of
them to Arabia where their entire loyalties lie? Can one be socially civilized and individually
uncivil at the same time?
Ganpat Ram Says:
The less Hindus have to do with Muslims, the better for them.
Reading post-Independence Indian history, I am struck by how the frightening pressure and fear
of the Thirties and Forties was replaced by a much calmer world in India once the Muslims quit
and went off to Pakistan.
The fifties were in many ways Indias happiest times, because the Muslim population was
proprtionately at its lowest.
A lesson in that for Hindus.
!25
Muslims are a tough bunch. As they increase in numbers, they become more and more
demanding and threatening.
Ganpat Ram Says:
SouthAsian:
I dont think reminding Muslims that their heritage is basically Arabian is an insult. It is an
honour for them to recall their allegiance to the homeland of Mohammed.
Nor did I say Indian Muslims should be sent to Arabia. I merely told Kabir that that is where he
should look to as his culture was centred on it.
I have no gripes against Muslims of the Subcontinent. If they destroyed Hindu temples, I blame
the Hindus for not having the guts and efficacy to defend them.
I dont blame Muslims for their love of Islam. It has a great culture behind it and I am sure it is
in many ways better than Hinduism.
As a Hindu I am loyal to my religion, but I am sure it is far from perfect and I do not claim it is
beautiful. It is mine, that is all.
To each his own.
The Hindus have their country and Muslims theirs.
Let us live in peace and see how to develop them.
As Nehru said, wisely: If so many people do not want to be in India, hiow can we and why
should we compel them?. That was his final verdict on Partition, and I thnk it stands. Patel
remarked, also wisely: Let the Muslim League develop 20 per cent of India, and we will develop
the rest.
!26
Agreed?
SouthAsian Says:
Ganpat: Not agreed; rather totally perplexed. The Hindus have their country and Muslims
theirs. So what is the country of the 150 million Muslims who are citizens of India?
kabir Says:
Ganpat Ram bhai,
Nehru and Patel may have agreed to Partition, but Gandhiji was always against it. He told Jinnah
in 1944 that he did not believe that Hindus and Muslims were seperate nations. He said I have
never heard of sons of converts claiming to be different from the parent stock.
My culture is not in Arabia. I am South Asian and Hindustani. I do not speak or read Arabic, I
do not eat Arab food, I dont wear Arab clothing. I have nothing in common with Arabs, except
perhaps nominally a religion which Im not really that interested in anyway.
Ganpat Ram Says:
SouthAsian:
If the Hindus dont even have India, what country have they?
Of course there are minorities as in every country and I have said they deserve equal rights.
So what is the problem?
SouthAsian Says:
!27
Ganpat: Kabir beat me to the punch on this but I would like to add something. I dont think it is
enough to say that minorities deserve equal rights. I feel the correct perspective is to think of all
citizens having equal rights that are inalienable. Minorities should not have a status that is at the
mercy of someones dicretion. One can think of this as the difference between the status of
courtiers under a king and bureaucrats governed a civil service code. This difference in status
makes all the difference to behavior. When a bureaucrat violates the terms of his service, he or
she can be dismissed or put in jail. But even those in jail retain an inalienable right to their status
as equal citizens.
In a sense, the US violated this principle when it interned Japanese-Americans during WW2. It
has since apologized for the error. Citizenship should have no relationship to religion, caste,
ethnicity, language, color, or sex.
kabir Says:
Ganpat Ram bhai,
India belongs to all its citizens Hindu, Muslim Christian, atheist, whatever.
Namaste.
Ahsan Ahmed Pitafi Says:
Ganpat Ram you are right at your place but we can not depend over some statements which
were given by Nehru because no one is perfect on earth .We are just trying to end all problems
which were created between two nations in 20 centuary because I can not watch any more
certain deaths of the soldiers .
Ganpat Ram Says:
SouthAsian, Kabir:
You are talking about another subject altogether.
!28
I see no reason why Muslims in a Hindu India cannot have equal rights if Hindus in a Protestant
Christian UK can have equal rights.
Muslims have 60 states or so that are Muslim; there are scores of Christian states, many very
liberal like the UK. Why not just ONE Hindu state, if liberal?
The issue we were actually discussing was the pros and cons of Partition.
My view remains that the Hindus had a VERY narrow escape thanks to Jinnah. Muslims in the
Subcontinent are well on their way to a majority in the Subcontinent in a few decades. 1947 was
a chance for Hindus to have a Hindu-dominated country, and they got it through Jinnah.
Well done, Jinnah. I hope the fierce pride of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in their countries and
separation from Hindus will keep us separate. That is best for ALL.
I have read the bitter attacks on Hindus by Muslims in those decades leading to Partition. They
breathe a hate and alienation that Hindus would be EXTREMELY stupid to submit themselves
to again by undoing Partition.
Partition has given Hindus the best chance for a decent life they have had since the Muslim
invasions. I devoutly hope they keep it. Above all things, I fear the insinuating voice of Muslims
who try to undo Partition, and the folly of Hindus who listen to them.
Hindus and Muslims are much better off where they are, mostly in separate countries.
Pakistan is run down by Hindus, but it was a great ideal for Muslims who sought a truly Muslim
society that they could develop free of a Hindu environment. It was a great POSITIVE
experiment, and that is how Muslims think of it. They can work to sort out its difficulties at
present.
Just keep us poor Hindus out of your way. We have been badly burnt in our association with your
fierce Mosaic THRE IS ONLY ONE GOD faith.
!29
kabir Says:
Ganpat Ram bhai,
Not all Muslims are the way you think. Personally, I think everyone is entitled to worship god in
the way they like. My relationship with god is personal and Im no one to impose a particular
view of the divine.
Prior to Partition Hindus and Muslims lived peacefully together overall. Muslims even sang the
Meera bhajan Shyam piya more rang day chunaria (a bhajan which I love by the way) only
changing Shyam to Khwaja and addressing the song to Moinuddin Chisti. Indian Islam is
not Arab Wahabbi Islam.
Also, I object to your term Muslim invasions. The Mughals may have been foreigners but they
became Indian. They gave Indians some of the most beautiful aspects of our common culture,
such as the Taj and Hindustani Music, even Mughlai cuisine.
I think trying to separate what is Hindu and what is Muslim in the Indian context is really
foolish.
Namaste
SouthAsian Says:
Ganpat: I have already acknowledged your opinion as one in the spectrum that has a very wide
range. You are entitled to it. My interest is to figure out what kind of India you want. What do
mean by a Hindu state? Is it the kind of state that Tagore, Nehru, Gandhi, and Sarojini Naidu
had in mind, or is it different? If so, what is the difference?
I am also unconvinced that the Hindu state you seem to be articulating can be liberal at the same
time. Liberalism cannot have intolerance as a foundation.
!30
And finally, I dont see how you can speak on behalf of all Muslims, past and present. You can
speak for yourself and let other people present their opinions both in agreement and
disagreement. Those are the rules of a debate. You cant logically say that is how Muslims think
of it. You can say that is how I think Muslims think of it. And then you would have to leave
open the possibility that you could be wrong.
The impression I form is that your position is similar to the one expressed recently by Varun
Gandhi. We have talked about it earlier on the blog. It can be accessed here in case you want to
pursue that discussion.
Ganpat Ram Says:
SouthAsian, Kabir, Hyvver:
A Bharat Ratna is (seriously) too little for the truly unsurpassed service Jinnah rendered to the
Hindus.
It was little short of divine mercy that this man, whose grandfathers family was Hindu, created
Pakistan and in this way gave three quarters of the Subcontinent, and almost all the desirable
lands, to the Hindus. As he correctly pointed out, it is much more than they have had for a long
time.
Hindus would have been in the pit of sheer hell by now had Pakistan not rid them of two-thirds
of the appallingly violent, despotic and blackmailing Muslim population.
Hindus also need to be devoutly grateful to their other saviour, Nehru. His hot temper saved us in
1947 when he threw out the Cabinet Mission Plan whereby large Hindu and Sikh areas would
have remained under Muslim control while large Muslim areas would all be under Muslim
control too. The centre would be feeble, and regions would be free to secede if they wanted. The
Muslims, a qurater of the population would have parity at the centre. It was a formula to destroy
the Hindus. Nehru threw it out and saved them.
No wonder Islamists are whining about Partition. They knows that all Muslims got under it was a
bums deal of two widely separated areas, mostly the worst bits of India.
!31
Saying that inundating the country with Muslims would make it peaceful is like saying that
making a small fire in a house far bigger will protect the house.
We Hindus are wll rid of Muslims, mate. Dont lets get mixed up with these dangerous fanatical
characters again.
Muslims also want Pakistan and Bangladesh to survive. They dont want to get back with Hindus.
Good for them.
Been there, done that, not going back again! Away with foolish delusions.
SouthAsian Says:
Ganpat: Your opinion has been registered. Repetition does not make an argument stronger.
Personally I am delighted with your stroke of good luck and wish you all the best.
Anil Kala Says:
Why one Hindu State? Many Hindus will find it suffocating to have a religious state. The way
you are arguing for a liberal Hindu state, India is a de facto Hindu state so what is bothering you?
There is one point which bothers me though. Why arent there several secular countries having
Muslim majority? Will someone answer that?
SouthAsian Says:
Anil: The question you have asked is an important one. Let me rephrase it:
Why arent there countries with Muslim majorities that are secular?
While this is not my area of expertise, let me start a discussion. This is a complex question some
of whose complexities are obvious and some hidden.
!32
One of the hidden complexities is the fact that we live today in the age of the nation-state which
is a form that is less than 200 years old. One peculiarity of a nation-state is that it has a written
constitution (leaving aside the special case of England) and this constitution has to declare the
orientation of the state. Given that there is no distinction between Church and State in Islam (the
Caliph is simultaneously the religious and secular head) it is an impossibility for a Muslim
majority state to declare itself secular in its constitution.
This is a legal conundrum that Kemal Ataturk tried to resolve by coercion in Turkey. The real
question that we need to ask is how countries with Muslim majorities (regardless of whether they
call themselves Islamic or secular) deal with the religious beliefs of non-Muslims who live in the
same territory?
Here the record is quite mixed some do much better than others. So we have to go further and
investigate what the local factors might be that determine whether the record is good or bad.
This is a task for readers with more knowledge of the comparative record.
It is interesting, however, to go back prior to the age of the nation-state because there one can
judge simply on the basis of the record the constitutional conundrum not being relevant. We
again find a mixed record. For example, in the article by Amartya Sen that I had referred to in
the post on Akbar, Sen writes:
Western detractors of Islam as well as the new champions of Islamic heritage have little to say
about Islams tradition of tolerance, which has been at least as important historically as its record
of intolerance. We are left wondering what could have led Maimonides, as he fled the
persecution of Jews in Spain in the twelfth century, to seek shelter in Emperor Saladins Egypt.
And why did Maimonides, in fact, get support as well as an honored position at the court of the
Muslim emperor who fought valiantly for Islam in the Crusades?
Many non-Muslim historians have commented that in Jerusalem, the most contentious city
because of its shared heritage between the three major Semitic religions, the most tolerant
periods were those when the city was under Muslim control. A new book by the Templeton
Foundation (Religious Tolerance in World Religions, 2008) has useful material on the historical
record. Most of the book is available on the Internet and Chapter 12 (starting on page 274) has
relevant information about Jerusalem.
!33
Even in India, although this may be more contentious, the Mughal period is not classified as
particularly intolerant and one cannot point to religious persecutions that were any worse than
have taken place in a secular India.
So the question we have to ask (and not just for Muslim majority countries) is how majorities treat
those who do not share the majority religion. And why, within the same culture, some periods are
much more intolerant than others? If we can get a handle on this we may be able to recommend
measures that would eliminate intolerance at the level of the state. It may never be possible to
eliminate it at the level of the individual.
kabir Says:
In his book on Jinnah, Jaswant Singh cites a scholar on Islam, who says that Islam is a
theocentric but not a theocratic religion. So, all activities revolve around god. the good
orthodox Muslims cannot concieve of seperation of church (in this case mosque) and state, of
religion being something that you practice in the privacy of your home, and not in the public
sphere.
Without being able to conceptualize the seperation of church and state or the public sphere/
private sphere distinction, a country cannot be secular.
Anil Kala Says:
Apparently this is the crux of clash and not the clash of civilizations. Non Muslims dont care
how Muslims find it difficult to separate church with state therefore depend on their tolerance for
equal rights. They expect quid pro quo, if we give constitutional rights for equality we should get
the same from Muslims states.
SouthAsian Says:
Anil: This is a problematic proposition. Suppose Muslim states dont guarantee equality; would
we (I presume you mean India) also do the same? Is this a point of principle or of tit-for-tat? If
the latter, India may go into a deep slide.
!34
Secondly, the issue is really one of equal rights. Is it possible to guarantee equal rights even if the
state is non-secular? I hope someone who knows more can inform us of the status of guaranteed
rights in countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Algeria, Morocco, etc.
Third, if the tit-for-tat logic is to apply to Muslim states, would India guarantee equal rights to
Christians because countries with Christian majorities have constitutionally guaranteed equal
rights for non-Christians? So, India would have equal rights for some minorities and not for
others? What will happen if some Christian countries renege on equal rights? If some Indian
Christians originated in those countries, would they lose their equal rights?
Anil Kala Says:
September 19, 2009 at 2:41 am
I didnt say we should reciprocate in the same way. I am merely speculating on reason for
rancour.
SouthAsian Says:
Anil: Sorry, I misread your comment. I see the point you are making. There is also the other side
to that. For all its talk of Muslim brotherhood etc., it is quite obvious that the successive
governments in Pakistan have never given any importance to the well-being of Muslims in India.
Their narrow self-centered actions have brought untold misery on Indian Muslims because of the
rancour that has been generated.
This also highlights the lack of logic in the demand for Pakistan. Ostensibly, the intention was to
provide political protection to the Muslims who were living in provinces like UP with large Hindu
majorities. Muslims in Muslim-majority provinces like NWFP had adequate protection any way
because of their numbers. Pakistan left behind all the Muslims that were considered vulnerable
and constituted a new country in areas that did not need protection. The group that came out
worst was of Muslims left behind in India deprived of political leadership. To make things even
worse, subsequent actions of Pakistani governments ensured that more rancour was generated in
India against Indian Muslims.
This is the real test for India. Pakistani Muslims will do nothing to make the lives of Indian
Muslims tolerable. Indians have to rise the challenge. It is a huge moral test the kind of test the
requires a Gandhian vision.
!35
Vinod Says:
September 19, 2009 at 12:50 pm
I can say something about Malaysia. The Indians and the Chinese have constantly resented the
Bhoomiputra policies which guarantee reservation to a class of Malays (I am not sure exactly
whom the reservations are guaranteed for), who invariably happen to be muslims as well. During
lunch chats with my chinese colleagues they tell me that if Singapore was a part of Malaysia, our
senior management in the Singapore Co affiliate would all be Malays and not Chinese though
the majority in the populaiton is Chinese. Indians, Christians and the Chinese in Malaysia have
always dreaded the imposition of Shariah. There are parties that are calling for a Saudi-style
Shariah in their political rallies. The minorities in Malaysis continue to live in Malaysia even
when they can affort to live in Singapore because Malaysia offers a cheaper and better quality
lifestyle and the Shariah threats are only sporadic in nature.
There have been issues in Malaysia about muslim apostates and the jurisdiction of the Shariah
court that have troubled inter-community harmony. Lately, there have been issues with the
movement of a temple that is being objected to by the muslims.
I believe Malaysia survives through all these despite Islamic influence because of its pre-Islamic
culture of syncretised growth of culture that has continued to a large extent till the global
Islamization wave caught up in Malaysia too.
I dont hear much about Indonesia.
Vinod Says:
SA, muslims make an argument that Chirstian states do not let them practice a key aspect of
their religion polygamy. In that way, they are not giving equal treatment even in civil matters.
kabir Says:
Anil I agree with you about quid pro quo. But I also think India, as a secular state and as a
democracy, should hold its self to higher standards than Islamic Republics and oil rich middle
eastern kingdoms.
!36
Vinod Says:
SA, I want to add a qualification of the tolerance you speak of in the medieval period. I beieve
that kind of tolerance is a rather low standard when speaking of tolerance to minorities in todays
world. Would Saladdin have let one of the Maimonides become his deputy or his stand-in?
Never. Letting the maimonides settle down in his empire and go about their daily business is one
thing and letting a person from the minority rise up to governing a state is another. I dont think
we could ever have seen a Barrack Obama type leader in the medieval times. There was a limit
to the tolerance of the medieval times that one should be aware of and medieval tolerance
should not get overrated. .
SouthAsian Says:
Vinod: This is an issue we should address with some care. First, one could argue that the extent
and intensity of the intolerance we have seen in the modern era is unprecedented where in the
past would one find the equivalents of the Holocaust, the Partition of the Indian subcontinent,
the Apartheid in South Africa, the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, the decimation of native
populations in North America and Australia, etc.?
In some sense this is not the most interesting aspect. I feel the past has to be evaluated in terms of
its own norms, not the norms of the modern era. And within the norms of any era it becomes
useful to look at variations. Why at a particular time were some parts or some regimes more
tolerant than others? That could tell us that we might be missing something important. If people
of the same religion or culture could display variations in tolerance, there might be some other
variable involved that we might be overlooking. It could be some political aspect that we are not
aware of and have not looked for. In such cases most people find it easier instead to make
sweeping generalizations for which no research is required.
As for Maimonides, as Professor Sen has mentioned, Saladin not only supported him but gave
him a place of honor at his court. We have already recorded in an earlier post the composition of
Emperor Akbars cabinet it ought to be considered a great sign of trust and religious tolerance
to assign the control of the finances and the military of the empire to individuals belonging to
groups that most people think in terms of hated enemies. If some Muslims were reading this
discussion, they would surely point also to the fact that a black slave was the first appointed
muezzin of the Islamic faith.
!37
So, either we are misinformed about the norms of earlier times or we are judging them too
harshly.
Ganpat Ram Says:
SouthAsian:
Partition means Muslims can now peacefully develop their Pakistan with a mainly Muslim
personality, and Hindus can develop an India with a mainly Hindu personality. The two can live
separately. A very good result. I have many many criticisms of Nehru, but his decision to accept
Partition SAVED the Hindus.
Without it, there would have been an unimaginable bloodletting and Muslims would have seized
far more land than they got. Hence their gripe about Partition.
Hayyer Says:
Ganpat Ram
You have read the hate mongers among the Muslims prior to partition. Have you read the hate
mongers among the Hindus? It is a long list starting with Dayanand Saraswati and Vivekananda
(though the latter claimed to be reasonable).
Ganpat Ram Says:
SouthAsian:
India has the right to be a Hindu state IF it gives equal rights to minorities.
I am glad you admit Partition was a piece of enormous luck for Hindus.
Even Muslims are better off with it. Hindus and Muslims have quarreled so much that without
Partition there would have been total chaos and bloodshed.
!38
Indian Muslims tend to whine rather than use the ample opportunities they have to biuild decent
lives. They do not deserve the sympathy you waste on them.
I am VERY happy Indians, Paks and Bngladeshis will live seprate lives forever. GOOODO!!!!!!
Hayyer Says:
Ganpat Ram:
If Hindus wanted a Hindu state they would vote in those political parties that want a Hindu
India. Why argue on this site? Address your questions to Indian Hindus and ask them to vote for
the Parivar group.
You have an idea of Muslims; and you insist that it is the only correct idea. There is nothing to be
done about that. It is what fanaticism is usually about.
Ganpat Ram Says:
HAYYER:
Calling those fanatics who warn about Muslims because of universal experience of Muslim
fanaticism is a very cheap polemical device.
Ganpat Ram Says:
SouthAsian:
You seem to be dead set on whitewashing Islamic imperialism.
By your standard Hitler would come across as a trusting and tolerant ruler because he entrusted
much of France to Marshal Petain, a French soldier belonging to a group most Nazis would think
of as hated enemies.
There were plenty of Hindu collaborators with Muslim rulers. They stood by as these rulers
committed monumental atrocities agaibst their people and destroyed Hindu temples.
!39
So what?
Vinod Says:
Ganpat, if you think SA is whitewashing, do you realize you are painting in black and white?
Ganpat Ram Says:
VINOD:
What would it take to convince you that Muslims had a profound opposition to the Hindus in the
times of Muslim rule in India?
The FACT that rulers like Aurangzeb rpeatedly expressed acute contempt and for Hinduism and
the desire to eradicate it is not enough for you.
The FACT that Muslim rulers destroyed vast numbers of Hindu temples on any number of
pretexts is not enough.
The FACT that Hindus were subject to all manner of disabilities under Muslim rule is not
enough.
Then what is?
As for Hindus having collaborated with Muslim rulers..So what? Did not Indians collaborate
with British rulers?
As for the idea that a British census can create the Hindu-Muslim split: what sort of unity was it
that could be split so easily?
Why dream about a unity that is illusory?
!40
Just accept the division and live with it. India puts up with a separate Lanka and Nepal, which
have infinitely more in common with India culturally than Pakistan and Bangladesh.Why cant
it accept a separate Pakistan and Bangladesh?
Vikram Says:
Ganpat, I dont see how you can claim that Lanka and Nepal have infinitely more cultural
similarity to India than India does to Pakistan. As far as I am concerned, in cultural terms South
Asia is mostly a cultural continuum, apart from communities on the fringes like Sri Lanka, Nepal
and Kashmir that are related to the continuum but not part of it.
What distinguishes India from its neighbours like Nepal, Sri Lanka and Pakistan is the strong (but
often strained) mass and constitutional commitment to pluralism and democracy. They are the
foundations of our Republic. To some extent Bangladesh is similar to us in this regard.
I agree with you that romanticizing about a possibly illusory past will not solve the problem of
community relations in India, but neither will blaming all the countrys ills on the perceived
malevolence of a particular community.
Ganpat Ram Says:
VIKRAM:
May I remind you that the great majority of Indians are Hindus, and that Nepal and Sri Lanka
share a huge heritage of religion and culture with the Hindu majority in India since they are
Hindus or Buddhists followers of a daughter religion of Hinduism?
So it is arrant nonsense when you say these countries do not share more cuturally with India than
Muslim countries like Bangladesh and the former West Pakistan.
Vikram Says:
!41
Mr. Ram, I am well aware of the demographics of my country. The point I am trying to make
here is that culture does not stem just from religion (although it is an important source) but also
from language and history. A Hindu Tamil does have something in common with an Assamese
Hindu, but he/she also has something in common with a Tamil Christian.
If religion was the sole determinant of culture and nations, then East Pakistan wouldnt have
fought a war of independence and become Bangladesh (i.e. nation of Bengalis).
India shares culture with all of its neighbours, but their politics and Constitutions are very
different.
Ganpat Ram Says:
VIKRAM:
If language is what counts with you, there is no case for any kind of united India, or united
Pakistan.
We all speak different languages.
Stop fooling yourself. The idea of a united India is primarily based on the Hindu heritage.
Without it there will be just a bunch of independent states.
You can fool yourself all you like. The Muslims are NEVER coming back to join the Hindus. We
have gone our separate ways, and a jolly good thing too. Islam is too intolerant.
Vinod Says:
Ganpat, you have completely missed the point of this post by SA. It is not about calling for a
unity of India and Pakistan. So pls stop belabouring that irrelevant point. The point of this post
was about how an analysis is more often than not tainted with the simplifications about others
derived from ones prejudices. It is about deriving lessons from history on arriving at sound
judgment in difficult scenarios.
!42
SouthAsian Says:
Vikram: I agree with the point you have made (culture does not stem just from religion) but want
to push further on two subsequent comments: that religion is an important source of culture; and
on the nature of the relationship between conflict and culture.
We have had this discussion earlier with Mazhur who took a position similar to Ganpat Rams
that religion is the source of culture. In general, a stronger case can be made that culture is the
larger category and culture subsumes religion. Thus religion becomes one element in a culture.
For example, we talk about the culture of the Punjab which includes Punjabis of all religions.
Similarly, as you mention, there is Tamil culture which also cuts across religions and has some of
the same religions as in the Punjab.
When a community converts to a new religion its culture essentially remains the same only
some practices change. This is what explains the existence of syncretic communities that are
perplexed at the attempts of purists to force them into one religion or the other. Even those who
do not believe in any religion belong to one culture or the other.
Regarding conflict, there is nothing that prevents conflicts within cultures. There can be intercultural as well as intra-cultural conflict. Intra-culture conflict can be driven by differences over
some element of that culture like religion (e.g., a conflict between Sikh and Muslim Punjabis) or
some dimension within the religion itself (e.g., caste). There are often intense quarrels over
property within families that share all elements of a given culture.
Your conclusion is absolutely correct there is a shared culture in South Asia but the politics and
Constitutions of the countries comprising South Asia are very different.
Vikram Says:
Mr. Ram, For the majority of Indians, language counts along with religion, caste and nationality.
They are part of peoples identity. Trying to form nationalism based on religion does not appeal
to the majority.
It is time for you to open your eyes and your mind.
!43
ISRO has Hindus, Muslims and Christians speaking different languages, but that does not stop
them from being an organization and achieving collective goals, does it ?
kabir Says:
Judging by some of the comments on this post, Hinduism is just as intolerant as Islam. Rather,
intolerant people exist among followers of all religions.
Now back to the topic of the post.
Ganpat Ram Says:
The mistake many people make is imgining thsat Pakistan was due solely to Jinnah.
In fact, by 1945 it was a mass movement. Jinnah or no Jinnah,it would have dominated Indian
politics.
However Hindus and Muslims might have co-existed in the past even setting aide the actual
grisly record of communal battles in modern times, as thy became much more self-conscious
about communal identity, they could no longer co-exist. Co-existence was a feature of a premodern age. In modern times, Muslims wanted Pakistan.
You cannot escape the diffuculties of modernity by praising the past, as many are doiung here.
Hindus and Muslims no longer, if they ever did, trust each other. Each expected the worst. It was
time to part.
SouthAsian Says:
Ganpat: The following points need attention in your comment:
!44
1. There is no one on this blog who thinks that Pakistan was due solely to Jinnah. You were the
only person who did so. It is good that you have joined the majority.
2. Assertions are not enough by themselves. They are only starting points and need proof of have
credibility. You need to cite evidence of the grisly record of communal battles in the past.
3. Co-existence could not have been a feature of a pre-modern age if the latter was also riddled
with grisly communal battles. There is a contradiction in this claim.
4. You need to support the claim that in modern times as people become more self-conscious
about communal identity, they cannot co-exist. How would you apply this to the history of
Europe?
5. Does this imply that as people in India become more self-conscious of their caste identities
they would no longer be able to live together?
6. Your claim that in modern times Muslims wanted Pakistan needs elaboration. How would
you explain that more Muslims stayed in India than moved to Pakistan?
7. You misunderstand the debate on this blog by thinking that people are trying to escape the
difficulties of modernity by praising the past. The objective is to study the past to understand
the present; and also to see how the past is re-invented to justify the present. This is the standard
task in thousands of history departments in the world; there is nothing odd or fearful about it.
Knowledge of the past does often shake ones certainties about the present. Some are excited by
the prospect, others are afraid of it. Often the latter groups try to stop the study of history. That
becomes part of politics.
8. You make a strong claim that Hindus and Muslims no longer, if they ever did, trust each
other. You need to cite evidence for that without resorting to the label of collaborators for all
those who did trust each other. Labeling also does not count as proof. In fact, dismissing
everything and everyone that does not agree with ones position and repeating ones assertions is
an indication that one wishes to engage in polemics not debate.
9. If it turns out that your claim is indeed true, the task for the participants on this blog would be
to rebuild that trust.
10. Nothing is forever. There may be a time to part and there can be a time to get together again.
It depends upon the needs of the times. We are in one boat now buffeted by the storms of
globalization and climate change. In one boat we need to row together lest we drown. It is not
wisdom to practice ones prejudices on a sinking boat.
The following is a third century BC inscription from the Twelfth Major Rock Edict of the
Mauryan emperor, Ashoka:
!45
On each occasion one should honour the sect of the other, for by doing so one increases the
influence of ones own sect and benefits that of the other; while by doing otherwise one
diminishes the influence of ones own sect and harms the other. Again, whosoever honours his
own sect or disparages that of another, wholly out of devotion to his own, with a view to showing
it in a favourable light, harms his own sect even more seriously. Therefore, concord is to be
commended, so that men may hear one anothers principles and obey them
Ganpat Ram Says:
1. Did more Muslims stay in India than went to Pakistan?
Not if you know anything about the numbers. Pakistan and Bangladesh constituted two-thirds of
the Indian Muslim population. According to me. two-thirds is twice as big as one-third. Correct
me if I am wrong.
It is true actual Muslim migration, though one of the biggest mass movements in history, was of
a small portion of the Musloim populaion within the new borders of India. But did that imply
these Muslims had no enthuisiasm for Pakistan? Not at all. Thety were the main supporters of
Pakistan, in Indian elections. The rest of the Muslims joined in later.
2. What proof of Hindus and Muslims not trusting each other in modern times, you ask. May I
point to the Pakistan movement? Isnt that evidence enough and more?
3. As for earlier times, I cannot summarise the vast evidence in an inch. I would advise you to
study the history of Muslim temple-destruction in India. There are few large and really old
Hindu temples left in areas of India longest under Muslims. You have to go to South India for
those. This is enough to show you the Muslims deeply despised Hinduism. It is no more
persuasive to pretend Hindus loved Muslim rule than that Arabs were happy under Western rule.
Do not prescribe colonialism for Hindus. I see an Islamist imperialist tendency in you.
4. It is tough luck if the Pakistanis got the worst of the deal under Partition. That boat is overpopulated, increasingly waterless and is siunking. Dont try to take over the Hindu share. Thats
all I ask. They decided to go, and they should stay gone.
SouthAsian Says:
!46

Ganpat:
1. We are obviously talking of different numbers. I am talking about the proportion of the total
population of Muslims in the newly created India that migrated to Pakistan. That constitutes a
strong test of whether they did not want to live in India. You have to remember that elections
before 1947 were not based on universal suffrage.
2. As I have mentioned times change and people change with the times. One can argue that the
British also ruled repressively in India (Plassey, 1857, Jallianwala Bagh) yet all Indians (Hindus,
Muslims, Sikhs) find it possible to co-exist with them. The Nazis carried out genocide against the
Jews and they have learnt to live together. The Americans bombed Vietnam to death and they
have learnt to co-exist. You may wish to live in the past but everyone does not have to be bound
to your preferences.
3. If you talk for a mile and cannot spare an inch for evidence all your talk is in vain. What you
see in others depends upon the eyes you see with. I have mentioned that labeling does not
substitute for evidence.
4. Your statement that boat is over-populated, increasingly waterless and is sinking. Dont try to
take over the Hindu share is disconnected. Please do not be fearful no one is trying to undo
history. I have said before I am delighted you have a secure space.
Ganpat Ram Says:
SouthAsian:
I see you try to avoid facing up to historical facts with rather feeble subterfuges.
1. Indian elections under the British had a restricted electorate, true, but no historian I am aware
of doubts that the Hindu population by and large supported the Congress and the Muslims by
1945 overwhelmingly supported the Pakistan movement. The electoral restrictions applied right
across the India of that time, and it was consistently in the part that became the India of today
that the Muslims most strongly supported the Pakistan movement. Jinnah himself was Bombaybased, and other important early leaders came from the UP.
!47
2. Co-existence is inevitable on Earth, but the Hindus and the Muslims have quarreled so much
that it would be the height of folly to bring the two together again in the same country. People
like Nehru and Patel were far from fanatical Hindus, yet they took the decision to have Partition
once they realised the alternative was a permanent Muslim veto on everything that happened in
India, that in effect a minority would be holding the rest to ransom with civil war and massacre a
perpetual reality. I respect their decision, which saved most of India.
3. I dont blame the Muslims for their devition to the Islamic identity. It is a very proud and
magnificent heritage, and they have every right to take pride in it. But Hindus too, respect their
heritage, however measly it seems to Muslims. We are glad of a chance tio develop our Hindu
identity in India, without the Muslim veto.
4. Every serious historian accepts that Muslims destroyed Hindu temples on a mass scale. Are you
disputing this?
5. Germans and Frenchmen live in the EU, but they are not divded by Islam, and had to go
through two world wars. Hindus and Muslims are profoundly different, and should stay by and
large in different lands. Certainy India can trade with Pakistan, just as it does with Peru. Other
than that, it should be a strict non-interference, comment or connection other than good
neighbourliness as with, say, Burma.
6. Every serious historian knows Muslims destroyed Hindu temples en masse. Are you seriously
disputing that?
kabir Says:
Ganpat Ram:
In all sincerity, given your views that Hindus and Muslims are well rid of each other, why are you
commenting on a blog called The South Asian Idea?. We are not called the Akhand Bharat
Idea, the Indian Idea, or even the Pakistani Idea. Our use of the word South Asia should
let you know of our ideology and our belief in promoting peace and tolerance in the Indian
Subcontinent.
!48
man0jm Says:
Kabir, I dont think that having a contrary view should irk people who promote peace and
tolerance. Just saying.
Ganpat Ram Says:
SouthAsian:
How ironic and telling that people like you make a big thing about your devotion to the Indian
cultural heritage, yet try to evade accepting that there was a massive Muslim destruction of
Hindu temples.
Are those Hindu temples not a very important part of the Indian heritage?
This lack of concern about the destruction of the temples gives the lie to your praise of about
South Asias cutural unity, etc etc.
Ganpat Ram Says:
Kabir:
I take it you welcome debate, that you dont just think your views should go unquestioned. That is
why I participate in this debate.
Muslims need people who will argue with them, politely but firmly.
Ganpat Ram Says:
SouthAsian:
Apologies for the accidental repetition of the question about Hindu temples above.
!49
I wait for your answer.

Were the temples destroyed or not?
Dont Hindus have aright to be concerned about that?
Can that concern be dismissed as that of a minority, as Romila Thapar suggests? Does the
Thapar principle apply to all historical crmes, like the Holocaust, for example?
SouthAsian Says:
Ganpat: Many temples were destroyed. I havent come across a count; if you have let us know
and cite the source. Everyone has a right to be concerned. The concern cannot be dismissed as
that of a minority without evidence. Your concern is very obvious and has been registered. I am
not sure if the entire German race or all of Christendom is being held accountable for the
Holocaust which is a historical fact.
Ganpat Ram Says:
SouthAsian:
I believe people like Romila Thapar have done a measureless amount of harm to Hindu-Muslim
relations.
You recommend her atrociously dishonest argument that the Muslim destruction of Hindu
temples like that of Somnath was not motivated by Islamic hatred of a rival faith, Hinduism.
This is adding insult to the injury Hindus have suffered. If Hindus destroyed mosques on the
same scale would you or any honest person buy the claim that this had nothing to do with Hindu
intolerance of Islam? Obviously not.
!50
General Dyer claimed that his massacre of Indians at Jallianwalla Bagh was not motivated by
prejudice against them. No serious person accepts this, though as a matter of fact some local Sikh
leaders felicitated Dyer.
Why then attempt similar arguments to whitewash Islamic crimes against Hindus?
Would you accept the attempt of upper caste Hindus to argue that their maltreatment of Dalits
had nothing to do with caste prejudice?
Muslims would do far better to admit the history of Islamic intolerance, and try to be tolerant.
SouthAsian Says:
Ganpat: I fail to understand how Romila Thapar has done a measureless amount of harm to
Hindu-Muslim relations. Clearly her argument differs from yours but does that necessarily make
it atrociously dishonest? Is everyone who disagrees with your opinion dishonest, deluded, or a
collaborator?
Your example of General Dyer reiterates the point that there can be more than one
interpretation of the same event. The task of the historian is to examine the evidence not to call
the other side names. If you have a different opinion you need to point out where you dispute the
evidence.
It is not for me to tell anyone what to do. Everyone is entitled to their opinions but if they wish to
participate in a debate they have to defend their opinions with evidence and logic.
Ganpat Ram Says:
SouthAsian:
The popint I was making was that Thapar applies to Hindu history standards of evaluation she
would not think of applying to other histories. That is why she is deeply dishonest.
!51
Thapar suggests that the destruction of Hindu temples by Muslims need not be held tio mean
these happened because of Muslim bias against Hinduism. She would NEVER apply the same
principle to Hindu crimes against Muslims such as the Babri Masjid destruction or Gujarat,
would she?I clearly pointed out that General Dyer could be absolved of racial bias against
Indians, by the Thapar method which you praise.
So I have clearly indicated what my argument is about.
Do not pretend not to understand.
SouthAsian Says:
Ganpat: I would expect Romila Thapar to apply exactly the same methodology to Babri Masjid
as she applied to Somanath. She would look at all the contemporaneous documents and sources
and lay them out for review by others. From these she would draw her own conclusions and also
enable others to draw theirs. In the case of Babri Masjid the task is much easier because the
documents are readily available and in languages that are accessible.
The Dyer incident would also be examined in the same way and the available evidence would be
weighed in the court of history. Taking one position or the other based on ideological or
nationalist preferences does not qualify as rigorous analysis.
Your last sentence suggests that along with Romila Thapar you also consider me deeply
dishonest. As I have mentioned before, if your starting position is that anyone who disagrees with
you is deeply dishonest there is little prospect of resolving the differences. The only option is for
us to retire with grace.
ModerateIndianHindu Says:
1.
Great discussion, enjoyed reading it. The depth of knowledge of you all is amazing. I
agree with Ganpat Ram that the Hindu and Muslim nation has gone so wide apart that
integration is impossible. But I do hope that one day India and Pakistan can have open
borders, if not integrated population like Germany. Open borders could be an interim step
before unification, if that happens in my lifetime!!
!52
2. Ganpat Ram Bitterness does not help, educated people like us can bring a change to move
forward from prejudice and work together for the betterment of the society.
Yes, I agree atrocities were committed on Hindus during Muslim rule. But that has nothing to do
about religion this is an innate human nature that unfortunately represses the downtrodden
and has shown time and time again all over the world.
Hindus repressed Dalits for ages hot molten lead was poured in the ears of dalits who happen
to listen to vedas and other hindu religious recitals. Was this religion based prejudice? NO it
was power based upper caste hindus had a perceived power and they abused it.
British and also Nadir Shah repressed Indians (Hindus and Muslims alike) .Colonial powers
repressed slaves both Black and White, European settlers in US repressed Native Americans,
Australian natives is the same story, Christians repressed non Christians, Sunnis repressed
shias. list goes on and on so the common thread there is not the religion but raw human
instinct of hunger for power and resulting abuse.
I would equate the abuse listed above to a small token exercise of abusive power by a govt office
babu(clerk) in India today he has a perceived power to delay you a phone connection or delay
your customs clearance and by golly he exercises that I dont believe he will distinguish between
religion in exercising his abusive power.
The power in modern times has translated to electoral power and hence manipulation by
conniving politicians. Illiteracy, poverty and uneducated masses get manipulated by such hate
mongers.
Descendents of American Slaves carried a chip on their shoulder for generations, and some still
do live in the past. But successful African Americans are those who have come to terms with
the historical facts and learnt to move forward. We should all do that.
2. SouthAsian Great effort in moderating the discussion.. and your knowledge is awesome !!
SouthAsian Says:
Moderate Indian Hindu: You have summarized the discussion very well and extracted the key
point that is relevant. Belonging to a religion and being ideologically motivated by it are two
completely different things. This is a distinction that many people overlook. The Mughals who
invaded India were Muslims but it was not Islam that motivated their invasion. Had that been the
case, Aurangzeb would not have spent half his life fighting the Muslim kingdoms in the Deccan.
The Khilafat Movement was supported by Gandhi, opposed by Jinnah, and crushed by Kemal
Ataturk. Political considerations almost always override religious ones.
!53
When one reads the history of India over the last one thousand years one never comes across an
instance of a purely Muslim army arrayed against a purely Hindu army there were always
people of both communities on either side. All the battles were driven by control over territory
and sources of revenue, never by religion. I was reminded of this again while reading a short
story by Prem Chand (Rani Sarindha). It is about Bundelkhand which is in the news these days
readers would find the story of interest for more than one reason.
The irony is that those who are motivated by religion are particularly prone to violence against
their co-religionists whom they consider not sufficiently religious. This is what the Taliban are
doing in Pakistan and what the RSS has been doing in India.
When we oversimplify religion we exacerbate the divisions in society for reasons that have almost
no support in reality. Many thanks for your very valuable comments.
Siddharth Says:
We Indians and Pakistanis come with so much baggage.
Here are the identities I most identify with: I am a human, a lover of rock and roll, a beer
connoisseur, a photographer, a cartoonist, and an atheist.
My Indianness is primarily culinary, linguistic, and related to pop culture. I come from a
Pakistan bordering state (Rajasthan), and I can assure you no one ever thinks/talks about
Pakistan there. I have lived a good 13 years of my life in South India. No one thinks/talks about
Pakistan there either. There are primarily only two places in India where Pakistan is an issue
people discuss: in the chatty circles of Mumbai and Delhi (I have lived 5+ years in both cities).
I dont know if this is a good thing or bad, but Indians on an average dont care about Pak either
way.
Do excuse me for not contributing anything relevant to this debate/discussion. I just hope we call
all just chill out and get along. Wishful thinking, I know.
!54
SouthAsian Says:
Siddharth: There could be a bit of natural parochialism involved in this phenomenon I doubt
if people in Rajasthan think or talk much about South India, or vice versa, either. In normal
circumstances this lack of involvement would not matter but the circumstances are far from
normal the nature of India-Pakistan relations could cast a huge shadow on the welfare of over
a billion people in South Asia. For that reason alone, the Indian government has a very active
public policy stance vis a vis Pakistan. Whose views is it representing if the people are not
involved in the debate or are indifferent to it? Could it become like the situation in the USA
where American citizens are not interested enough in the Middle East thereby allowing neo-cons
the opportunity to take liberties in that sphere?
Siddharth Singh Says:
SouthAsian,
The problem is that Rajasthanis, or the people living in rural areas of any state in India, Pakistan
or any other south Asian country have a lot of problems of their own to worry about anything
else. International relations is last on their minds. Hence I wouldnt be too surprised to see such
indifference of people beyond India too (I can only speak about what I have noticed, everything
else is speculation).
I too fear that the international policy will be taken over by jingoistic neo cons in our
subcontinent. In fact, havent they already? At least, in my eyes, we might be heading in that
direction.
SouthAsian Says:
Siddharth: In Pakistan the neo-cons have undoubtedly taken control. In India, there have been
ups and downs but the general trend is towards a hardening stance. I keep thinking if this
represents the preferences of the rural populations which are still the majority in both countries.
How does one find out? In the theory of democracy, the will of the people drives the policy of
the governments. In our times, the ruling cliques manipulate and manufacture the will of the
people with control of information and its abuse backed by money. This was at the back of mind
in the two posts about Kashmir (here and here).
!55
Arun Says:
June 17, 2010 at 10:48 pm | Reply
Just keep Pakistan an uninterrupted parliamentary democracy for a sufficiently long time (two
decades at least) and things will improve; some kind of South Asia will emerge.
Everything else is wishful thinking.
SouthAsian Says:
June 19, 2010 at 12:14 pm | Reply
Arun: I agree, although keeping Pakistan civil for two decades is a tough order. A lot of smart
politics by India would be needed to finesse such an outcome. My fear is that Indian democracy
itself might be squeezed over two decades if it does not deliver benefits to the majority of its
population.
Bharat Says:
Very interesting discussion, and an unusually high content to vitriol ratio. My compliments.
I tend to agree with Ganapat Ram for the most part, though his feisty and robust language seems
to have caused a great deal of perplexity. In my experience in discussing with members of the
Pakistani intellegentsia (defined as those who write more or less coherently on blogs, op-eds etc.) I
have found (with a handful of exceptions) that any Indian (especially if he should come across as
a Hindu) that expresses himself vigorously in opposition to the Pakistanis received verities is
reflexively dismissed as a Hindu fanatic, and put in a box with Thakre, Modi et al. It is to this
blogs credit that this didnt quite happen to Ganapat Ram, but it came mighty close to
happening.
Being grateful for a Hindu majority state, where for the most part Hindus feel free to be Hindus
without feeling that they are on sufferance from the rulers is not the same as being a Hindu
fanatic or an intolerant person. India (aspirationally at least) is a country where the question of
sufferance does not arise (which fact is what protects the dignity and natural rights of its
minorities), whereas Pakistan, in the best of possible worlds, is a country that is modeled on
exactly this idea of sufferance and tolerance of the despised inferior.(in the less-than-best
scenario, the minorities are systematically exterminated and degraded, both in fact and in
!56
aspiration). Like Ganapat Ram, I thank the Almighty that this idea, and not Muslims per se, has
in effect been quarrantined in Pakistan, and pray that India wises up and keeps its ideological
borders secure and well-policed.
SouthAsian Says:
Bharat: Thanks for the compliment; it is much appreciated.
This is not a partisan blog and does not suffer from the self-imposed burden of having to defend
specific positions. The response to Ganpat Ram was not undertaken from the position of a
Pakistani blog. Rather, it was an attempt to engage logically with his arguments. In the end it
was a draw as neither side was able to make headway but hopefully other readers were able to
benefit from the exchange.
On your second point, I have mixed feelings. You make an important distinction that it is not
Muslims per se but the ideological stance that is quarantined in Pakistan that is problematic. If
Pakistan had not been created, India would still have been a Hindu majority state. Therefore,
being grateful for Partition does not seem relevant from this perspective. There might be other
benefits for India but acquiring a majority is clearly not one of them.
Bharat Says:
SouthAsian:
I am having trouble parsing
You make an important distinction that it is not Muslims per se but the ideological stance that is
quarantined in Pakistan that is problematic.
It is not clear whether you are saying that the distinction (ideology or mindset vs religion) is
problematic; if so, how is it problematic?
The subcontinent was always nominally Hindu-majority, even before British times, so that is
irrelevant to discussion about partition. The exact question that divided the country was whether
any group should be privileged enough to have a veto power over pubic decision, in law as well as
!57
in fact. Pakistans Constitution clearly states that Muslims shall have that power, and it has proved
so in fact, with everyone else living in terror of the whims of Muslims, and that being perfectly
legal. The ideology of India, while accepting some safeguards for various vulnerable elements of
society, emphatically does not privilege any group over any other. Hindu numerical majority by
itself is meaningless (as it has always existed, yet arguably in many parts of India over many
periods of history Hindus lived in terror of Muslims, along with kings, nobles, and so on. India
(despite occassonal and sporadic outbursts of Hindu supremacist sentiment along with violence,
has by and large never sought to reverse the scales on Muslims; an equal and free status is more
than sufficient for Hindus. The opposite of such equality and freedom is what is quarantined in
Pakistan.
SouthAsian Says:
July 14, 2010 at 10:40 am | Reply
Bharat: I was reiterating the point you had made in your earlier comment: I thank the Almighty
that this idea [of sufferance], and not Muslims per se, has in effect been quarantined in
Pakistan.
I felt this was an important and valuable distinction because it identifies the real problem the
idea adopted by the people in Pakistan. This gets us away from the position that the problem
resides in the religion itself. Just as an idea can be adopted, it can be un-adopted this is a
normal part of political struggles.
Constitutions do not explicitly need to privilege groups the majority is automatically privileged
if democracy degenerates into majoritarianism. It is the minorities whose rights have to be
protected against the abuses of majoritarianism. Pakistan has failed completely in this endeavor;
India has done much better but there is room to do more.
Satyajit Says:
Nice topic, heated debates.
Hindus had been under Islamic rule for a over 700 years. Politicians, intellectuals, and other
secularists cannot just expect Hindus to forget the past!!! Past is past, but it matters.
!58
Can the Jews ever forget Holocaust. Never. They should never.
That secularism is enshrined in the Indian Constitution is itself a miracle considering the history
of Hindus. Which other country would have allowed for such a document of rights after being so
brutally ruled? None!!! Israel is also a Jewish state.
Having said this, I believe for the future of India, secularism is important. There is simply no
other way to manage a country like ours. Why should Hindus, who form the majority, give equal
rights and equal consideration to all minorities? They should because India is now looking to
unify all its people under a common banner. In other words if Hindus want a better life, and a
greater say in their country they have to make sure that the minorities, feel as Indian as they do!!!
However painful and unfair it may sound, this is the best way forward now.
Those who preach secularism, and I am one of them, should also acknowledge and accept the
fact that in India, Hindus had been brutalized in the past by Islamic rule.
Preaching secularism without accepting the fact that Hindus have for centuries suffered under
foreign domination, is absolutely wrong!!! We in this country have quotas for the Dalits, because
it is widely understood that they have suffered, and the quotas are a way of addressing historical
injustice. The Hindus are merely asking that politicians, minorities and other groups accept the
fact that Hindus have suffered.
Presently, there is no acceptance of that fact. People get angry when they hear a politician make
speeches about secularism without even showing remorse for the injustice Hindus have suffered.
A society gets stronger when, every group condemns and protest, injustice against any
community. In our country how many Muslim leaders have come out and accepted the fact that
Aurangzeb was a murderer who brutalized Hindus? Why is their silence on that issue? Is it
because they see nothing wrong with it? Why is it that the English media is silent about past
atrocities committed by Muslims rulers, but makes noise about BJP, Advani and other hindutva
parties? Why is it that we do not have a national remembrance day for the Hindus who died
during Islamic invasions? These are double standards.
Let me summarize by saying this- Secularism asks a lot from Hindus, and Hindus have accepted
secularism because they kmow it is important for their country, but then they also see that they
!59
alone compromise. They see that their pain is not seen heard or felt by politicians, and that is
when many of them start doubting secularism.
Pakistan, is a nice country. It has a different take on the History, but for how long are we going to
deny the truth? Pakistan and India can be one country, but let us first agree on our past!! Let us at
least understand why Hindus are angry. After all India gave birth to Hinduism, and Hindus are
the original residents of this ancient land.
When Aurangzeb and other Islamic rulers who killed Hindus are celebrated as national heroes,
how would Hindus react? I wonder.
For India and Pakistan to be one, we will have to start with the history, then move forward slowly.
Will they ever be one, I do not know, but I want them to. Yes, after all the past I am of the
opinion that we are one people divided by religion, but divisions are meant to be sealed, and
communities (under appropriate conditions too many to list here) heal. Hope for the best.
arsalan Says:
Hi,
Im from Pakistan, I just want to say that the Indian Partition was a really great mistake. Over a
million people got killed due to violence created by the ill designed partition. Just ask yourself, are
the lives of 1 million innocent people of South Asia really less important that the greed of power
hungry political entities such as the Muslim League and Congress.
Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs were living peacefully until the British arrived. Its not just Pakistan or
India, everywhere you look while withdrawing the British Empire broke up all of its colonies.
Unfortunately, the bulk of Pakistanis and Indians have been brainwashed due to institutionalized
propaganda, and remain in complete denial.
SouthAsian Says:
!60
Arsalan: This is a complex issue and it can be easily over simplified. I believe that attributing the
one million deaths to the greed of power hungry political entities like the Muslim League and the
Congress would be one such over simplification. We have the benefit of hindsight that the key
players did not have when they were negotiating. I dont think any of them wanted one million
deaths or indeed believed that such an outcome was possible. We can fault them on poor
judgment but not on inhuman intentions.
There is little doubt that the British were interested in prolonging their rule as long as possible
and their strategies were geared to that end. Recall that the major anti-colonial uprising of 1857
was a united movement. It was in the interest of the British to divide and conquer they gained
an extension but at huge cost to the people of India. Part of the blame has to be shared by the
Indians who fell for this tactic. I feel the main parties were conscious of this and tried, as
evidenced by the many attempts to build united coalitions till late into the 1920s, but they lost
control on both sides to the fringe elements that valued ideology over compromise.
It is ironical that both Indians and Pakistanis have forgiven the British but remain unforgiving of
each other.
Bala Krishnan Says:
Deart southasian,
I am sure sounthasian is a Muslim who longing for a united India or a very foolish Hindu who is
ingnorant of Muslim psyche.
is there any country in the world that can co-exist with a Muslim population of more than 30%?
Impossible. The fundementals of Islam dictates Jihad is the only option to liberate from nonmulsim rule if in all countries the Muslims do not attempt now only means, they are not ready
for such a combat. Why East Timur or south Sudan drifting away? It is impossible to live
honourably by non Muslims in a Muslim majority country. Can you show a single nonMuslim
living honourable in any of the 57 islamic countries? No. you cannot find.
If India had not been divided, India would have gone under a terrible civil war killing millions
and would have created far greater a Muslim country comprising almost all of north India. Every
Indian, Hindus and Muslims and Sikhs for that matter, would have been carrying AK47 and
!61
suicide belts same like happening in Pakistan (every Pakistani got either AK47 or other kind of
guns I talk to them)
If anyone dreaming of coexistence withe Muslims honourable, they are living in a fools paradise.
SouthAsian Says:
Bala Krishnan: There is a larger issue embedded in the point you have made. Throughout most
of the human history we know, people have found it difficult to coexist with those who are
different whether they are minorities or not. There have been ups and downs but the essential
inability has not disappeared anywhere. The variations over time have been quite significant. We
find the Christian countries relatively tolerant today (although note the treatment of the Roma in
Europe) but for centuries there was intense anti-Semitism culminating in one of the most tragic
episodes in history. The Islamic world is going through its phase of intolerance now as you have
pointed out but there was a time when Muslim countries were the most tolerant. Many unbiased
historians have recorded the fact that when Jews were hounded out of Christian countries they
were given refuge in Islamic ones. Intolerance is not intrinsic to religions but springs from many
different contextual reasons.
This inability to coexist is not confined to differences in religion. Discrimination based on color,
language and ethnicity has been a constant throughout history. And even beyond this, where
people share all these attributes, the powerful have not been averse to treating the weak with
brutality. You will not have to look far to find many examples.
In such a context, it is a disservice to continue the pattern of demonizing others based on broad
generalizations and a partial knowledge of history. What is needed are concerted and united
efforts to find ways to reduce prejudice and discrimination. The task is not hopeless. Look at the
history of the United States starting with the extermination of the native Indians and the
enslavement of the Africans. Today there is a President with the middle name of Hussain. It
needs people of the calibre of Martin Luther King to travel this road of healing. Look at the
history of South Africa where decades of brutal exploitation of the natives has given way to a
reconciliation under the guidance of Nelson Mandela. It is indeed ironic that both King and
Mandela take their inspiration from Mahatma Gandhi.
Bala Krishnan Says:
!62

Dear SouthAsian,
I appreciate your moderate approach to every issue. Yes you are right we must hope for a better
future of co-existence. I am a post graduate in History and had more liberal views than you until
I start to live in an islamic country. I intereact wtih Muslims from Indonesia to Algeria and I
found them, individually taken, very nice persons devoid of any extremist thoughts expressed in
daily interactions. That matter gives us hope, as you professed, for a great change as happened in
Christian world. Fanatism among Christians is not eliminated in mind and thought and it is
shown whenever they got a chance to express it. But in the modern secular world, Christians
have learnt to love and accommodate persons other religions unlike Muslims.
This does not preclude us to ignore the current realities if we ignore, it means deliberate
suspension of disbelief and it is very dangerous for our (if we both are Hindus otherwise read
my religions) future survival.
Somehow or other I must wish you all the best for your chosen middle path which may shed
some light to those who drift to extremisim and enable them to go back to more humane society.
Thanks again
Bala Krishnan
SouthAsian Says:
Bala Krishnan: I see human beings as bundles of contradictory passions that, most of the time,
keep each other in check. Once in a while, some one passion takes control of their lives to the
exclusion of others and these are the dangerous times. These passions are so raw and so close
to the surface that it seems the very idea of a match can set them afire and this makes
instigators so dangerous. If one reads Khushwant Singhs Train to Pakistan (in English) or
Qurratulayn Hyders Aag ka Darya (in Urdu) or Yashpals Jhutha Sach (in Hindi) one can get a
sense of how people can live together for years and then one day have no compunction in the
most brutal carnage.
!63
This is the problem of induction (that you cannot always infer the future from observations of the
past) that Bertrand Russell illustrated with his fable of the benevolent farmer. In his book, The
Black Swan, Nassim Taleb has used this fable to reflect on the fate of the increasingly integrated
German Jews in the 1930s.
A good book that has been mentioned on this blog is Secularism Confronts Islam by Olivier Roy.
Roy describes how Christianity was dragged kicking and screaming into the secular world and
then asks: But if Christianity has been able to recast itself as one religion among others in a
secular space, why would this be impossible for Islam?
His answer is worth reading but a point he makes is that one would be led completely astray if
one started the argument from dogma (Christian or Islamic). He strongly recommends a
sociological approach based on a concrete analysis of Muslim practices that is often at variance
with dogma just as the practices of many Catholics are at variance with the dogma regarding
contraception. If one focuses on practice, Olivier claims, one would find that the majority of
Muslims in countries with non-Muslim majorities have already adjusted to a secular world. And
he makes an important point in describing his book: Fundamentalism touches only a minority
of believers, and many people defined sociologically as Muslims have no religious practices. But I
have deliberately concentrated on what has caused problems. Overlooking this fact carries the
risk of an obvious distortion.
I see our task as keeping individuals from inflaming human passions and progressing to a stage
where differences of opinions can be resolved through debates and discussions. This forum is
intended as a contribution to that effort.
Arun Pillai Says:
If I may intervene in this one on one conversation, the last couple of posts by Bala Krishnan and
South Asian are very heartwarming and also conceptually deep. Bala Krishnan shows a
tremendous control of his bundle of passions and I like South Asians description of a human
being as such a bundle.
I would like to add a political dimension to this in two ways. If one divides all political thought
into conservative, liberal, and radical in terms of the kinds of thinking they portray rather than
the substance of their thought, then liberal thought stands out as that thought which is able to
!64
reason about things in parts rather than wholes. It breaks the whole problem down into parts and
then analyzes the parts and their relationships to each other and to the whole. On the other
hand, conservative thought and radical thought treat wholes very much as totalities. This does
not mean there are no parts in such systems but rather that the parts are not given their due.
(Some liberal strands give too much weight to the individual and not enough to the social whole
for example and then this also veers away from abstract liberal thinking.) This part-whole
relationship (the study of which is called mereology in philosophy) in liberalism as opposed to
that in conservative and radical thought is crucial to the moderateness of liberalism. That is
why liberalism exists between the two extreme poles of political thought.
The other dimension about liberalism is its meta nature. This is that it houses many different
subsystems under it and is a highly abstract principle unlike conservative principles or radical
principles. This abstractness is both a strength and a weakness. The strength is that it does not
prejudge human nature much because it has very little content. The weakness is that people find
it difficult to live with such an abstract system, they need more concreteness which both
conservative and radical thought offer.
I include all religions as well as conservative economic theories within conservatism and I include
all extreme leftist and rightist movements and theories under radicalism. The truth about human
beings lies somewhere in between. However, this simple unilinear classification is a bit awkward
because political thought actually requires a multidimensional space to classify it. In any case, this
will suffice for my purposes.
To conclude, I would add that the posts above exemplify liberal thought even if the people who
posted them may not be liberals.
SouthAsian Says:
Arun: This is a very insightful and useful perspective. I would add two things. First, the liberal
strands that give too much weight to the individual and not enough to the social whole fall in the
category of libertarianism and begin to trend into the type of radicalism you have defined.
Second, you have described pure modes of thought. Obviously the situation becomes more
complex when we are dealing with individuals. The sociologist Daniel Bell who died earlier this
month had an interesting triune characterization of himself: a socialist in economics, a liberal
in politics, and a conservative in culture. As we agree, individuals are a complex bundle not only
!65
of passions but of modes of thinking. This makes it all the more important to capture more
accurately the essence of the various segments of the South Asian population.
Bala Krishnan Says:
Arun Pillai in his brilliant analysis of the theoritcal thought process and its classifications looks to
our subject from another plane. The strange thing I notice that it is impossible to visualize the
mindset of a non-Muslim living in a Muslim countries (all the 47 Islamic countries are fanatical
in nature except little moderate Turkey and Malasia). Non-Muslims subdued existence in Islamic
ambience is to be experienced rather than studied.
Once I had an argument with the IndianMuslim office boy over the work matters totally
unrelated to any religions, suddenly I found him shouting all over the vast office saying if
anybody insult my prophet, I will kill him even if he is my son all the muslim staff had the
impression I had insulted the prophet. Everyone knows what is the punishment of insulting
prophet or Islam here where I live is 10 years jail after namesake trial and in Pakistan death
penalty, only two witness required which is easy to get. This is the way nonmuslims are subdued
all over the islamic world. Somehow I escaped that ordeal, but the threat is always dangling over
a non-muslims head all over the islamic world.
Regarding the possibility of transformation of mind of an islamic extremist to liberal or
moderate, I had one Egyptian fanatic ( an engineer !!) came to my office as newly appointed. He
refused sit in my large room saying I am a Hindu hence not a human being equal to monkey or
pig (he told it to another muslim colleague). Gradually over months I had discussions opening up
his mind and mine too, and he was surprised to find that many other ideas exist in the world. He
said to me that 35 years of his life in Egypt, he had not seen any such idea or books to make him
understand other cultures. This means 47 islamic countries are closed societies, strictlycontrolled
by their autocratic governments. My engineer friend had a metamorphosis, now he doest follow
Islam, doesnt do daily prayers, eventhough I intended only to make him moderate. Now he says
that all religions are fake, only psycho therapies. Now he is of the opinion that Islam inevitably
heavily impairs intelligence, it deadens imagination and hinders logical thinking and produces as
the end result a general mental degradation in the believer.
Regarding the Hindus position in the face of growing Muslim extremism in India, Hindus
should take the teaching of The Art of War by Lao Tsu. The Art of war teaches us to rely not on
!66
the liklihood of the enemy not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him, not on the
chance of his not attacking but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable.
SouthAsian Says:
Bala Krishnan: As I said before the scenario you have described is accurate it is not much fun
to be a non-Muslim in a Muslim majority country; for many it is not even much fun to be a
Muslim in a Muslim-majority country. This is a fact. My interest is in how one generalizes from
this fact. Two options are open. One can say that the situation results from something that is
intrinsic in Islam which has existed from the day of its birth one would then find some
explanations for the exceptions of Turkey and Malaysia you have mentioned.
Alternatively, one can look for a more historical explanation. One could argue that the social
situation in Egypt was quite different under King Farouk, Gamal Nasser and Hosni Mobarak,
respectively, although the majority was Muslim throughout. Ditto for the Shah in Iran, Zahir
Shah in Afghanistan, Bourguiba in Tunisia, etc. The task would then be to explain what
happened in the post-colonial era that gave rise to fundamentalism and to Islamism as a political
ideology.
A comparison can illustrate the point I am making. Till the 1960s in the US South, Blacks and
Whites did not eat at the same counter, did not sit in the same bus, did not attend the same
schools, and did not us the same toilets. Blacks were deprived of the vote and could readily be
accused of rape and lynched with or without recourse to the law. Would it have been correct to
generalize from these facts that they were due to something intrinsic in Whiteness or Christianity
that had persisted for ever? If so, how would one explain the election of Barack Obama half a
century later?
As for Muslims in India, the perspective you recommend can very easily turn into a self-fulfilling
prophecy. Americans had a choice after 9/11 to treat the incident as a crime committed by
people who were Muslims or to launch a War on Terror whose main proponents were Muslims.
The latter alternative suited a pre-existing agenda of the neo-conservatives but it has not served
either the Americans or the rest of the world well. I am not sure Lao Tsus The Art of War is the
right approach. Idealistic as it may sound, I would prefer Dale Carnegies The Art of Making
Friends and Winning People.
!67
Anil Kala Says:

Bala Krishnan: You succeeded in converting a fanatic into a liberal.
SouthAsian Says:
Anil: Can the individual be classified as a liberal? It seems to me he swung from one extreme
position to another. A person cannot be liberal while holding such blanket opinions like all
religions are fake, only psycho therapies or that Islam inevitably heavily impairs intelligence, it
deadens imagination and hinders logical thinking and produces as the end result a general
mental degradation in the believer. This reflects an inability to think through issues and a
tendency to take refuge in some overarching belief. There are literally millions of people who
defy this stereotype. Religion is a part of this world that cannot be wished away. What is to be
avoided is the desire of some to impose their faith on others and secular laws ought to be
employed for that purpose.
Anil Kala Says:
SA,
Actually I also think all religions are fake and comic. I thought I was liberal so assumed this
fellow is liberal too. Now I realize I am a fanatic.
SouthAsian Says:
Anil: You can believe whatever you want but if you believe that people holding other views are
mentally impaired then there is a problem. Liberalism doesnt have much to do with belief or
lack of belief in religion it is an attitude of mind. Atheists and agnostics can be liberal,
conservative or radical. So a person who believes all religions are fake does not automatically
become a liberal by virtue of that position it is possible that you are a liberal while the
individual under discussion is not. I was commenting on the individuals perspective that Islam
inevitably heavily impairs intelligence, it deadens imagination and hinders logical thinking and
produces as the end result a general mental degradation in the believer. This flies in the face of
!68
evidence surely there are many Muslims who are just as intelligent and imaginative as anybody
else. Are those who do not believe in religion more intelligent as a group than those who do?
Anil Kala Says:
SA,
Apparently holding extreme view is fanaticism. Why? If some arrives at a view after much
thought, not in sync with politically correct wisdom do we regard this fellow a fanatic? Even if
this fellow has an open mind and willing to change his views on hearing counter arguments?
I dont think so. Important thing is to have an open mind and willingness to tolerate and respect
other persons contrary views. Holding extreme view alone does not make some one extremist
until he begins to impose his views on others.
SouthAsian Says:
February 3, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Anil: I agree with what you are saying but there are some terms that need to be defined with
more clarity. Someone holding extreme views is, by definition, an extremist but an extremist is
not necessarily a fanatic. At the same time, it is possible to be a fanatic without holding extreme
views at all. The following description from Wikipedia is useful in making the distinctions:
Fanaticism is a belief or behavior involving uncritical zeal, particularly for an extreme religious or
political cause or in some cases sports, or with an obsessive enthusiasm for a pastime or hobby.
Philosopher George Santayana defines fanaticism as redoubling your effort when you have
forgotten your aim; according to Winston Churchill, A fanatic is one who cant change his mind
and wont change the subject. By either description the fanatic displays very strict standards and
little tolerance for contrary ideas or opinions.
The behavior of a fan with overwhelming enthusiasm for a given subject is differentiated from
the behavior of a fanatic by the fanatics violation of prevailing social norms. Though the fans
behavior may be judged as odd or eccentric, it does not violate such norms. A fanatic differs from
a crank, in that a crank is defined as a person who holds a position or opinion which is so far
from the norm as to appear ludicrous and/or probably wrong, such as a belief in a Flat Earth. In
!69
contrast, the subject of the fanatics obsession may be normal, such as an interest in religion or
politics, except that the scale of the persons involvement, devotion, or obsession with the activity
or cause is abnormal or disproportionate.
Anil Kala Says:
There is a tendency to generalize when it suits us. I remember in office when a Dalit does
something silly, the refrain would be ye log kabhi nahiiN sudherenge while for the same
stupidity by an upper caste, the individual will be cursed.
SouthAsian Says:
Anil: If one is prejudiced against a group any untoward act of a member of that group is
automatically attributed to some genetic characteristic of the group. Where no such prior
prejudice exists the act of an individual is seen as no more than the act of an individual. Two
things are needed to fight against this virtual auto-response. First, one should consciously refrain
from generalizing from the individual to the group. Second, one must subject ones prior
prejudices to critical examination.
Bala Krishnan Says:
Well said, southasian, your approach is laudable, your argument convincing. However, when
facing the realities, human being tends to drift towards formation of more prejudices and join
extreme ideologies. Sometimes such experiences injure even the secular minds and force him to
take sides.
At a Christian church function at the Church compound in the Gulf, Indian classical
Bharatanatyam dance by young girls was scheduled. As everone knows, almost all Bharatanatyam
themes are based on Hindu mythology and on that day some Lord Siva theme was chosen.
Halfway through the beautiful performance by many girls, a Christian father angrily appeared on
the stage and told to stop the dance. He shouted, why you praise Siva while Jesus Christ is the
saviour of the world? Everyone there looked the scene in disbelief. The girls on the stage started
crying and they left the stage in great humiliation.
!70
What generalizations should we get from that scene? An isolated incident or expression of
Christian fanatism that pervades among the priests and his followers!! How do we fight such
extremist ideas? Following Dale Carnegie or Lao Tsu?
As Anil Kala mentioned about the attitude towards Dalits, I must admit that the greatest injustice
to any human beings is done in the name of caste among Hindus in India. This attitude is
changing among Hindus, but before it gradual death, it should be accelerated, othewise Hindus
has no right to speak about injustices happening around the world.
Yesterday I had long discussion with an Iranian sunni Muslim, he said that being a sunni in Shia
Iran is a hell life. He says that before any conversation begin, a shia will ask are you a sunni, if
yes, they turn their face and stop talking further. He talked a lot about injustices in Islam. Here
comes the point made by Southasian. Generalizations are often misleading which means human
psychology has a tendency to see the forest but not individual trees.
SouthAsian Says:
Bala Krishnan: In my view no generalizations can be made based on that scene it would not
make sense to argue that the problem derives from Christianity or is latent in all Christians. One
person wished to impose his personal preference over that of the collective and he should have
been restrained by the organizers (who had given permission for the event to be performed in a
Church) or charged with disrupting order. Neither Dale Carnegie nor Lao Tsu are needed in this
case, just the application of social norms or the law.
In my view humans have a very hard time seeing the forest. They just see individual trees and
project them onto an imagined forest. Where the imagined forest gives rise to negative feelings,
they do not really see the individual either they see an image of the individual that conforms to
the image of the forest. The conception of the forest in most cases is a outcome of early
childhood socialization that is never challenged by any kind of mature and objective
investigation.
You are a recent participant on this blog and have probably missed the discussion that took place
on this topic earlier. One illustrative text was a research report by Latika Gupta (I am Hindu, You
are Muslim). Another example can be the typical reaction of South Asians newly arrived in the
US towards African-Americans.
!71
Vinod Says:
I believe that the reason we generalize is that at the pscychological level we need to find
something to lasso emotions. Incidents such as the one Balakrishnan described generate a lot of
anger. This anger triggers the rational mind to find an explanation very quickly to explain and
justify it. Under the influence of such strong emotions the rational mind cannot do a good job. It
will be unable to engage in the exercise of making distinctions. Hence it latches on the easiest
generalization that is available in our instincts (a storehouse of emotional ideas). A truthful and
patient approach requires immense control over emotional behaviour.
Bala Krishnan Says:
It is easy to hold dispassionaate views so far as ones life is not affected. One incident may not be
representing the whole and generalizations often ignore individual positives. This is really utopian
approach it will not cause any social change for the better. This is equivalent to an anecdote of
an Ayurveda doctor or vaidyan sent to plot for removing the exisitng bushes and weeds for
preparing the ground for cultivation of some vegetable. The Ayurveda doctor returned without
doing anything because he could not cut any plants or weeds saying that all the plants and
vegetation growth there have some kind of medicinal value in Ayurveda. How can an ayurveda
doctor destroy medicinal plants. Too much neutrality by the onlookers will help the evil to grow
only.
I will mention some more incidents. The Arab or Muslim mentality is of hate or degrade to other
religions. Say 99% Muslims hate other cultures that leaves 16 millions muslims being moderate,
tolerant or allowing mentality. How do we conclude? siding with the 16 million or condemning
1584 millions? If we find excuse for all evil things, it is not conducive to human civilizations.
For example, from where do they get teachings or inspiration to have this attitude for the below
mentioned actions? should it not be condemned? or fought against?
All know about the plight of labourers in the gulf area. I happened to meet one Egyptian
engineer carrying a stick on he back, under the shirt, and while supervising the building
construction work, he will beat randomly to the workers buttocks with the stick, hardly of course,
to push them to work harder. Severe beatings only to non-muslim labourers. I came to know
about the incident, and I asked him, pretending I am a Muslim, he told me that we should beat
!72
kafirs whenever we get a chance. Prophet told us llike that and heaven is assured for whoever
punish kafirs. That Egyptian is an engineer, not ordinary person and his belief is not fake, he
genuinely believe so.
Another incident experienced by me. I was little raising my voice to a cleaning man (a Hindu
from Tamil Nadu) because he was looking offensively, staying frozen at passing ladies in that huge
shopping complex where I was on duty of supervision. Suddently a Syrian guy from a shop (he is
very friendly to me) and we had the following conversation.
Syrian dont shout him he doesnt know what is right and wrong
me what you mean by that.
Syrian he has no relilgion so how can he know right and wrong?
me He is a Hindu Hindus know what is right and wrong they have a lot of teaching
available from childhood.
Syrian No No Hinduism is not a religion they worship trees, fire, cows, stone etc. That
cannot be a religion.
me then what is religions
Syrian The only true religion is Islam through Islam only one can know right and wrong and
learn how to live as human beings
me what about Christian and Jews
Syrian they were revealed religions of course but they were corrupted By coming of Islam,
Christian and Jews religions became obsolete, unwanted.
me Oh I see like that ok ok (knowing that more argument is dangerous for me I stopped the
conversation)
The Syrian guy was a graduate from Damascus university. I could not find a single Syrian or
palestinians or jordanians, sudanese etc having a liberal, hateless views whether he be labourer,
doctor, engineer, or Phd holder.
This Muslim mentality is widespread what should be conclude Should we enlighten them
enmasse or condone as exception and continue our moderate journey. This mentality in a
different form is with the Hindus in matters of hating Muslims hate of Muslims in Hindus
may be due to the stubborn attitude of Muslims to hate other religions.
!73
My opinion is we should fight idelogically even if the ideals are restricted to a small minority and
we should treat as a whole because then only we can prevent the minority becomes a majority
attitude.
SouthAsian Says:
Bala Krishnan: Your objective is to decide what steps to take to prevent a negative minority
attitude becoming a majority attitude. But the situation of Islam you are concerned with is
different from the above. In your estimation 99% of Muslims are already affected. So the real
question should be: What is to be done now that the disease is so far advanced? I would be
interested in hearing your recommendation.
Personally, I have to keep going back to taking a historical perspective. Even if one accepts your
claim that 99% Muslims are affected today there is still the dimension of time has it always
been like this since the birth of Islam?
The comparison is again with the American South there was a time when 99% of the
Southern Whites thought of the Blacks as subhumans to be treated as such with whipping, sexual
abuse, buying and selling, etc. But that culture no longer exists now or, even if it does, those kinds
of practices are impossible today.
The British colonialists held exactly the same opinion of Hinduism that your Syrian friend does.
But they dont do so any more. Generalizations across space and time have to be made with care.
The human tendency to generalize cannot be helped but we should make sure that the
generalizations stand up not just against contemporary facts but also against historical evidence
and reasoned analysis.
Bala Krishnan Says:
I may conclude this topic from side with the following comments. If we compare with current
realilties of the Islamic world with that of whites-blacks or British-Hindus attitude, we would still
be evading the main issue. Whites-black or British-Hindu polarities have no ideological basis like
!74
Nazis had one for hating jews. British on Hindu treatments has no religious connotation, it was
rather political and whites never spoke of any solid ideological base for their treatment.
I am lucky to be able to learn Arabic and thereby able to read the Quran word by word with root
meanings and many of Hadiths. Islam has defined as Allahs wish or order explained very clearly
their ultimate aim to be achieved in this world and beyond, and also defined how to achieve this
goal and it is very very harmful to the existence of other religions and noreligious peoples as well.
We cannot say it is wrong from their viewpoint and they believe that if it is Allahs order, all
human beings should obey. It becomes harmful when majority of humans are in the other side of
the river inevitable bloodbath is predicted if Muslims have the means to do it because they have
the will based on solid ideological foundation and they have a very clear hierarchy to execute
their ultimate goal. This goal was with all the Muslim invaders all over the world but the
concentrated on personal pleasures instead of sustained efforts to achieve the goal, but in the
recent history the ordinary Muslim people helped with their literacy took over the responsibiltiy
to achieve the aim.
Lessons from the history defy any such eventuality as you rightly pointed out, and history is
supposed and surely will, progress to a perfect system of peaceful coexistence. To release the
steam from the swollen egos of the ordinary Muslims, and this misguided goal (from non-muslim
perspective) is soley perpetuated by the dictatorial rulers of the Islamic countries, the other side
of the world should relentlessly contest idelogically, even not to shun forceful battles if necessary
to win the war.
The current situation in the islamic world is a pointer that the progress of history from bad to
good, worst to best cannot be stopped. The flow of history could be blocked for a while, but it
will find its way to escape the stagnant lake that human beings occasionally make like the current
islamic world. However historical progress is manmade, and everyone should in his own way
contribute his share individually and collectively in harmony with peaceful existence as far as
possible, just like Southasian is tirelessly working on.
SouthAsian Says:
Bala Krishnan: A few points in your comment need elaboration:
!75
1. I feel you are using the term ideological too narrowly; anything the derives from a central
idea is ideological by definition. The attitude of Whites towards Blacks during the period of
slavery was based on the idea of racial superiority just as the attitude of Europeans towards Jews
during the period of anti-Semitism was also a statement of racial superiority. While the objective
of the British colonialists was economic, the political domination of India was justified by the
ideology that found expression in the notion of the White Mans Burden the divinely ordained
mission to civilize the half-savage, idolatrous natives living in the dark ages and unable to govern
themselves. If you look at the Christian missionary literature of that time you will see the
characterizations of Hindus flowing from the ideology of religious superiority.
2. I feel it is an error to infer the behavior of a people by a line-by-line reading of their religious
dogma. If you read the Bible in the same way you will run into similar problems. This is a
characteristic of the monotheistic religions all of which claim to be the true religion of the
chosen people. There are fundamentalists in each of these faiths who wish to interpret the texts
literally but they are in the minority. There are also times in history when there are upsurges of
such fundamentalism historians of Christianity would readily point to the Crusades, the
Inquisition, the forced conversions of native Americans, the burning of witches, the expulsion of
Jews, etc. But all such episodes are now a part of the past.
3. One has to give more weight to evidence than to assumptions. If Muslim invaders all over the
world did not pursue the goal that you attribute to them, perhaps the goal was not important to
them. To continue to hold to your assumption in the face of so much evidence and to attribute
the outcome to everyone pursuing personal pleasure is a logically weak position. This reiterates
the problem of inferring goals, objectives and behavior from dogma.
4. The task of social scientists is to explain such episodes contextually and to prevent the spread
of racial, ethnic or religious stereotypes that claim to be true across time and space. We cannot
solve problems by stereotyping.
Yogesh Says:
March 20, 2011 at 8:21 am | Reply
If India had not been partitioned then sub-continent would have been like Sudan. Communal
riots would have been a norm because both islamist and hindu fascists cannot live under totally
different cultures and values. Thank God it happened and both nations can now concentrate on
uplifting their people.
!76
SouthAsian Says:
March 20, 2011 at 4:07 pm | Reply
Yogesh: Yes, it could have been like that but was it inevitable, the only outcome possible? That is
the real question of interest. A number of thoughts come to mind:
1. It is intriguing that the country (India) that still has significant religious diversity is doing much
better than the one (Pakistan) where such diversity has been eliminated.
2. If one draws the parallel of religious diversity with racial and ethnic diversity one can look at
the example of the US. The racial antagonism was far worse in the US (with one group being
enslaved and segregation being legal ) than religious antagonism in India. Yet, today a mixed race
person is the president of the country and the racial divide is being eroded (see attached link for
the most recent evidence). This suggests that there is an alternative (albeit difficult) to work at
such problems and not to opt for the easy and populist solution of radical surgery.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/us/20race.html?hp
3. Regarding your point of totally different cultures, the US example remains pertinent. One
could have said that the black and white cultures were totally different and drawn a line on that
basis. But the evolution of race relations shows that would have been a simplistic interpretation
of culture. It is a coincidence that one of the recent posts on this blog (On Culture and the Clash
of Cultures) is about this very topic:
https://thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/on-culture-and-the-clash-of-cultures/
Yogesh Says:
1. I would say India is doing so well ONLY because it is too diverse, no group is absolute
majority to rule the others in a bias manner. Hindus may be 80% but they are themselves into
groups like castes, north-south-marathi-bengali etc. State wise no state has its diktat in policies of
whole country whatever be size of state or its economy. Thus any central government has to take
into account considerations for all sates. (Its not perfect as some governments have been biased
towards states run by their own governments)
2. As far as comparison with US is concerned, blacks have been accustomed to culture of whites.
There is only north-south differences in terms of culture. For India such peace would have come
!77
only if Hindus were islamisized because if you take example of India, muslims still have it their
way and they are not going to mend anything about themselves. Call me biased or whatever
but muslims as theists are very different from any other religions. Christianity has reformed but
not islam. So I am sure that a united India was a terrible idea for Hindus. You can see this from
treatment of Hindus in pakistan and bangladesh where still force conversions are taking place in
21st century, so I would say good that we got rid of them and they got a seperate country for
themselves.
SouthAsian Says:
Yogesh: I agree with you that Indias strength is its diversity. But an unpartitioned India would
not have lost this diversity.
Re the US, the issue is whether a problem is posed by the occurrence of totally different
cultures (as you had mentioned earlier) or not being accustomed to different cultures (as you are
now suggesting). If the latter, it would be difficult to argue that Muslims and Hindus were not
accustomed to each others culture after over a thousand years of coexistence and given that the
majority of Muslims were converts from Hinduism.
Partition has still left a very large number of Muslims in India, larger than the population of
most other countries. But India is at peace (if there is a war it is with the Naxalites) despite the
fact that Hindus have not had to Islamize. What exactly is it that Muslims are not mending?
Yogesh Says:
March 20, 2011 at 10:26 pm
India is at Peace but I would say that is because of Hindus/Sikhs etc not because of muslims.
And I am afraid situation is not going to be same when muslim population will outnumber Hindu
population, it will either result in 2nd partition (as asked by Imam Bokhari of jama masjid yrs
ago) or slowly Hindus are going to be persecuted in India itself. I am not saying majority of them
are extremists nor I am questioning their patriotism but majority of them are muslims first and
Indian second.
Try to implement uniform civil code in India and you will see whether muslims will accept/mend
or not. Try to break a Temple for development for city and you wont notice it in any news but
break a masjid for development whole country will come to standstill.
!78
SouthAsian Says:
March 21, 2011 at 12:54 am
Yogesh: I see what you mean. But if the two foregone outcomes of Muslims outnumbering
Hindus (when is that projected to happen?) are equally bad (another partition or persecution of
Hindus), it would be a folly not to take preemptive steps to forestall the outcomes. What is the
solution you have in mind?
Yogesh Says:
I dont see a easy solution, all what can be done is to educate the muslims and implement reforms
that are required, Their modernization is imperative. There are many muslims who are liberal
but a significant portion is not which is the root problem anywhere.
Situation would have been less alarming had muslims from North India would have been asked
to leave to East and West pakistan while all non-muslims in India, in my opinion it would have
been unfair to ask South Indians muslims to leave due to cultural differences. Before you confirm
me as some sort of Hindu extremists, you should note that Sardar Patel was also of similar
opinion. Sounds hard but would have resulted in better stability for both nations and their
people, you dont see riots in Greece and Turkey which did such population exchange after WWI.
SouthAsian Says:
Yogesh: Are you recommending something that goes beyond the 2006 Sachar Committee
Report? (The official report is here and the quick summary can be accessed here on the
Wikipedia site.)
I am intrigued by your observation about South Indian Muslims. Does that imply that what is at
issue is not religion per se but cultural differences between North and South? If so, do these
differences affect all Indians or just Muslims?
Also, you have left the situation very vague in this sentence: There are many muslims who are
liberal but a significant portion is not which is the root problem anywhere. What would be your
best guess about the breakdown between liberals and others amongst Muslims? And to what
extent do you think it differs from the breakdown amongst non-Muslims?
!79
Another thing to be a bit careful about is that not being a liberal is not necessarily a problem
conservatives are a part of every society and often constitute the majority and do not pose any
problem. You are making the transition from liberals to illiberals to extremists these are a much
smaller subset of non-liberals.
Yogesh Says:
Here is whats going on and what will continue in India once their population gets more than
Hindus
http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Pakistani-Christians-convert-to-Islam-because-of-threats-andintimidations-21041.html
Am I being paranoid, or just learning from history and present ? Whats your take, you really
think India can remain peaceful with so many muslims ? What do you think is the difference in
Indian muslims that they wont go same route as their pakistani and bangladeshi brethen.
All sub-continent muslims were not force converted during mughal rule but a significant portion
of them did convert because of presecution. Infact with exception to Indonesia and Malaysia
islam had spread only to those areas which were under muslim rule, other than that it could not
impress the masses. Take for example Nepal and Sri Lanka, both have mere 7% muslim
population while areas next to them were highly islamisized. What do you think is the reason that
Awadh and Bengal had such high portion of muslim population while Nepal doesnt, mountains ?
then how about Kashmir. I hope you have read something about case of Kashmir too. With this I
rest my case.
Regards
Vinod Says:
Yogesh, before you rest your case Id like to see you answer the questions that SouthAsian has
raised in the comment above. Thanks
SouthAsian Says:
April 5, 2011 at 12:43 pm | Reply
!80
Vinod: We have not heard back from Yogesh and I am not pursuing the argument further since it
needs the prior questions to be answered to make sense.
Yogesh has repeated the claim that the population of Muslims will exceed that of Muslims in
India. He has not given the basis for this claim. I had provided the link to the Sachar Report and
it summary for this purpose. In the section Removal of Common Stereotypes it has the
following bullet point:
That there is substantial demand from the community for fertility regulation and for modern
contraceptives and over 20 million couples are already using contraceptives. Muslim
population growth has slowed down as fertility has declined substantially. This does away with
the concern that Muslim population growth would be able to outnumber Hindus or change the
religious demography in any meaningful way.
This is just to keep the discussion in the realm of reality but the real point is more complex. It is
one that Professor Nivedita Menon has raised in her writings: Why should it matter even if the
claim were really accurate and Muslim population were to exceed Hindu population? India is a
secular democracy, not a religious majoritarian state. Why should the religion of citizens be an
issue?
This thought came back to me when I read a column in the NY Times that non-Hispanic Whites
would become a minority in the US by 2050. The author, a well-known professor at Harvard
University, characterizes the scenario as an even more wonderfully diverse America.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/as-minority-populations-grow/?hp
Clearly, what one sees depends upon the glasses one wears. And also one should not forget selffulfilling prophecies if one sees diversity as a problem, it is very likely to turn into one.
Vinod Says:
SA, hard questions and conversations are difficult to take for those who want to hold on to
simplified digestible versions of the complexity that reality presents.
!81
Tanveer Ahmed Says:

A great resource for South Asians and a great platform for academic freedom in the region. I
wonder if you could comment on the following supposition: That the twin occupation and
division of Kashmir was a direct consequence of the division of India? Bearing in mind that the
two-nation theory of Pakistan and the secular reasoning of India continue to drive both
countries continued occupation.
SouthAsian Says:
Tanveer: I feel there can be little doubt that Kashmir becoming a problem is a direct
consequence of the division of India. On his recent visit to the subcontinent, PM Cameron said
as much in plain words. Once it became a prize of war, everyone forgot about the welfare of the
Kashmiris themselves or, to be more generous, couldnt figure out how to reconcile it with their
own narrow interests.
himanshu bagaria Says:
whatever it is but one thing for sure indian cricket team would have been the strongest in the
world with the lights of sachin, waqar younis, wasim akram, imran khan, kapil dev, saeed
anwarjust imagine!!!
SouthAsian Says:
Himanshu: I see no reason why India and Pakistan separately cannot have strong cricket teams
given their large populations and the fact that cricket is such a passion in both countries. There is
something fundamentally wrong with the organization of the game in both countries that comes
in the way of better performances.
The real cost of the separation, in my view, has been the division of natural eco-systems that
could conceivably lead to conflict over water in the not-too-distant future. The shrinking of trade
and the separation of families have been other major losses. On top of these, a great cost has
been imposed by the continuing conflict that has diverted resources from welfare to war to the
extent that almost three-fourths of the populations in both countries continue to live in poverty.
!82
I find it impossible to justify these outcomes in any kind of humanistic or moral perspective nor
can I see how they could be justified.
sree Says:
You have pointed out to the diversion of resources towards war or military expenditure as a cost
of partition. Even if partition had not happened wouldnt India have to spend on its defense
expenditure vis-a-vis China.
Do you really believe that the partition and the bad relations between the two countries is the
cause or the most significant cause for poverty in the subcontinent?
Another statement you made, which I dont understand is India lacked a statesman of the
caliber of Mandela who could see beyond the immediate political gains and losses. I dont think
there is any autonomous whites majority region in South Africa, or there exists any form of
power structure whereby whites have any sort of independence separately from the rest.
SouthAsian Says:
sree: I am looking at the issue in an incremental perspective. We can assume that the Partition
would have made no difference to the allocation of resources vis-a-vis China. But the additional
resources needed to defend hostile borders created by partition would have been avoided.
Therefore the total allocation to defense expenditures would have been lower in the absence of
partition. That is the argument in theory.
One cannot say if something is the definitive cause or the most significance cause of something
else outside the world of controlled experiments. What I am suggesting is that if the additional
resources allocated to defense expenditures had not been necessary they would have been
potentially available for allocation to welfare. Whether they would have been actually used for the
purpose is impossible to say. At least, the argument that poverty is due to lack of resources would
have been less credible.
The argument about leadership does not depend on color. It is a general point about conflict
resolution. Sometimes the collective welfare is enhanced if the parties to the conflict agree to
!83
settle for less than their maximum demands. Mandela could have pressed for a complete
marginalization of the Whites justice and morality were on his side but he gave up some of
his claims in the greater interest of South Africa. My argument was that the same vision and level
of statesmanship was not seen in pre-Partition India.
sree Says:
Without partition the overall defense expenditure might have been lesser, but the gains would
have been offset by increased cost in maintaining internal security and law and order.
Regarding the point on the lack of a statesman of Mandelas calibre, my question was not
about color of the leader. My point is, as far as I know, there is no structure of government or
provinces in South Africa whereby whites (the minority) enjoy any form of autonomy or
independence from the rest. I dont know if they asked for any separate powers or for the
creation of any autonomous province from a region with white majority. Mandelas vision was for
a South Africa with all the communities as equal stakeholders. I dont think it is any different
from what the Indian leaders desired prior to partition or how they charted the countrys path
after partition.
SouthAsian Says:
sree: These comments are better addressed by switching the order of the two points. The
comparison with South Africa is a general one not related to specifics. The point I am making is
that both places involved a conflict between two communities. In one place an arguably better
resolution was achieved because the parties were willing to compromise, to each give up
something for the greater good of the collective. The subsequent costs of internal security are an
outcome of how the conflict is resolved. If a mutually satisfactory arrangement is achieved, the
costs would be minimal. However, if the collective is maintained without a satisfactory resolution,
the costs would indeed be very high. The counterfactual under consideration in this post that the
Partition would not have occurred if the conflict had been satisfactorily resolved.
ahmed Says:
i do not know how many of my friends who have narrated their views above has survived during
painfull times of partition of india. on that it is pain giving to read muslims are intolerant. if so
!84
was the situation than how it became non-muslims who survived in india in majority and with
freedom and rights during the approximately 300 years rule of muslims over india. of course a
muslim can not tolerate an act which is against the nature. one more thing to be discussed here is
it was not the muslim league or any muslim leader who spoke regarding two nation formula. it
were them who at that time were paid workers of British East India Company. who open fired on
the beloved father of the nation SRI MAHATMA GANDHI. they with intensions well known to
them put the entire country on fire and still people like them do not want peace in our heaven
land INDIA.
WE ALL NEED TO WORK FOR THE RIGHT AND PEACE
YogeshYogesh Says:
Non-muslims are majority in India because muslims refused to live as a single country and got a
separate country otherwise they form approx 1/3 the population of sub-continent. Also Hindus
were not absolutely meek whom muslims could butcher at their will, they faced constant
opposition from various Hindu and Sikh kings time to time. As far as tolerance of muslims of
concerned, perhaps pakistan is a brilliant example.
SouthAsian Says:
Yogesh: I feel this discussion would benefit from being placed in a larger context.
First, it is useful to separate religion from politics. All religion is not about politics and all politics
is not about religion. Christianity came to India almost 2000 years ago as a religion that had very
little to do with politics. The British colonialists came much later to trade and not to spread
religion. Similarly Islam came to India with trade almost 1500 years ago, not to conquer. The
invaders came much later to conquer but not to bring religion. If religion had been the motive
Babar would not have unseated Lodhi; they would have joined forces to fight non-Muslims. Nor
would Nadir Shah and Abdali attacked Muslim kingdoms in India and Aurangzeb would not
have spent half his life in conflict with Muslim rulers in the Deccan. The generals of Akbars
army would not have been Rajputs. The Nizam would not have sided with the British against
Tipu. The history of those events was not driven by religion.
!85
Second, it is useful to make a distinction between the age of empires and the age of nation-states.
In the former, territorial expansion was the norm. Alexander, Changez Khan, Babur all belonged
to the age of empire. It would not have made any sense to them to be told that they were
breaking some international treaty by crossing some non-existent border. It is a mistake to
morally judge one age by the rules of another.
Third, tolerance is a multi-dimensional concept. One can imagine a thought experiment in
which, say, a Swedish human rights lawyer is asked to rank the countries of South Asia on a scale
of tolerance. What would comprise that scale and what do you predict would be the outcome?
Then suppose, he/she is asked to do the same for provinces within India. What would be the
ranking? What conclusions would one derive from this exercise?
sochta hoon Says:
Here is a Pakistani muslim who wishes there was one united India but realizes that it is way to
late to turn back now. Jinnah did not wish for the Pakistan in front of our eyes today. Forget
about Muslims versus Hindus and Sikhs, there are muslims killing other muslims in a country
founded on the basis of Islam. Its disgusting really and I hope someone gets the courage to
revolt to bring about change. But I know no one will. Anyway I just wanted to say that I, as an
individual, consider all Indians, whether Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, etc. as my brothers and sisters
and wish them the best; even if I do not get the same treatment in return. It is ok.
reader Says:
In your argument you mention the Nizam-e-mustafa, but you dont give enough detail to back up
your argument. Why did the people want the Nizam-e-Mustafa when the countries split? Why
was it thought to be a good idea and supported?
SouthAsian Says:
Reader: Nizam-e-Mustafa was mentioned in Aakar Patels original op-ed to which the post on
this blog was a rejoinder. In support of the creation of Pakistan, he had written: But Pakistan
was formed out of a positive desire, not a hatred of India. Allama Iqbal articulated something
that the majority of the subcontinents Muslims felt and feel: the desire to live under Nizam-eMustafa. This was not possible without Partition, which did not change the demography of what
!86
was to become Pakistan. Hindus would never have been able to rule Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan
or the Frontier. Partition was not about that. It was about what kind of rule these places would
have. The politics of Pakistan are about how to capture this desire and turn it into a
constitution.
Frankly, I dont know what the term means. I can only guess it is a synonym for an imagined ideal
world that existed at some earlier time, a kind of garden of Eden. And I really doubt Muslims felt
the need for that kind of world. They had been living in India for a thousand years without
feeling that need. And, even when Pakistan was created, the majority of the Muslims in what is
now India did not go over to the garden of Eden. Furthermore, Muslim religious groups were
largely opposed to the creation of Pakistan which undermines the entire hypothesis.
As far as I can make out, it was a hollow religious slogan used for political purposes. The fact that
it was a hollow slogan was proved by the fact that no Nizam-e-Mustafa emerged in Pakistan it
was the same old exploitation of the powerless by the powerful. In real terms, religion turned out
to be irrelevant as was to have been expected.
You can read more coherent explanations (hopefully) of why Pakistan was created here:
https://thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com/2009/01/29/on-the-emergence-of-pakistan/
Manoj Says:
Methinks thou protesteth too much, Balakrishnan & Ganpat Ram.
SA, compliments on a blog that touches the raw nerves left behind by the tearing up of India
abruptly, painfully, into 3 parts. That neither Hindus, Muslims, Indians and Pakistanis wanted it,
suspected it or have been able to get over it half century later, is proved by the cognitive
dissonance I see up here.
Please dont think this mega-disaster was about welfare of people.
It was about politics, and power lay with leaders. As history tells us, no player Gandhi, Nehru,
Jinnah, Golwalker, MA Azaad expected freedom early, nor did any want a broken-up india
!87
freedom had been promised 25 years earlier and not given Churchill declared India unfit for
self-rule.
So, why did British withdraw, despite US no longer supporting Indias independence after 1940?
1. Gandhi had strategically crippled Indias imports as also its trade through civil disobedience.
What use is a colony that doesnt earn?
2. Murderous attacks on ~100,00 Brits Calcutta presidency (Bose) Punjab (Mashriqui) and
starting in Bombay presidency.
3. UKs crying need to rebuild its economy and society post WWII.
The allies concerns in a post WWII context were :
1. Indias (Bose) growing links with enemies Germany & Japan
2. Growing belligerence and closeness between Muslims in USSR and ME
3. Shutdown of trade interests by a fortress india
So the solutions were
1. Weaken india to enable continuing military and trade interests,
2. Create a buffer of secular Muslims between the radical Muslims in Baltics & Arabia. Thats
why it needed to be where it is, though the demand for a Muslim state (not country) arose from
Bengal, not Punjab.
3. Install leaders who were natives but western in mindset, (Nehru & Jinnah weak, resurrected
leaders, amenable to West)
Indians fell into the trap. Mountbatten knew, and escaped quikcly thereafter to ensure no latestage reconciliations surface, leaving both countries tending to their colossal losses.
Today, interest is falling in the buffer state that served its purpose well in the past 50 years, as the
new threat is China
The geopolitics will realign soon, however whether India and Pakistan will act strategically and in
their own interests remains doubtful. Both countries have weak, corrupt leaders presiding over
thinly veiled colonial systems.
!88
rated r Says:
no i am not agree with u. un partition india is new power in army airforce and navy. we can rate
our gdp rate up to 8-9% like china. we have wast area something 40,00,000sqkms. and + tibeat
12,50,000 + hindu state napel 1,44,000 + bhutan 38,000. it is batter for super power like china.
we can bild wast army and bild big airforce and navy so we can abale to counter china. pooraity
is lost in unpartition india after sezs. so i think it is batter world for india.
Lexie Says:
Can someon just tell me if it was a good or bad thing?!?
Vikram Says:
Hey Lexie. I dont think that question can really have any answer. We cant turn the clock back
and press play again with a different track.
Whatever has happened has happened, and we can only look to build a more peaceful future.
My 2 cents.
SouthAsian Says:
Vikram: That was not the question Lexie asked. He didnt ask if a different track could be played
now. He asked whether the track that was played was better or worse than the one that was not
played. Of course, this does not have a simple answer. Different people would answer it
differently based on what impact the choice had on their lives. Some who thought what
happened was good now feel it was actually bad; some who thought it bad are now quite happy
with how things turned out. To some, it made no difference either way.
Some people use a particularly simple measure: Anything that caused one million deaths, ten
million homeless, separated families, and perpetual conflict in the region could not have been
good in any real sense. Surely, better resolutions were possible.
!89
Vikram Says:
Thanks SA. When I said the question cant really have an answer, I was actually half thinking
along the same lines as you have stated, that different people will have different perspectives. Now
that you have put it down, it makes a lot more sense.
Vishnu Sharma Says:
Partition was completely unnecessary and wasteful of lives and resources. People would not have
been displaced and Muslims would have been more modern and progressive in a United India.
The Muslim Majority provinces of Punjab, Sindh, NWFP, Balochistan, East Bengal and Kashmir
would have had Muslim chief Ministers and more Muslims in their legislatures.
Urdu and Hindu would have been official Languages of India. Indian strength in Sports and
Indias power would have been greater. Indian economy would have enjoy a boost.
There would have been no nuclear arms race in the region and all efforts would have gone into
improving the standards of living of the people and the infrastructure. Women would have
greatly benefited and would have been educated and modern in outlook. It would have allowed
more freedom for individual Indian families to settle in any part of India and call it home or go
on vacations to different parts of United India.
There would have been a melting pot of ideas and customs. Islam would not have been in any
danger because in Muslim majority provinces, Islamic practices would always have been
respected since Islam is respected in the India which came after 1947. The Indian Army would
have been non political and professional and would have been the guardian of Indias large
borders.
Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah and Liaqat Ali should not have been born.
Instead we needed leaders like RajaGopalachari, Patel, Ghaffar Khan, Maulana Abul Kalam
Azad and Allama Mashriqi, at the helm to decide the future of Greater India with care,
responsibility, even temperament and wisdom.
People who never brought religion into politics and make a stern tradition of it.
!90
Vikram Says:
I think one country that would have been almost certainly better off had their been no partition
would be Afghanistan. I am certain that the Soviet Union would not have thought about
attacking Afghanistan had they been neighbors of undivided India. Almost all the Indo-Aryan
populations share an admiration for the Pathans and a soft corner for Afghanistan. They are
different from us, but the people most similar to us than the rest of the world. Undivided India
would have formed a great partnership with them, in contrast to the current battle for influence.
SouthAsian Says:
Vikram: My reply would be that Afghanistan, in all likelihood, would also have been better off.
aman Says:
July 16, 2013 at 11:01 am | Reply
This is an excellent discussion forum. I have gone through most posts. By opinion I can safely
categorize them as hard liner Hindus, Liberal Hindus Atheists, Nationalists, fundamental
Muslims, Liberal Muslims, Indian Muslims Pakistani Muslims (Just my View). But irrespective of
your differences all opinion posts have some degree of logic. And no one out here is driven by
sheer hatred. ( Trace of xenophobia in here and there though). Keep posting more logical and
informative posts brothers..
SouthAsian Says:
aman: Thanks for the frank evaluation. Please keep us on our toes by pointing out any trace of
xenophobia whenever you come across it on this forum. It is worrying that you can match a
persons opinions with dimensions of his/her personality. It suggests the identity interests not
facts are driving opinions. Also, that facts are interpreted in a way to be compatible with prior
positions. We need to overcome such prejudices if we wish to grow intellectually.
KTShamim Says:
Hindus believe in a caste system. Their books preach the same and many Hindu leaders
practiced the same. Muslims are worst than Shooders. That Hindu leaders decided to abandon
!91
their religious teachings of caste and adopted democracy is fact and excellent. That Muslims
decided to abandon Quran and adopt religious caste is also sad.
But the principle reason for creating Pakistan, a secular Pakistan, given Hindu religious dogmas
and practices of 1940s was very much right.
SouthAsian Says:
KT Shamim: Castes exist in the subcontinent. Effectively, all religions there comprise castes in
one form or another. Among Muslims, there are the ashraf and the ajlaf; the syeds do not like to
marry among the non-syeds; the fair do not like to marry among the dark, etc.
Hindu religious dogmas and practices did not emerge as a surprise in the 1940s. As you state,
they have existed for centuries. So one can ask, why the demand for Pakistan arose only in the
1940s? Something else must have been going on that you have ignored.
Yousuf Says:
Im a Muslim living in Pakistan. I support the undivided India .because in todays Pakistan the
real power is in the hand of Americans and Saudis while the Pakistanis themselves are killed
everyday by jihadists of America .and Im pretty sure that Pakistanis themselves are as well fed up
of partitions and Islamists .
A hindu Says:
partition was a blessing for hindus. if the partition not happened, indias neighbor would have
been afghanistan. and Fata would have been in india. pious muslims were then doing their jehad
in indian cities without any control. hindu girls would have been chased as jannat hoor.
anarchy had been prevailing and india could be in place of sudan and pakistan.
SouthAsian Says:
!92
By this logic it might make sense to partition India even further. Then messy Pakistan and
Bangladesh would also not be neighbors. Also, I dont see the connection with the welfare of girls
it doesnt look like they are having a very good time anyway.
A hindu Says:
south asian
united india would have 33 % muslims with independence to move anywhere. poor, uneducated
and hungry mobs of muslims from afghanistan and bangladesh would have come to indian cities
without any control. continuous rioting could happened as a norm. what kind of development
can be thought in that condition.
partition thinned the muslims, it separated their strength in three parts and now in india we
hindus could manage them effectively. border controls mean that poor and uneducated muslims
can be stopped from entering and spoiling indian atmosphere.
proof of my statement is that even today thousands of muslims try to sneak into india from
bangladesh and our border guards have to work hard to stop them.
for girls also, islamic society could have been worse than a hindu dominated society. some cultural
issues are same for girls on both side but overall see indian women/girls, they are conquering
every field. paki girls, they are in burqa or if for some time out of burqa than wait, sharia can
come any time in near future.
SouthAsian Says:
A hindu: You are entitled to your hypotheses. I am not entirely convinced by the logic of the
arguments.
First, that Hindus could not handle 33% Muslims but only 11%. That logic also suggests that
things would be better with even fewer Muslims. So why not make separate countries out of
some Muslim majority areas?
Second, continuous rioting is taking place in many parts of India even now and has nothing to
do with Muslims. Why not make separate countries out of those areas?
!93
Third, if thousands of poor people streaming into places is such a big problem, why not make
Bihar independent and put border guards around it. Thousands of poor people from there are
streaming into all parts of India and are not welcome in many of them.
Fourth, Paki women are indeed in trouble but Paki women do not represent all Muslim women.
Do read Amartya Sen to note that Bangladeshi women are doing better than Indian women on
many social indicators.
Fifth, Sharia can come any time in the future but so could the Sri Ram Sena.
A hindu Says:
April 11, 2014 at 2:38 am | Reply
south asian
let me be clear about your idea of further dividing india that we hindus will not let it happen
becausei. those areas which became pak were not stronghold of ancient aryan religion and u find very
few holy places of hindus there. while in mainland every inch was contested with muslims and
taken back by heroes like marathas, jats etc. Before coming of English , India was dominated by
hindus. so no question of giving it to few muslim pockets now.
ii. we know how to tackle few muslim pockets and when the time comes a solution will be devised
for this problem. so no need to divide india further.
iii. things would certainly be better without muslims but not by giving land to them. hindus of
this generation have learnt their lessons well. we have a grand army and we have seen from israel
that how to tackle islam. we will follow the same route.
now, about rioting. out of every 100 riots in the world muslims are involved in about 80- 90. see
pakistan (land of pure islam). it is the prime example of real character of muslims. we hindus
have no problem with few muslims who can be used as cheap labor but a united india with
muslims everywhere, would have been a hell for peaceful people like hindus.
SouthAsian Says:
All this geography and history you are citing is new to me but let others comment on its veracity.
!94
A hindu Says:
April 15, 2014 at 4:42 am
south asian, u have asked a question that should india be partitioned further. i answered it.
keep in mind that these are complicated issues so answers can not be politically correct ones.
now in place of debating u just ducked these. possibly because answering these will show ur
ideological side, which i guess somewhat but will comment later.
SouthAsian Says:
April 16, 2014 at 8:06 am
A Hindu: We are too far apart in our understanding of the situation to have a useful discussion.
However, this is an open forum and I am hoping someone else would step into the debate.
Anil Kala Says:
A hindu: I am not saying you are right or wrong but your arguments dont make sense.
Present day Pakistan is the cradle of Vedic civilization. No mention of Ganga in Rig Veda, it
either did not exist or was inconsequential, the most important river was Saraswati ( now
disappeared) followed by Indus so you are wrong that the land occupied by Pakistan was not
stronghold of ancient Aryan religion. Marathas(Shivaji) did not fight Muslims but supposedly
tyrannical ruler why else he had Muslims generals (Ibrahim Khan as Navy chief and Siddi
Ibrahim as artillery chief ? Later Marathas were fighting each other and and everyone for purely
political gains.
Question is were Hindus at peace prior to arrival of Muslims or swelling of Muslim numbers?
You say that these are complicated issues so do complicated issues must have politically incorrect
answer? Why would disagreeing with you would be due to ideological reasons alone?
SouthAsian Says:
April 23, 2014 at 12:22 pm
Anil: Yes, that part of the old India is indeed the cradle of the Vedic civilization, central to
Buddhism, and contains within its boundaries the Mecca and Medina of Sikhism.
!95
You will find the following about the Sri Maata Hinglaj mandir of interest:
To still the divine dance, Tandava, of Lord Shiva following the death of Dakshayani, Lord
Vishnu scattered the remains of her embodiment over various places of the Indian subcontinent.
It is said that the head fell at Hingula or Hinglaj and is thus considered the most important of the
51 Shakti Peeths. At each of the Peeths, Bhairava (a manifestation of Shiva) accompanies the
relics. The Bhairava at Hinglaj is called Bhimalochana, located in Koteshwar, Kutch. The
Sanskrit texts mention the part as Brahmadreya or vital essence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinglaj
http://www.dawn.com/news/1101465/footprints-when-maata-calls
And read this to see what connects these geographies:
http://www.dawn.com/news/1101851/train-to-pakistan-2014
sorry to say that but I want to tell you that as i am living in Pakistan there are womens in each
type of works.They are in forces ,in politics,and in each department of government or private
sectors and they are not forced to wear burqa and the area in which I am living there are 30%
hindus who are totally free to do whatever they want .
rediff Says:
I think at the end of the day, the order in which people in general see their identity is different
from a Hindu and a Muslim. I might see myself first as a human, then as an Indian by culture/
geography/civilization/etc, then as a Bengali by sub-culture/geography/language, and finally as
a Hindu by religion. On the other hand, my Muslim neighbor sees himself as a human first, an
Indian second, a Muslim third and fourth as a Bengali. In fact, for him #3 might also supersede
#2. While I am an Indian Bengali Hindu in that order, he is a Muslim who happens to be Indian
by geography and Bengali-speaking. This ultimately depends on his level of immersion into Islam
as a religion. In the modern globalizing world, there is a trend that globalization is creating a
!96
stronger pan-universal Islamic identity, while for Hindus we dont know ABC of Vedas or
anything (not speaking for all Hindus, but talking of urban educated middle class in general). The
strength of a Muslim in faith is very universal, this is not a bad thing by the way. They have their
Ummah, Buddhists had their Sangha, Vaishnavs also have a very similar outlook out of the
Hindus. In a united India, the Muslim 35% voting block would have remained intact. The nonMuslims would be hapless politically. South Asian Muslims are sorting out their ethno-linguistic
identity issues after they have secured themselves homogeneous religion-based states. Hindus see
caste and language as superseding the religious identity. During the Nellie massacre in Assam, the
RSS lamented that the Assamese were not distinguishing between Bengali Hindus and Bengali
Muslims. RSS is a lame attempt from the Hindu side to inculcate the type of organic unity that
Muslims have by faith.
So overall, Hindus have been saved by Partition and will be better off with even less Muslim
percentage within India. See the political power that Muslims have in India by being only 15%.
They can indulge in tactical voting to ensure Modi wins least possible seats. This unity would
have persisted even if Muslims were 35%.
SouthAsian Says:
Rediff: These generalizations are much too broad. There are all sorts of people in all religions
they see the various dimensions of their identity in different orders and even these orders change
over time. One glance at history will show show the orders of the Indian identity changed from
1857 and 1914 (the birth of the Ghadar movement) to 1937. A timeless and frozen
representation is worse than useless.
When I read your comment: In a united India, the Muslim 35% voting block would have
remained intact. The non-Muslims would be hapless politically, I can just wonder how many
subscribe to this sentiment and who they think they are insulting by expressing it.
And, in conclusion, I just have to repeat the question I have asked in response to an earlier
comment: If Hindus have been saved by Partition and will be better off with even less Muslim
percentage within India then why hang on to areas with a large percentage of Muslims? Whey
not reduce the percentage of Muslims in India even further?
man0jm Says:
!97
SouthAsian: Not sure what you really mean by these comments. The facts are that minorities
(Hindus, Sikhs, Ahmadiya, now Shias) have shrunk in Pakistan and Bangladesh, and grown or
stayed stable in India.
Dont think it is debatable who chose the right way from a human perspective.
Does that mean muslims are evil? To me, it doesnt it just means radicals among them
overpower the rest, and their religious-social systems do not safeguard conscientious objectors
within. This is not a happy state of affairs either for Muslims, or the country.
To suggest more partitions will solve this problem is luducrious, as if the 2 partitions of 1947
worked out so well. All that the partition achieved was isolating the larger peaceful communities
from interacting with others at huge costs, and growing power to radical elements within.
A hindu Says:
Anil kala
just for your information Rig Veda 6.45.31 mentions ganga also in the nadistuti (Rig Veda 10.75).
i will answer rest in detail.
Anil Kala Says:
Yes you are right about nadistuti mentioning both Ganga and Yamuna but still it is dominated
by rivers flowing in to present day Pakistan.
Makarand Says:
May 7, 2014 at 7:36 pm | Reply
What are all you guys? expert historians? I am truely impressed by every contributer on this
blog btw I only read the first few responses from 2009 All of you sounded very
knowledgeable and very respectful of each other even while disagreeing with each others views
also got a lot of insight into the partition era through this reading. thank you all for a nice blog.
SouthAsian Says:
!98
May 8, 2014 at 9:30 am | Reply

Makarand: Thanks. This is the kindest comment I have seen in six years. No one here is an
expert on history. We are all ordinary folks tinkerers, tailors, soldiers, and (the occasional) spies
trying to learn from each other while respecting each others often quite different opinions.
Some of the people who have been around since the beginning feel they know each other well
enough to be quite open in what they say. We try and simulate a coffee house conversation start
with something quite off-the-wall and see if we can make sense of it through discussion. The
secret of this blog is that most of the time the commentary is much more useful than the post
that was the trigger.
Amit Says:
May 16, 2014 at 3:22 pm | Reply
If India were not partitioned Osama Bin Laden would have been caught in india , not Pakistan
,
sooner or later Islam will show its colour , the less of it , better ,
Instead I will say there is no way India could have remained united till this time , demand of
partition came from muslims , and it happened again in Kashmir , a Freedom Struggle for
Islamik nation , it happened in Chechenya , it is happening worldwide , in some way or other ,
SouthAsian Says:
May 16, 2014 at 6:00 pm | Reply
Amit: Right now all we can see is saffron the more of it the better, I suppose.
There was a freedom struggle in India as well against the British. Where ever there is oppression
there will be a freedom struggle. I dont see whats wrong with that.
Amit Says:
May 16, 2014 at 6:55 pm | Reply
if you support so called freedom struggle based on muslim identity ,that starts with slogans of
Yahan chalega kya ,Nizam A Mustafa ( Law of Prophet will rule here ) , and Hindus r asked to
leave valley , 3 days continuously Mosque play same tape through there loudspeakers asking
pandits to leave Kashmir , 1000s are killed , temples burnt , then
how you even ask the question If India were not divided ,
!99
A freedom struggle against Oppression thats very illusive term , problem is Islam can assume
oppression when there is none, Islamik religion is so much mixed with politics that failure to
establish an Islamik state can be seen as Oppression in Islam , because there is a concept of
Islamik state , world is divided between Darul Islam and Darul harb ,
there is no Parallel of this in any other religion ,there will always be candidates willing to finish
unfinished business of centuries to convert the whole world to Darul Islam and so a freedom
struggle for Muslim identity is inherently dangerous , will be violent always , because killing kafirs
is good , and Islamik state will be hell for Kafir , how much religious freedom minorities get in
Islamik state is well known ,
but thats not all , where is peace in Islamik world , when there is no Kafir to fight , shea sunni
kill each other .
SouthAsian Says:
May 17, 2014 at 5:44 am | Reply
Amit: Are you against violence or just against green violence? All violence of the oppressors
against the oppressed is to be condemned but there are few places in the world where such
violence has not occurred. There is little need to revisit the violence against blacks in America or
against Jews in Europe. Dr. Ambedkars The Annihilation of Caste has just come out in a new
edition. Do read it, you might see closer to home some other forms of violence and parallels with
Shia-Sunni killings. If every incident of violence were to lead to a partition we would all be living
in kingdoms of one.
As for religion and politics, there is a long history of Christianity to learn from. And, isnt that
what is idolized by the RSS just arriving late to the party.
There are two types of thought processes. In one, you start with a conclusion and look for
selective evidence to support it. In the other, you start with all the evidence and reach a
conclusion even if it challenges your prior beliefs. Which process is to be preferred is a choice we
all have to make for ourselves.
Amit Says:
May 17, 2014 at 12:42 pm
Well you have not answered it yet , oppressed ? in what sense ? as I have pointed out Muslims
dont need oppression to start Freedom struggle , Its all there in Political Ideology of Islam ,
!100
There is much difference between caste Violence and Shia -Sunni or violence against Kafirs
, Fact is that caste discrimination can be eliminated , its a social phenomenon and its on its
way out ,
while root of Shia Sunni differences lies in hardcore Islamik Beliefs , which even permit
annihilation of others ,this is not something curable .
Yes RSS has a political cultural Ideology , but that is not the one of establishing Sharia Courts
and giving death punishment to Non believer , something many muslim countries are doing
now , in 21st century, the Magnitude of Islamik Fanaticism sets it apart from any kind of
fanaticism that exist now .
But most important question is , struggle against Caste discrimination started from within , it was
Hindus like Raja Rammohan ,Jyotiba who started these social reforms ,
It was Christian nations who opposed Hitler and fought him ,
where is such reform in Islam ? you people dont even accept valid criticism , but try to silence the
critic , a mob controlled by Maulavi and Mullas , it has not changed a bit in 1400 years and this
way it will not change in next 1000 years .
SouthAsian Says:
May 17, 2014 at 2:49 pm
Amit: Instances of oppression are not difficult to figure out. I gave two historical examples
blacks in the US and Jews in Europe. Palestinians (Sunni, Shia or Christian) are oppressed in
Israel; presently, all minorities are oppressed in Pakistan.
I have an objective question for all readers:
Shias and Sunnis have been in India for a thousand years. Over these thousand years how many
killings can be attributed to Shia-Sunni violence and how many to inter-caste violence? Estimate
a very rough number per year suppose it is X for the former and Y for the latter. Then
normalize it for the different population bases. Assume that Shias and Sunnis together were a
!101
quarter of the population of pre-partition India. Therefore, if the populations had been similar
the comparative numbers would have been 4X and Y.
Now compare 4X and Y. Which do you think, based on hard statistics, would come out greater?
This should not become a test of loyalty so that you identify with your people and we identify
with our people. This is not a you versus us forum.
What would you conclude from this exercise? A blanket condemnation of some people and a
weak defense of other people or an understanding of the roots of violence? If violence were so
clearly associated with religion would one see the very similar violence against women in both
groups?
For the people at the wrong end of violence it is little comfort that the violence is social or is on
its way out. Are Jews supposed to feel good that it was Christian nations who fought against
Hitler?
Whether things change or not I dont know. In the midst of sectarian killings in Christianity, it
would have seemed to observers that it would never end but it did. Even caste discrimination that
has existed for thousand of years and is a part of hardcore beliefs is finally fading away. Things
change.
Amit Says:
May 17, 2014 at 8:36 pm | Reply
Hindu dalit caste were treated very badly , thats for sure , but it has not been a tradition of
violence and killing against any caste , some incidents might have happened ,
but thats nothing comparable to the Violence that has happened in the name of Islam , against
the Infidel and among muslims,
and what is happening in Nizeria right now , whats happening in Kenya , in Pakistan , Iraq ,
Iran,
killing are carried out daily and civilized world does not even takes time to react , oh Allaho
Akbar bombing is a daily act of muslims people think across world , no need to react ,
this needs a deep Introspection ,within Islamik world .
!102
SouthAsian Says:
May 18, 2014 at 5:48 am | Reply
Amit: Some incidents might have happened, no need to react. This needs a deep introspection
within (and without) the Islamik world.
Amit Says:
May 18, 2014 at 8:41 am | Reply
visit http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ the number of some incidents is 75 for last week
only , although this is anti islamik propaganda site , but all credit for these high numbers goes to
believers .
SouthAsian Says:
May 18, 2014 at 11:32 am | Reply
Amit: I am afraid you missed the irony re some incidents. We are still looking for that
comparison of 4X and Y in India. If violence were related to religion, the objective numbers
would tell the story and speculative discussion would become unnecessary. There is not much to
be gained by referring to propaganda sites. Here is a link to Human Rights Watch which is a lot
more credible: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6a83f0.html
Between 1994 and 1996, a total of 98,349 cases were registered with the police nationwide as
crimes and atrocities against scheduled castes. Of these, 38,483 were registered under the
Atrocities Act for the sorts of offenses enumerated above. A further 1,660 were for murder, 2,814
for rape, and 13,671 for hurt.
Looking for a simple theory attributing violence to religion cannot explain long periods of very
different levels of violence over time or great variations across space. For example, Shias are
being oppressed in Pakistan but not in India. Should one attribute the problem to Pakistan or to
Islam? And why so much more in Pakistan now than 50 years ago? Those are the really
interesting questions.
Amit Says:
May 18, 2014 at 12:24 pm
Propaganda does not means that they lie , instead they give source of all info and that info is
available from elsewhere too like cnn or telegraph.co.uk ,
!103
in india or elsewhere murder is done for personal rivalry , land , wealth etc , rape because of
lust , these r not done because somebody is dalit , you will find such cases against people of all
caste , including Dalit ,they too do such crimes 4 times more Rape happens in USA which has 4
times less population than india (effectively 16 times) , but no body says that they are doing this
because they r dalit or Thakur or Brahmin or christian ,but when it is categorized like Dalit or
Brahmin it can be given any hue , but same logic does not apply to Islamik Violence
Islamists r doing it on name of religion , you can hear it from there own mouth ok ,
I am astonished at this denial of Islam being source of Violence , when Terrorist themselves
accept it what more proof is needed ,
its simple why Shia Sunni Dont fight in india , Hindus constitute more than 82% of country and
muslims r simply not allowed ( or free ) to go on Rampage whenever they like , also muslims r
living in a Kafir majority nation so obviously they will like to unite among themselves , yet Shia
Sunni riot do happen in india ,http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/the-lucknowconnection/
One should attribute the Shia Persecution to Sunni Islam , because it has been allowed to flourish
in Pakistan not in india for reason I stated above , so the problem is Islam .
Amit Says:
May 18, 2014 at 12:51 pm
Secondly in India a SC/ST atrocity case can be registered for using foul language , calling
Caste related words etc etc , and many times a large number of such cases r false,
there is no point in comparing crimes of general nature with Violence that is does in name of
Islam or other Religion ,
I am sure murder and Rape happen in Pak and Bangladesh too and if they r categorized they
can be presented as against shia against sunni etc , and they can be added to my list of
Islamik violence , I am not talking about that , but of those violence when the terrorist themselves
r accepting it that they r doing it for Glory of Islam , or for establishing an Islamik Sharia
nation ,
!104
Vikram Says:
May 18, 2014 at 8:53 pm | Reply
Amit, per my knowledge, every religion that has come into being leaves room for some kind of
violence. There was a time when Shaivite kings would fight Buddhist and Jains in India. And
even Jains have some legends of violence against Buddhists ! See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Madurai_massacre
Regarding violence in the Muslim world and India today, the major difference is that at a key
moment India had an enlightened that enacted many laws (often contrary to orthodox Hindu
doctrine) to check Hindu on Hindu violence (be it caste or gender or linguistic group related).
Also, political institutions were created so that all different groups of Hindus have a voice in the
government. Therefore, the markedly less Hindu on Hindu violence in India.
If there is more violence in the Muslim world, it is due to political circumstances and not some
inherent feature of Islam. Note that there are Muslim majority countries like Indonesia, Malaysia
and Turkey that have far lower levels of violence than India does.
SouthAsian Says:
May 20, 2014 at 4:21 am | Reply
Vikram: Thanks for the input. We have been stressing on this blog the perspective that there is an
intimate relationship between politics and religion.
The simple point to be considered is the following:
If one locates the roots of violence in religion, it is impossible to explains very significant
variations in violence across time and space (as you have also noted).
If one locates the roots of violence in politics, it becomes much more possible to explain the
variations. Religion then emerges as one of the instruments of politically motivated violence.
It is quite true that there is a huge upsurge of violence in a large swath of the contemporary
Muslim world. The interesting question is why now? That takes us to rewarding explorations of
contemporary politics and its historical antecedents.
!105
If one were to take a recent case in India, I would consider Muzaffarnagar. Did some dormant
religious passions come alive all of a sudden or was there electoral politics underlying the
incident? What is the objective verdict?
It is also true that religious passions once inflamed tend to get out of control and take on an
autonomous life of their own. People actually do start believing in divine responsibility to purify
the world even if that involves killing others. It happened in the Crusades and it is happening in
parts of the Islamic world today.
Waleed Noor Says:
June 28, 2014 at 12:34 am | Reply
The issue of land reforms, or lack thereof in Pakistan as opposed to India, gets very little
attention in Pakistani debates. Was the preservation of feudal structures not the single most
potent reason for Muslim League (ML) to push for partition? After all ML was essentially a party
of feudal lords. This raises some questions:
Did Jinnah believe that a ruling class of feudal lords would bring about modern social capitalist
development in Pakistan? Did he not clearly see the class interests involved behind the TwoNation faade? Or did he just hope that the feudal lords could be subordinated as was done by
the British?
Vikram Says:
June 28, 2014 at 7:28 pm | Reply
I believe that up until the 1946 Punjab election, the ML was mostly a party of urbanites and
bourgeois from the Muslim minority regions of India, especially Delhi and UP. The nature of the
party changed dramatically after the 46 elections, with the influx of Punjabi zamindars. This was
driven by the exigency of winning the elections, and post election calculations.
I believe the note by Prof. Ralph Russell elsewhere on this blog also hints that the League did not
have much of a base amongst the lower class Muslim population, and had to resort to heightened
religious rhetoric to bring them on board.
Therefore, I would say that it is unlikely that Jinnah thought in the way you are suggesting. He
was tangled up in a web of his own (and Congresss) making by then.
!106
SouthAsian Says:
June 29, 2014 at 6:08 am | Reply
Waleed Noor: In my opinion, Vikram is correct in his observation. The ideas that became
Pakistan originated with Muslim elites in areas where they were in a minority, primarily UP and
Bengal. The fear was that they would lose in relative terms if and when power was allocated on
the basis of votes. Jinnah was a lawyer his primary interest was to preserve as much
representation in power for the Muslim elites as he could once the British left. He tried first as a
member of Congress and failed; he then switched to become an advocate for an exclusively
Muslim party. Jinnah was not an economist. There is no evidence that he ever thought about
economic development or its nature or who would lead it. Part of it may have been because,
frankly, it doesnt seem Jinnah ever felt Pakistan would really come into being. In that sense,
Pakistan was the failure of Jinnahs gamble.
Veronica Says:
What happened after the partition? Was there violence of peace?
Vikram Says:
November 12, 2014 at 6:42 pm | Reply
Veronica, partition failed to resolve the political conflicts in the erstwhile British India to the
satisfaction of all parties. That this was the case in the newly formed state of Pakistan is clear by
looking at the events of the Bangladesh Liberation struggle and the eventual secession of Bengali
speaking areas.
In India, partition only served to marginalize the Muslim populations further, and left a lasting
legacy of doubt and hostility between Hindus and Muslims.
There is certainly no peace to be found in South Asia after partition.
Kabir Mohan Altaf Says:
Veronica,
!107
Vikrams answer is basically acceptable. However, from the Pakistani point of view there are a
few issues:
1) the newly formed state of Pakistan: Pakistan and India were formed at the exact same time
out of British India. India and Pakistan are exactly the same age.
2) In Pakistan, we do not use the phrase Bangladesh Liberation Struggle. This phrase is too
closely aligned with the Indian and Bangladeshi POV. In Pakistan, we refer to 1971 as the Fall
of Dhaka. There was a civil war between West Pakistan and East Pakistan, which resulted in the
secession of the Eastern Wing.
3) Vikram neglected to mention that Kashmir is the unfinished business of Partition. As a
Muslim-majority state, it should logically have gone with Pakistan. However, since it was not part
of British India and the ruler was a Hindu, he chose to accede to India. India and Pakistan have
fought 4 wars over Kashmir, territory that both of them control in part but claim in full.
I fully endorse Vikrams conclusion, but I wanted to put across the Pakistani point of view as
well.
man0jm Says:
Your comment on No 3 is exactly the expansionism that Muslims believe in that creates
disharmony. You do know that India had and has a far bigger muslim population than Pak. So by
your logic, all of India should belong to Pakistan? Please learn to accept that India & Pak do
NOT represent Hindu & Muslim religions but political entities, like all nation states are.
Had Jinnah & Nehru not fallen into the divisive and bloody trap set by Brits at the time of
leaving, there would not have been the horrendous loss of lives started with Moplahs, led to
partition and still continued in Kashmir, now in Assam, and that has taken untold lives of people
in Pak.
!108
No, my point # 3 is not expansionism. It is simply an acknowledgement of the reality that

there is a dispute regarding Kashmir. Kashmir is Muslim-majority and as such logically should
have been Pakistan. The Partition of British India (NOT India) was carried out on the basis of
the Two Nation Theory with Muslim-majority districts going to Pakistan. The complicating
factor was that Kashmir was a princely state ruled by a Hindu Dogra king.
And of course all of India should not belong to Pakistan. The Muslim-majority areas in the
Northwest and the Northeast went to Pakistan. Nowhere else in British India was there such a
concentration of Muslim-majority areas.
Your conclusion that modern India and Pakistan are political entities is true. On that, we
agree.
it was not necessary to partition India because Hindu and Muslims were living with each other
from centuries..
As United India we might become super power country..
As United India we may be most prosperous area of earth..the problem was with our leaders who
have took a very difficult way which is still creating big problems..
As United India we can save several lives who are dying on borders to defence their nation..
man0jm Says:
I like the way you think. Rather than remain stuck in what might have happened in the past, you
are concerned about lives of people here and now. Kudos. I agree with your observations, and it
is only through constructive dialogue that we can disengage from the destructive cycle set in
motion 75 years ago by a withdrawing colonial power, and hope to create a brighter future for
our children.
Vikram Says:
!109
I find the use of the term logical in the context of ethnic/territorial disputes unsatisfactory. In
such disputes, what can seem eminently logical to one person might seem completely illogical to
another.
In the specific matter of partition and Kashmir, I would like to remind you that the partition
agreement did not agree to any general logic. It merely established three principles:
1) There would be independent states of India and Pakistan created out of British India.
2) Princely states had the option of joining either of them, or remaining independent.
3) Provincial assemblies (with the exception of Punjab and Bengal) would vote to either join India
or Pakistan. The Punjab and Bengal would vote on a plan of partitioning along religious lines or
joining India or Pakistan in their entirety.
As Jammu and Kashmir was a princely state, it was well within its rights (as per the partition
agreement) to stay independent. There is no provision for any reorganization of a princely state
along religious lines.
The question then was what the general population of the state desired, and the reality is that we
simply dont know. The political organization that could claim to be the most representative of
Jammu and Kashmir was the National Conference led by Sheikh Abdullah. And there is
certainly no indication that the NC and Abdullah were interested in a merger with Pakistan.
Indeed, the Pakistani government at the time denounced him and did not recognize him in any
way. On the contrary, NC workers assisted the Indian army during the 1947-48 war.
So the question of Kashmiri accession to Pakistan simply doesnt arise, much less being logical as
you are asserting.
Vikram,
Princely states may theoretically have had the option of remaining independent. In reality, they
were forced to join either Pakistan or India. The Nawab of Hyderabad did not want to join
India. The Indian government forcefully conquered that state. The Nawab of Junagadh acceded
!110
to Pakistan. But because the state was Hindu-majority, India insisted on a plebiscite. It is quite
curious that in the case of the only Muslim-majority state that is in India, the Hindu Dogra king
was allowed to choose for the Kashmiri Muslim people.
Partition was done on the basis of Muslim areas going to Pakistan. Kashmir bordered both new
domains and could have gone either way. But as a Muslim-majority region it would have made
sense for it to become Pakistan.
I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree.
man0jm Says:
Kabir, what is being argued is the antithesis of any multi-cultural democratic people. Specifically,
please re-consider why you assume that Muslim-majority states should have gone to Pakistan and
that would have made the Partition the best thing that could happen? Extending your logic,
India should have become a Hindu country post-partition with Muslims left behind as second
class, not responsible citizens. It didnt and thank god it didnt go that route.
I believe everyone agreed (at least some time) that it was a power struggle among leaders to fill
the shoes of retreating colonial power, not theological the ambition of a few well-off muslims to
preserve their fiefdom even if it costed lives of a million Muslims and non-believers. Its so sad to
see educated people failing to see such a colossal human tragedy we should have resolved never
again have to, but are suggesting how it should have been more fair to their side??
Please, this is not a personal attack but a challenge to remove cognitive biases many of us seem to
suffer from, when we should have learnt better, and become better people. Sadly we have not,
and seem destined to repeat our history.
Kabir Altaf Says:
We will have to agree to disagree. You think you are right. I believe that a Muslim-majority state
was necessary if British Indias Muslims were to be free of Hindu domination. Given that the
logic of Partition was the Two-Nation Theory, Kashmir as a Muslim-majority state should have
!111
been part of Pakistan. For various reasons that did not happen and many Kashmiris feel that they
are still Occupied by India.
This view may not be palatable to you, but it is the Pakistani nationalist viewpoint.
Vikram Says:
Partition was done on the basis of Muslim areas going to Pakistan.
No such condition was agreed to by the Congress and Indian nationalists. One could argue that
partition was agreed to as a settlement to create a Muslim majority nation state in the
subcontinent. Then it was up to the various political entities in the British Indian empire to join
this nation state, join India or stay independent.
Let us not forget that the vast majority of princely states did join India or Pakistan without
overwhelming pressure. Many did not, and these have to looked at on a case by case basis. States
like Kalat and Manipur were forced into joining the new South Asian republics, and these
disagreements form the basis of the long running insurgencies there.
In Hyderabad, the ruler unleashed a private militia on the people of Telangana, with some
parallel to the Bangladesh genocide. Indian intervention was absolutely essential, and once
Telangana was secured, the vast majority desired to be part of India.
In Junagadh, 99% of the population voted to join India.
In Kashmir, the situation was totally different. First of all, demographically the state was not a
simple Muslim majority. It had various regions with differing ethnic makeups. The valley was
overwhelmingly Muslim majority. The Chenab valley in between Kashmir and Jammu was 60-40
Muslim- Hindu. And then Jammu was overwhelmingly Hindu majority. Ladakh was Buddhist
majority. Pakistan forcibly tried to take over the state (a policy it has continued to this day) and
failed.
Again, I dont really see what the Pakistani argument regarding Kashmir is, especially given that
Pakistan is now not the only Muslim majority state in South Asia.
!112
Kabir Altaf Says:

Once again we have to agree to disagree. You clearly have an Indian nationalist perspective,
which for obvious reasons, I cannot agree with. Why is it that Hyderabad Deccan was an
insurgency and in Junagadh the choice of the Muslim Nawab can be ignored, but in Kashmir,
the decision of the Hindu Dogra king is sacred? This smacks of double standards. Either the
ruler decided in all cases, in which case Kashmir acceded to India and Pakistan should stop
complaining. Or the people decided in all cases, in which case Kashmiri Muslims have still not
been able to exercise their right to self-determination.
And Partition was done on the basis of the Two Nation Theory (You may not like it, but this was
the case). The idea was that Muslim-majority areas would go to Pakistan NOT remain in the
Hindu-majority Republic of India. This is why Punjab and Bengal were split. Kashmir is (and
was) solidly Muslim-majority. As such it should have been part of the Islamic Republic. Kashmir
remains the unfinished business of Partition.
Vikram Says:
What point does agreeing to disagree when one side is continuously sending terrorists and
murderers to the other side, firing on villages on the other side ?
This is either naivety, or a tacit approval of the Pakistani armys policies.
man0jm Says:
Kabir, you may not agree with an indian nationalist perspective but what exactly is your
perspective? To me it seems filled with dichotomy.
If you claim the idea was a homeland for Muslims, then you are being most unfair to Muslims,
Christians etc who stayed in divided India, because you accept they are not citizens but aliens
living in india at the pleasure of Hindus.
Make up your mind please.
!113
Anil Kalai Says:

I am curious that Nehru was alive till 1964, why didnt Pakistan insisted on Plebiscite when he
was alive? After all he was the one who agreed for plebiscite.
Kabir Altaf Says:
man0jm,
Of course those Muslims who chose to stay behind in India are Indian citizens. India claims to a
secular state, so they are not living there at the pleasure of Hindus. That does not change the
fact that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan was formed as a homeland for all British Indias
Muslims, according to the Two-Nation Theory.
Vikram: Please lets not get into whose side is doing what. If you read well-reputed Pakistani
newspapers such as DAWN, you find that Indian troops have killed four civilians so far in the
Sialkot sector. The story as reported in India is something else. Obviously, as a Pakistani I will
trust my own news sources more than anything coming out of the rival country.
My contention is that all of this is cross-border hostility is a symptom of the underlying Kashmir
dispute, which must be solved through diplomacy and by taking the Kashmiri people (from both
sides of the LOC) on board. Thats all Im going to say, lest you accuse me again of siding with
the Pakistani Army.
Vikram Says:
Kabir, what does firing in Jammu, in the Samba sector have anything to do with Kashmiri
Muslims ? And I ask you again, on what basis is Pakistan a party to the Kashmir dispute ?
Since you have talked a lot about logic, please use some yourself. Does it make sense for the
Indian army to start firing across the LOC ?
Regarding your claims about Pakistan being a homeland for all of British Indias Muslims, please
refer to Vazira Zamindars work on how quickly the new Pakistani state moved to stop Muslims
moving from India to Pakistan. And neither Pakistan, nor Bangladesh (both states for Muslims)
!114
are ready to accept the stranded Urdu speakers in Bangladesh. What are the conditions of Indian
migrants in Karachi ? They are still officially called Muhajirs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Qasba_Aligarh_Massacre
Kabir Altaf Says:
Vikram,
Pakistan is a party to the Kashmir dispute because it controls 1/3 of the territory of Jammu and
Kashmir. Any map published outside of India shows the LOC as distinct from a permanent
border.
Indian troops are killing Pakistani civilians in Sialkot. Im sure Indian media accuses Pakistan of
starting the firing. Our media says the exact opposite. You are free to believe the version that suits
you.
At a time when Pakistan is fighting domestic terror and is busy at the Afghan border, India may
have decided that it will take advantage of Pakistans weakness by heightening tension on the
astern border.
I see no point in further engaging with you. You are an Indian nationalist and I am a Pakistani
nationalist. Our worldviews on this issue will never converge.
man0jm Says:
Im sorry but this is not a response based on fact or analysis discussions. From all the comments
one can see Muslims speak about partition with pride and a deep hurt at not being able to gain a
bigger land area, (which is why I called it expansionism earlier) and others speak of it as a tragedy
that hurt unity, and convenient references are sought to justify their stances
There can be no settlement if the 2 parties cannot listen to each other, re-examine their positions,
and explore a middle ground to align with present realities.
!115
With the tinker, tailors, soldiers (& spies) thinking this way, I now understand better why there was
a partition, since these exact same positions were exploited by the powerful for themselves, while
people lost everything they had & were killed horrendously.
I also believe that neither Pakistanis nor Indians have learnt any lessons from this massive human
tragedy (much bigger than the holocaust) and the history will continue to repeat itself.
Subscribing to this blog has been a real eye-opener to bigotry, and I thank the authors and the
commentators for helping me see that everyone DOES NOT want peace or prosperity. But
theres very little to be gained by continuing, hence I wish you all a good year ahead, and
unsusbscribe from this blog.
SouthAsian Says:
January 10, 2015 at 12:29 pm
man0jm: That is a cruel beginning to 2015. It is devastating to be labeled a bigoted blog after
eight years of trying to provide a space for reasoned discussion.
We do not choose our world there are people with differing views out there which makes our
life difficult. We can choose to ignore them at the cost of existing in a cocoon of like-minded
persons or we can engage them in the hope of contributing to change. It is a frustrating process
especially when people do not wish to engage in debate and sometimes we also feel like giving up.
We cannot grudge you your choice except to say that you would be sorely missed. We need
participants like you in the difficult task on which we have embarked.
man0jm Says:
I apologize for not being clear. My use of bigotry does apply, but not intended for the creators
of this blog. It was to describe the level to which discussions, if they can be called that, have sunk
to. If I hurt your feelings by making a blanket statement, I am truly sorry.
My view is, while we cannot and should not ignore the tragic past, let us draw lessons which help
us move beyond the conflicts to secure a better life for people in India and Pakistan an objective
!116
I believe you shared in one of your comments. I have been following this blog for a year plus, but
the acrimony & tendency to dig into stereotypical positions is really sad.
And thank you for the gracious message to stay. I will and try to contribute to the blog in
whatever small way I can.
Anil Kala Says:
This discussion is sliding into emotional ground. I personally think J & K should have gone to
Pakistan due to large Muslim majority. If a new state was carved out of India, rightly or wrongly,
on the basis of Muslim self rule then J & K logically goes to them. The question however is
would that have made the two neighbors less hostile to each other?
SouthAsian Says:
Anil: This is a regional forum not beholden to nation-states or political parties. It also aspires to
cater to a learning community. Therefore, our primary focus is on facts that are documented. I
am extracting a long passage from a book which I feel states the facts quite accurately and
objectively. They can form the basis for a useful discussion if we wish to carry it forward.
The book is The Aftermath of Partition in South Asia (Routledge Studies in the Modern History
of Asia, London/New York, 2000) by Tai Yong Tan and Gyanesh Kudaisya. There is no evident
reason to accuse the authors of any particular bias. The extracted text is from pp. 218 to 220 in
this version of the book on the Internet:
https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=aPOBAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA218&dq=indian+princely
+ s t a t e s + p a r t i t i o n + c h o i c e s
+tai&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2LuvVJHDGYnmati5gZAM&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=i
ndian%20princely%20states%20partition%20choices%20tai&f=false
On 15 August 1947, the princely states were advised by Mountbatten to choose between India
and Pakistan. By July 1947, a newly established Department of States set out the procedures for
transfer of power to take effect for the princely states. As an interim measure, these states were to
initially sign a stand still agreement with the Dominions of India and Pakistan. This was to
enable the princely states to continue business as usual in areas such as transport and trade and
!117
communications until each individual princely state signed a permanent Instrument of

Accession with either India or Pakistan.
In deciding whether to accede to Pakistan or India, the princely states were advised by the British
to proceed on the basis of geographical contiguity. As they were excluded from the 3 June Plan
(which had required the Muslim majority provinces to decide whether to join Pakistan as a whole
or be partitioned) the choice of whether to accede to India or Pakistan could not be determined
on the basis of the religious composition of the minority population in the princely state. The
option of a boundary demarcation, as the Radcliffe Commission was implementing for the
international boundary between India and Pakistan, was therefore not applicable for the princely
states. In any case, to impose boundaries on the princely states was simply impossible, given their
haphazard geographical spread across the subcontinent. Furthermore, the situation in many
princely states was compounded by the fact that Hindu rulers often presided over Muslim
populations and vice versa.
Although the British had advised the rulers to consult their populations before signing the
Instrument of Accession, they were none the less concerned that the decisions of some princely
states might jeopardize the territorial integrity of India and Pakistan. The neatest solution,
according to the British, was for the princely states to join the Dominion with which their
territories were contiguous. Such a prospect created a conundrum for Kashmir, which had the
singular advantage of being geographically contiguous with both India and Pakistan and, on that
basis, could accede to either.
By 15 August 1947, most princely states, except Hyderabad, Junagadh and Kashmir, had
acceded to India. Hyderabad and Junagadh, both with Muslim rulers and Hindu majority
populations, did not hold out for long and were forcibly integrated within months of
independence as a result of police action started by the Congress-led Indian government. In the
case of Kashmir, its Hindu ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh, showed open reluctance to accede to
either of the two new dominions. Although he was caught in the unenviable situation of being
the Hindu ruler of a Muslim majority state, he still entertained thoughts of making his kingdom
an independent country in its own right. Following the logic of partition, Kashmir, with a
Muslim population outnumbering the Hindus three to one, should have gone of Pakistan. Yet,
Hari Singh as a Hindu ruler naturally felt a greater sense of affinity with India. Therefore in
1947 he found himself in a difficult position, having to decide upon the future of his state by
joining either India or Pakistan. Prem Shankar Jha, a political analyst, offers the following
explanation for the difficulty of the Maharajas position:
!118
Prior to July-August 1947, Hari Singh was unable to make up his mind not so much because he
was indolent or weak, but because he was being pushed powerfully in two opposite directions. He
was drawn to India by his own religion and antecedents, but was being impelled towards Pakistan
not only by preponderance of Muslims in the state, and its close geographical and economic links
with that dominion, but by everything that was important to him personally power, status, and
prestige.
In the prevailing circumstances the Maharaja held out. As he weighed his options, Hari Singh
worked out a stand still agreement with Pakistan, but delayed signing the Instrument of
Accession. For its part, India decided against entering into any agreement with Kashmir, perhaps
not wishing to have its hands tied by a stand still agreement. However, the situation changed
dramatically in October 1947 as trouble broke out in the district of Poonch close to the Pakistani
border when Pathan tribesmen invaded Kashmir. Thinking that this was a Pakistani plot to start
a rebellion in his state to overthrow him, the Maharaja panicked and turned to India for help. On
26 October 1947, in return for Indias assurance for military aid to help stem the tribal attack,
the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession and, as a result, Kashmir joined the Indian
Union. Pakistan protested by sending its troops which challenged the Indian army on Kashmiri
soil, therefore starting the first armed conflict between the two countries.
This sequence of events (which led to Kashmirs merger with India) has been challenged
endlessly by Pakistani interpretations which argue that the so-called tribal invasion was actually
an internal popular revolt against the Maharaja, evidently in protest against the actions of his
troops involved in ethnic cleansing against the Muslims. Some other non-Pakistani scholars have
also lent support to this interpretation. For instance, Alastair Lamb has argued that Kashmirs
accession was the result of connivance between Mountbatten and Nehru. Lamb has asserted that
the British were keen to keep Kashmir within India for geo-strategic reasons. He has cited the
Radcliffe Commissions award of three Muslim majority tehsils of Gurdaspur district to India as
proof of British complicity in preventing Kashmir from acceding to Pakistan. The Gurdaspur
award gave a land link to Kashmir, making its accession to India possible. The validity of the
Instrument of Accession signed between India and Kashmir has also been questioned. It has
been alleged that the document was fraudulent, as the Maharaja had been forced to sign it under
duress.
There remains no doubt that political leaders in both India and Pakistan regarded Kashmir as a
territorial prize too important to be lost to the other side. To both the countries the option of an
independent Kashmir was simply unacceptable. The Maharajas right to independently decide
!119
the future of his state was given little heed, as both countries harboured their own territorial
ambitions for Kashmir. As Robert Wirsing explains:
It is clearthat the contention that Indias intervention in Kashmir at the end of October was
entirely reactive, unpremeditated and entailed no territorial ambitions whatsoever and that it
was implied in the White Paper (which India published on Jammu and Kashmir soon after her
intervention in the state) essentially an afterthought is not worth a moments consideration.
Neither, however, is the contention that Pakistan was an innocent bystander, the unfortunate
victim of an Indian plot.
Eventually, Indian troops were flown into Kashmir after signing of the Instrument of Accession.
They were able to quell the rebellion and push the armed tribesmen out of Srinagar, the capital.
The Pakistani troops, however, retained control over a thin slice of the valley in the west as well
as large tracts of mountainous wasteland in the north along the borders of Afghanistan and
China. Kashmir was therefore divided along the line of control where the troops stood when a
cease-fire agreement was imposed by the United Nations on 31 December 1948 in response to
growing international pressure. At present these lines of control, instead of formally demarcated
and internationally recognized borders, held by Indian, Pakistani and Chinese troops, determine
the geography of Kashmir as well as the fragile peace which exists there.
The stalemate that was created in 1948 has defied a solution over the past fifty years, despite
endless rounds of diplomacy, repeated attempts at mediation and constant international pressure.
Ideological constraints and domestic politics within India and Pakistan have conspired against a
compromise on this issue. While India maintains that the relinquishing of the predominantly
Muslim territory would weaken her secular polity, Pakistan fears that giving up its claims over
Kashmir would be tantamount to compromising the very ideological basis of Pakistan as the
homeland of Muslims in South Asia.
India has continued to maintain her hold over Kashmir on legal grounds, citing the Instrument
of Accession signed by the Maharaja in 1947 as an irrevocable and final settlement of the issue.
The validity of this claim has, however, been challenged as the Instrument of Accession was
conditional upon a plebiscite which was promised but never took place. Pakistan thus considers
Kashmir as an unfinished business of partition, arguing that if Hyderabad and Junagadh, both
Hindu-majority states with Muslim rulers, had gone to India, it was only logical that Kashmir, a
Muslim-majority state with a Hindu ruler, should have come to Pakistan.
!120
The refusal of the either country to concede has created a virtual deadlock which belies hopes for
a peaceful solution at least in the foreseeable future. Kashmir continues to remain a stark and
poignant reminder that after half a century the unfinished business of partition continues to
exact a heavy toll on peace and stability in the region.
Anil Kala Says:
SA: It really doesnt matter now who was right concerning J & K. This article is about
speculating, so I was merely thinking if Kashmir had gone to Pakistan without any quarrel then
may be the hostility between India and Pakistan would not have been so pronounced. In such an
event political trajectory followed by Pakistan hardly gets affected. This would leads to very bleak
scenario concerning Bangladesh.The scale of tragedy there would be unimaginable without
Indias intervention.
SouthAsian Says:
Anil: Thanks for reminding us that the article was intended to open up the space for speculation
not for stating hard and fast positions that were non-negotiable.
I dont quite follow the point you are making. Clearly, if there had been no dispute over Kashmir,
hostilities between India and Pakistan would not have been so pronounced if there had been any
at all. But why would that leave the political trajectory followed by Pakistan unaffected? That is
not clear to me.
Anil Kala Says:
SA: I am not very good at History so may be I am wrong. I dont think coup staged by Ayub
Khan had anything to with India or Kashmir so Pakistan would still have martial law, may be no
war with India in 1965 but again Kashmir or India did not play any role in West Pakistans
disdain and neglect for East Pakistan so it is likely that political set up in Pakistan would have
been similar to as it really was, that is West part alone would have wielded political power. It
appears unlikely that a ,militarily and economically strong West Pakistan would have allowed a
Bengali from East Pakistan to become prime minister so events unfolding in East Pakistan would
have been exactly the same as it really happened except an indifferent India would have shut
door on exodus from East Pakistan and not have meddled with Mukti Bahini. Pakistani army
!121
would have easily slaughtered Mukti Bahini therefore the scale of misery there would have been
many times more grotesque. Today East Pakistan would still be around but rife with insurgency.
Righ Wing Says:
Great knowledge of history is shown by all of you. But I prsnly feel that if Kashmir is an
integrated part of India, you can see & judge situation of both POK & Indian Kashmir. It is
pretty much clear that Indian govt. developed Kashmir a lot while Pakis just spread terror &
terror camp.. also in recent elections in J & K, heavy turnout shows people of Kashmir have faith
in Indian democracy.
Kabir Altaf Says:
First of all, please realize that POK is an extremely offensive term. What you call POK is
properly known as Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. Second of all, the Pakistani military
presence in Azad Kashmir is nothing like the amount of troops in Indian Kashmir. By and large
there has been no uprising in Pakistani Kashmir, with people demonstrating their desire to be rid
of Pakistan.
On the issue of the elections in Jammu and Kashmir, one can argue that the reason people in the
Valley voted in such huge numbers was to keep the BJP out. Also even the mainstream proIndia parties have always said that the elections are for development and not a substitute for a
political resolution to the Kashmir problem.
SouthAsian Says:
Kabir/Right Wing:
I am closing this discussion as it is beginning to lose readership for the blog. As Anil reminded us,
the original article was intended to speculate on what might have happened if India had not been
partitioned. The intention was never to decide the rightness or wrongness of the Kashmir
accession. Having stumbled into that we have given enough space but the discussion has not
resulted in much light. I hope you will accept this editorial decision in the right spirit.
!122
Vikram Says:
Clearly, if there had been no dispute over Kashmir, hostilities between India and Pakistan would
not have been so pronounced if there had been any at all.
I am surprised with this statement. The roots of extremism, manifesting unofficially as terror
groups and officially as not allowing trade relations to develop etc lie deep inside the Pakistan
movement, with the Hindu vs Muslim reasoning at the core of mass appeal of the Pakistan
movement, which has been pointed out many times on this blog.
Kashmir is merely a site for Pakistan to deploy its extremist machinery. If it wasnt Kashmir it
might have been some other region in India, where the bogey of discrimination against Muslims
would have been used. Indeed this has already been the case, else why did the Pakistani military
orchestrate the Mumbai massacre ?
Things in Kashmir were undoubtedly magnified by Indias broken promises and political
machinations in the valley. Had India not resorted to political repression in the valley, there
probably would have been no popularly supported insurgency in Kashmir. But had Pakistan not
been inclined to enter into the Kashmir conflict, it is more than likely that the Indian state and
Kashmiris would have found a less bloody solution to the conflict, as had happened in Mizoram.
SouthAsian Says:
Vikram: Your response seems contradictory to me. In the first part you say that even if there had
been no dispute over Kashmir, Pakistan would have found some other excuse for conflict since
extremism was built into its character this is a genetic argument to which there can be no
answer. In the concluding part you say that had Pakistan not been inclined to enter into the
Kashmir conflict (which would have been the case if there had been no dispute over it), there
would have been a more peaceful scenario.
in my view, your understanding of what led to the Pakistan movement is incomplete. Re-reading
the first two chapters of Sunil Khilnanis The Idea of India should add the necessary nuances.
!123
Vikram Says:
SA, I can post this comment elsewhere if its not suitable for the discussion but I am really
interested in understanding your perspective here.
My claim was not based so much on the reasons for the Pakistan movement, but more on the
mechanics and ground level consequences it had, quoting from the post Governance in Pakistan:
A Good Analysis,
It hardly needs to be said that if appeal to sentiments of this kind helped to mobilize the mass
support without which Pakistan could not have been won, it also strengthened the religious (or
pseudo-religious) fanaticism which Jinnah had opposed.
By the late stages of the Pakistan movement Jinnah was already being sidelined by the more
extreme sections of the movement, take for example, the blacking out of his August 11 speech. It
would also be interesting to see the makeup of the Constituent Assembly he was addressing.
But it seems obvious to me that a Pakistan in which religious fanaticism had gained the upper
hand so quickly would end up in conflict with its largely Hindu neighbor. Pakistan ended up in
conflict with its own eastern wing which was accused, among other things of being too Hindu,
and there was certainly no Kashmir conflict there. It helped install and sustain a fundamentalist
government in Afghanistan, and that had nothing to do with Kashmir.
If the Pakistani militarys conflict with India is only about Kashmir, why did the Mumbai
massacre happen ? Why the ISI support to the Lashkar-e-Taiba, which clearly has as its goals to
destroy the Indian Republic and annihilate Hinduism and Judaism.
man0jm Says:
A good idea to stop this bickering over Kashmir. I find it surprising that northern UP, which had
the most muslims at the time, but noone ever discusses why they werent in a Muslim Homeland.
This is how powerful agenda setting works, I guess.
2. A quick study of the history of Cyprus, South Africa, Malaysia, India, Israel, Persia, Poland,
Ireland, Sudan all show that after the colonial rule ended, all went through a partition, which
!124
were followed by at least a war and/or a partition, sometimes more. India has been no different.
Its the ideological justifications created for the partition that made it so bloody, and it continues
to fester three quarters of a century later.
Kabir Altaf Says:
manOjm,
I agree with you that the bickering over Kashmir is not getting us anywhere. Deeply
entrenched nationalist positions will prevent us from looking at the issue with whatever
objectivity we can find.
I do have two points about this last comment of yours though:
1) UP was always a Muslim-minority province. The backbone of the Pakistan movement was
there because they were the most concerned about how they would deal with the Hindu majority
in an undivided India. The provinces that today make up Pakistan were solidly Muslim-majority
and so werent too invested in the Pakistan movement until relatively late. Recall that in
undivided Punjab, the Unionist Party was mostly in power and they didnt have any particular
Muslim agenda. It is one of the ironies of history that those who were most committed to
creating a Muslim homeland didnt realize that they would lose their own actual homeland if
their ideological project ever came to fruition. The whole UP scenario has been explored by
Qurrutulain Hyder in Meray Bhi Sanam Khane and Aag Ka Dariya.
2) Israel/Palestine was perhaps an unfortunate example to add in this list of countries partitioned
after decolonization. Unlike British India where the Indian National Congress, The Muslim
League and the British agreed that Partition was the best (or the least-worst option), the
Palestinian Arabs never consented to give 50% of their land to a small Jewish minority. Israel
unilaterally declared independence which led to a war. Then again in 1967, Israel occupied the
West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. That land is still today internationally considered
Occupied Palestinian Territory. In the India/Pakistan scenario, there is no international
consensus that either party is occupying the others land (despite what both sides feel). Palestine
remains one of the most important unresolved human rights issues of our time.
!125
Anyway, I absolutely agree with you that we should not forget the millions who lost their lives or
were made homeless by Partition. The bloody nature of that Partition as well as the four wars
fought between India and Pakistan and the ongoing territorial disputes have created an
atmosphere of such distrust that when it comes to the current cross-border firing most Pakistanis
are not willing to believe a single thing coming out of Indian newspapers and vice versa. The
whole saga of the Pak Terror Boat is another example.
The question is how do we get over that distrust? I believe that on an individual level, Indians
and Pakistanis can be friends (as long as we dont start arguing over contentious issues) but our
national governments are really not interested in Aman despite whatever lip-service they give to
it from time to time. It seems to me that as of now the best option the two countries have is a cold
peace such as Israel has with Jordan or Egypt, which is really just the absence of war. Perhaps
this is too cynical.
man0jm Says:
January 12, 2015 at 7:58 am
On 1, Nationalism as long as it means pride and working for ones country, its all good. Sadly,
both in India & Pak, it appears to have come to mean warring with others !! On the facts, look at
an interesting set of maps and draw your own conclusions http://www.columbia.edu/itc/
mealac/pritchett/00maplinks/modern/maps1947/maps1947.html. Note the province of
Khulna & Murshidabad for example.
On 2. I agree a cold peace is the start point. The real risk to Pak & india people is the building of
military complexes by their governments Pak has completed this, leading to economic drain,
armed violence and military regimes. India seems to be building it. Once these complexes are in
place, they must fund war-mongering propaganda, like US WMDs, extending democracy etc
everything becomes grist for the mill.
In my opinion, indians and pakistanis, instead of falling for jingoism like the unfinished agenda
etc, should push their governments to do more for their citizens, rather than war with others
covertly or overtly. Let it become a healthy competition between the 2 nations, not a destruction
theme.
Vikram Says:
!126
SA, there is a big problem with the narrative you have presented on Kashmir. The Nawab of
Junagadh (a state with an overwhelming Hindu majority) was courted by the Pakistani authorities
and even acceded to Pakistan on 15 September 1947. How was the acceptance of this accession
consistent with the logic of the two nation theory that had been frequently been alluded to
above ?
Junagadh was neither contiguous to Pakistan nor a Muslim majority state. So why was this
accession accepted ?
It is quite clear what was going on. Two new states were born, and like any state both tried to
gain as much territory for themselves as possible. Pakistan made a move and did not get the
outcome it wanted, and has been unable to reconcile with this reality ever since.
The narrative you have presented also claims that the invasion of the Pathan tribesmen from
Pakistan was a spontaneous uprising, this view has been firmly discredited by military historians
like Christine Fair.
SouthAsian Says:
Vikram: That was not my narrative in that it was not written by me. The book is part of the
Routledge series which has global credibility. As I said, there seems no reason to accuse the
authors of any particular bias.
The reason to present the narrative from a respected source was to remove doubts about the clear
choice given to the rulers of the princely states and the non-binding guidelines that were
suggested to them. What comes across very clearly is that when it came to the test, both countries
acted in unprincipled ways to maximize their territories. Much suffering has ensued from this
unprincipled behavior. Any subsequent attempts to find justifications for the behaviors cannot
ignore that starting point.
As mentioned in my response to Kabir/Right Wing, discussion on the rightness or wrongness of
the Kashmir accession is closed as it is hurting the blog.
Fa Xian Says:
!127

I am Chinese, and even I am saddened when reading about the Partition of India. Surely unity
would ever be preferable to disunity? Even most mainlanders and Taiwanese people would put
aside differences and come together if it meant averting the possibility of war forever. Do you
truly have no regrets? Have none of you wondered, What if ?
Kabir Altaf Says:
Fa Xian,
I think all South Asians have at some point wondered what if ?. Partition was a huge tragedy
for those who lost their lives and their homes. At the same time, as a Pakistani, I am glad that I
have my own nation-state and my own identity separate from India. There were many reasons
(some good and some not) why Muslims in British India felt they could not live in a Hindumajority country where they would be at a perpetual disadvantage under a one-man-one-vote
democratic system. Also, please remember that there were many attempts over more than two
decades to find a compromise that would have left India united. For various reasons, a workable
solution was not found.
Anyway, it has now been over six decades and most Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are (I
assume) quite happy to live in independent nation-states. We can be good neighbors, but there is
now need to give up our own identities.
Finally, there were wars in India even when it was united. Some would argue that it was the
British that really made India one country. Even then, there were over 500 princely states that
were nominally independent.
Vikram Says:
Kabir, South Asia includes Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bhutan, all of whom were not party to the
partition or involved in it in any way. So your claim of all South Asians pondering what if
cannot be correct.
Kabir Altaf Says:
!128

Vikram, of course you are right. I was using South Asia to mean British India.
Vikram Says:
Fa Xian, I think the situation between mainland Han Chinese and those on Taiwan cannot be
compared to that between Pakistanis and Indians.
Between the Kuomintang that succeeded the Qing dynasty, and the CPC, the dispute was
primarily was one of the economic system to be adopted in a modern China, and the foreign
backers of each party. There were also disputes regarding the political system to be adopted,
although these really became salient only after Taiwan became a full fledged democracy.
Most importantly, the CPC and the Kuomintang did not have differing definitions of the Chinese
nation they claimed to speak in the name of.
If today, reconciliation is possible between the CPC and Taiwan, one big reason is that the CPC
has practically abandoned the CPC economic system, and moved towards a more capitalist one.
State owned enterprises still control most upstream industries and play a major role in the PRC
economy. However, this extensive role of the state in the PRCs economy is a structural
consequence of the CPCs political system, and not the result of widely held belief among the
Chinese about the states role in the economy.
Also, I doubt if any real unification between the PRC and Taiwan can take place unless
mainland China becomes a democracy like Taiwan (i.e. the CPC abandons both its economic
and political ideology), or the US withdraws from the region and the PRC can take over Taiwan
by force.
man0jm Says:
Vikram you are right, the situation in PRC and Taiwan cannot be compared after all they didnt
kill a million and displace 10 million.
!129
75 years after this tragic events, I see on this blog 2 kinds of comments 1. Parition justified our
ideology & we regret we didnt kill and displace more 2. Partition was a shameful event and we
should learn from it and resolve never to have anything like this again.
Take your pick.
Kabir Altaf Says:
man0jm, I hope you dont place me in the we regret we didnt kill more category. That would
be really unfair. While I dont want Pakistan to not exist as a nation-state, Im certainly not happy
about the human cost of that decision. Many members of my own family lost their homes in
what is now India.
Perhaps an equivalent feeling could be that of those liberal Zionists who acknowledge the
Palestinian Nakba but still believe that there was a need for Israel to exist. I think Pakistan
needed to exist but of course Partition was a tragedy.
Partitions are messy events but realistically most nation-states were formed through some such
events.
man0jm Says:
Kabir, that was put very well. And I really meant categories of comments, not persons it
would be too pretentious to judge people by what they write on a blog. Peace !
Vikram Says:
Manoj, I am not sure what you mean. The Chinese Civil war (between the KMT and CPC)
killed 8 million people, almost the entire population of Taiwan consists of Han Chinese displaced
from Chinas southern provinces.
I also think you need to revise your understanding of partition violence. The roots of the intense
sectarian violence, especially in Punjab go back a long way into colonial policies of land
!130
allocation and militarization of the Punjabi peasantry. If anyones conduct was shameful, it was
the British colonialists, who after manipulating and exploiting Indian (especially Punjabi)
communities for so long to entrench and prolong their rule, showed no interest in maintaining
order during the transfer of power.
There was a political disagreement between the principal politically active agents in British India,
and no resolution that could have maintained the unity of British India could be agreed upon.
There is nothing to feel ashamed about here and there is no point in blaming this and that
person.
Had the colonial authorities fulfilled their duties, the non-Muslim population of Pakistan would
not have shrunk so dramatically from nearly 20% in 1941 to 1.5% in 1951. It might have gone
down to 15% perhaps, with the urban Hindus of Punjab leaving (many of whom did leave before
the bulk of the violence), just like it was mainly the urban Muslims of Delhi and UP left. The
memories of migration would have been of seeking a new life and cultural security, but without
the bitterness and animosity that has come to characterize it.
I will argue that despite the increasingly Islamist nature of the Pakistan movement in its later
years, this 15% minority, would have been an important bulwark against fundamentalism, much
like Indian Muslims were crucial for Indian secularism in its early years and even today.
Kabir Altaf Says:
Anyone who is at all interested in the Partition and the creation of two new dominions out of
British India should perhaps watch the series Pradhan Mantri available on Youtube. Though it
is Indian Nationalist in presentation a fact made amply clear in the opening moments of
Episode 1 where Jinnah is depicted as a classic soap opera villain the events depicted seem to
me to be quite real. The series covers the history of the Republic of India from 3 June 1947 to
the present day. There are episodes on the wars with Pakistan, The Babri Masjid demolition, the
Gujarat pogroms, etc. Honestly, in the later episodes its a bit anti-BJP. So if you can separate out
the programs bias, it is an interesting refresher course on history and current events.
man0jm Says:
!131
I agree with you the series gives an accurate and comprehensive picture of major events in 40s
and 50s, from the leaders perspective.
Prabhjot Singh Says:
Only Indian and Pakistan govt fight ,people still love each other.I dont know the name of a single
person from Pakistan whom I hate,So I even dont have a reason to hate Pakistan and its same
with the Pakistani people too. I dont know what would have happened if India was not
partitioned but i know that I could have more friends than I have now.
Vikram Says:
I wonder if this entire discussion is premised on the right assumptions. Starting with the title of
the post (and the general label of Partition of India), I feel that we predispose the discussion
towards a negative evaluation of the fact that two, not one sovereign political entities emerged
from the British Indian Empire (BIE). We also forget that even after partition the border
between India and Pakistan was open, and it was only in 1965 that we started having the kinds of
restrictions that we have today.
But most importantly, we fail to separate the violence that accompanied the political emergence
of India and Pakistan from the BIE from the political arrangement itself. This violence, a dark
spot on human history was the fault of the British authorities abandoning their duty to uphold
order and their intense miltarization of the Punjab during the century of their rule.
Pratap Bhanu Mehta has also noted in a recent column that we should stop looking at the
political actors of the 1940s in terms of heroes and villains in the context of partition. Instead
we should look at the various aspirations of the communities that resided in the BIE that lead to
the Indian Independence and Pakistan movement.
A recent book by Venkat Dhulipala presents a rich history of the Pakistan movement, in
particular how the Urdu speaking Muslims of North India, who had a major impact on Pakistan
in its early years saw the demand for Pakistan.
http://indianexpress.com/article/lifestyle/books/book-review-the-promised-land/99/
!132
SouthAsian Says:
Vikram: The original post was not premised on any assumptions. It posed the standard
counterfactual question: What would have happened if India had not been partitioned? Of
course, there are positive and negative opinions and the idea was to provide a space to articulate
them. Even Dhulipala, in the review you have linked, has a perspective on the question: In fact,
so fixated have we been on the idea that the bad guys were the ones who wanted territorial
Partition that we often forget that the cost of territorial unity was always going to be religious
conservatism. Territorial unity required the partitioning of social orders; not the modern ideas of
citizenship.
I believe the argument is contestable because post-partition India did not become free of
different social orders and, more damaging to the hypothesis, post-partition Pakistan that did
become much more free of social differences, did not become religiously liberal in fact it
became even more conservative.
It is true that the commentary on the post drifted into unrelated issues of the genesis of the
partition and the attribution of responsibility but commentary is never in control of the author.
This blog is in agreement with Pratap Mehta that there is not much to be gained by looking for
heroes and villians. Just as a reminder, the following was posted on the blog quite some time back:
https://thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/jaswant-singh-the-road-to-partition/
I do feel that looking at the aspirations of communities is not sufficient because the aspirations
are shaped by events. It is the events that need to be focus of analysis.
Note: Dhulipalas article is archived in the Best from Elsewhere section of the blog:
https://thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com/from-elsewhere/#88
Param Siddharth Says:
I am an Indian, and let me tell you, there is no discrimitnation here.
The creation of Pakistan was a big mistake.
I am an Indian, and I am telling you that Muslims live happily in my country.
!133
Those who think that Muslims are discriminated here have false thoughts.
Hope people will understand it someday.
Australian Says:
Appreciate the article, Indian Hindus are equally responsible for creating a country Pakistan, so
called upper caste Hindus were treating Muslims as bad as untouchables, Jinnah has realised this
well in advance, once India becomes independent country then the Muslims minority will not be
treated well by upper caste Hindus, they (Hindus) will never give an equal opportunity to
Muslims in terms of education and other opportunities, certain extent this is true.
Hindus were vegetarians and they dont like to see other people eating meat, secondly Muslims
were creating problems for Hindus such as throwing meat bones on Hindu majority streets,
purposely praying on the street and creating an unpleasant situation to Hindus.
We cannot look back to the past what has happened and there is no point in turning back to
history pages, rather we should look forward to patch up the relations, Pakistan is still an
underdog country and they should work to heal the wounds and look for an economic
development, health and education with the help of its neighbours than finding ways to take
revenge in the name of Kashmir. Creating a separate country or Kashmir becoming part of
Pakistan will not solve the problem in fact this will further escalate the problem, it is too bad for
China, who will have more Muslim neighbours in the western part of the country and the
current situation in China will lead to bigger problem.
Muslims per se are the most conservative in the current world and undemocratic society with
very stringent one-sided rules, severe punishments and with highest level of human right
violations. thanks
SouthAsian Says:
Australian: I am intrigued by your closing comment: Muslims per se are the most conservative
in the current world and undemocratic society with very stringent one-sided rules, severe
punishments and with highest level of human right violations.
!134
First, how does one arrive at this conclusion? For example, what are the stringent one-sided rules
under consideration and how do they compare to rules in other religions? Second, is there need
to see democracy in a global geopolitical perspective? For example, Iran was a democracy in
1953 which was toppled by the US and replaced by an undemocratic system (Obama has now
apologized for that). The Saudi regime is the dearest ally of the US and has been protected all
along. Do these aspects relate to religion or the politics of oil? Third, is there a table of human
right violations per 100,000 population by country? Here is one list I found showing the ten most
extreme violators:
http://maplecroft.com/portfolio/new-analysis/2014/12/03/human-rights-deteriorating-mostukraine-thailand-turkey-due-state-repression-civil-unrest-maplecroft-human-rights-risk-atlas/
Shivatejas Bettadapura Says:
Interesting and informative article.What hasnt been discussed is that a unitary country like
modern India with a strong center was not on the table. The choice in 1947 was between
accepting the Cabinet Mission plan and Partition. If Partition had been avoided and CMP
adopted, then some princely states would have seceded. The young nation would have quickly
balkanized, within a decade or so.
Secondly, a single South Asian country would have got dragged into the turbulence of the greater
Middle-east. Delhi would have been unable to handle this without some measure of devolution
or decentralization (unacceptable to Nehru and Patel at the time).
All of you have framed it in terms of Hindu-Muslim relations, most arguing that they would have
equilibrated over time and some arguing that they would have continued to remain bitter. While
the rhetoric of the Muslim League certainly invoked imagined Muslim greatness in the past and
how that could be realized in Pakistan, what people have ignored is the strong zamindari angle to
the opposition of the ML to the egalitarian impulses of the Congress. In undivided India,
Congress would have found it impossible to enact land reform in large swathes of territory that
forms Pakistan today.Witness how Pakistan has been unable to enact land reform to this day.
Without land reform, the country would have struggled with continued poverty on account of
entrenched caste equations and inequalities.
SouthAsian Says:
!135
Shivatejas: Thanks for an intellectually stimulating comment, precisely the kind the post was
intended to elicit.
As you mention, devolution or decentralization was not acceptable to Congress at that time while
the League was in favor of it. One wonders if no compromise could have been found short of
partition? Regarding your argument about the princely states, even following partition India
could only retain territories in the northwest and northeast by recourse to force so the problem
you allude to wasnt exactly avoided by partition. As for balkanization, Europe can be considered
balkanized but does that make it particularly disadvantaged compared to South Asia. According
to some, the competition amongst smaller states is a spur to innovation and progress.
It is not clear to me what would have led an undivided India to be dragged into the turbulence of
the middle east. Would it have been because of its large Muslim population? India still has a very
large Muslim population that is not pressing it to be involved in the turbulence of the middle
east.
Your point about land reform is plausible except for the fact that there does not seem much
difference in the continued poverty in both India and Pakistan. It is not as if land reforms in
India have had much of an impact on poverty. Was partition a price worth paying for such
minimal impact?
Shivatejas Bettadapura Says:
Speaking as a young south Indian, I would say Partition served us. The first generation of
Partition refugees lost a lot and they feel a nostalgia for an undivided country.
India as it is is much much stronger than a fragmented south asia could ever have been: with a
common market, with free transport of goods and people across the length and breadth of the
country and allegiance to a liberal Constitution. The combined strength of Rajasthanis,Gujaratis
and Malayalis is far bigger than Junagadh,Kathiawar and Travancore.
The point about Muslims is worth talking about. The mistake most Pakistanis make is that they
homogenize Indias Muslims. Tamil Muslims are proud of their Tamilness, Malayali Muslims
are Malayali first and many Kannada Muslims have made valuable contributions to Kannada
literature. Pakistanis view of India is dominated by North India and the Muslims of the
Gangetic plains. Here too, the fact that today, UP and Bihar Muslims arent interested in the
!136
events of the greater Middle east owes probably to the fact that after 67 years, we in India have
been able to build a civic identity owing largely to a highly liberal and non-sectarian definition of
nationalism(the originality of the Congress version of Indian nationalism has to be thanked for
this). Without Partition, I feel we would have continued to think of ourselves as Hindus, Muslims,
Sikhs, etc. I for one would never want to live in a confessional state.
India has progressed from a ship-to-mouth existence to being a food grain exporter. Of course,
agricultural research is responsible for this but in large measure, productivity in farms was
boosted by land reform. Lazy, city-based zamindar elites were replaced by hard-working
peasants. India has been able to build a substantial rural farming elite. You hear about farmer
suicides and get the impression that Indian farmers are struggling, but the bigger story is that
farmers today want to send their children to the best schools and get into debt for that.
In short, to quote MJ Akbar, the idea of India is a modern idea, the idea of Pakistan is an
outdated idea. It would not have died even if Partition were averted.
SouthAsian Says:
Shivatejas: You are assuming that if India had not been partitioned it would have fragmented
into dozens of states like Junagadh, Kathiawar, and Travancore, etc. No such tendencies were in
evidence during the years leading up to 1947.
I agree on the problem of homogenization but you can appreciate that this was precisely what
happened in the years leading up to 1947 creating the impression that all Muslims wanted to
separate whereas that was clearly not the case. Also, do consider where the categories of Hindus,
Muslims, and Sikhs came from. Last week Professor Romila Thapar was at the Lahore Literary
Festival and was reported as follows http://www.dawn.com/news/1165001:
In fact, till the British conducted their first census, there was no concept of religious minorities
and majority in the subcontinent. The census purely divided the people on the basis of their
religious identity without taking sects into consideration. If this had been done, she said, the
Bhakti-Sufi sects would have come up as a majority. Most people only followed the popular folk
traditions and did not push religious identity till the colonial thought process pushed them to do
so.
!137
Whether India is an importer or exporter of grains has very little impact on poverty the
statistics on rural child malnourishment are shocking. See this report:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/business/global/a-failed-food-system-in-india-promptsan-intense-review.html?pagewanted=all
I repeat the point that partition did not contribute sufficiently to poverty reduction in India to
justify its human costs.
As for MJ Akbar, this blog considers his book to be bad history: https://
thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com/2011/04/30/tinderbox-the-past-and-future-of-pakistan%E2%80%93-a-review/
Asian Says:
Be one again. Please.
LeGrand Says:
In the last 5000 years, India (subcontinent) remained as one country for only 500 years. So the
concept of partition seems too natural to India
kpr Says:
Im an 18 year old northern indian hindu first and foremost let me congratulate you on this
blog .!!.
Im proud of my patriotic indian muslim brethren who chose to stay back in india during the
partition It goes to show that the idea of pakistan is not as strong as some pakistanis may
think.. hindu numbers have dwindled there while muslims numbers in india have grown here.. nd
just becoz i am secular does not mean i forget the way abrahamic relegions treat hindus . Dirty
words like kaafir My god . Let me make it very clear to you here on this blog HINDUS
ARE NOT IDOLTORS AND POLYTHEISTS.
I think its important to mention tthis as ive read reports online and watched clips of pakistani
talkshows on youtube where people speak of being taught anti hindu hate in school textbooks
and whatnot
!138
All abrahamic relegions have this view .

1)we dont worship idols rather we worship through idols See it like this .. you love your mother
And say you have a photograph of her and someone asked you to spit on it .. would you?
YOU wouldnt ,saying that it would be disrespectful Lets get logical here .. the photograph is
paper and plastic and cant think, move, speak ,see and feel emotions the way your mother does
So insulting the photo ,an inanimate object, shouldnt be such a big deal . Yet it is . Becoz
you see the shadow of your mother and maybe the photograph offers you solace and comfort
when you are away from her, miss her and only wish to be with her So much emotion for a
mortal being , then how can i disrespect the image of my god , becoz even in the lifeless stone
metal and wood idols I see him Do i love the photograph more than my mother .. no way!!
i dont look at it when im with her .. same goes for hinduism .. the idols are a way for us to
concentrate in prayer ..
2)hinduism is essentially a relegion with one god only -brahma all the others are extensions of
him in various forms.
Hindus dont worship cows like a god but since in our scriptures they are seen as pure,sacrificing,
maternal& innocent figures ..they are placed on a pedestal and so are all of gods creation .. think
about it how can i praise him and not appreciate this world he created .
Anyways that was that It bothers me that hinduism and some eastern religions freak people
out so much?? I dont see hinduism as pagan but even if it was What is it to you Live and
let live .. unless you thrive on expansionism and proselytizing.
anyway back to the topic Since we dont live in an ideal world id say- no, i dont think the india
and pakistan shoould merge Atleast not for another 30yrs or so
Let the scars of partition scab over and let the two countries develop &evolve and then if
there is still longing for each other then maybe just maybe .. who knows ..
But plz rein in your radical islam .. id rather die than see myself or the future generations live
under the the vitriol filled atmosphere of a religion that hasnt evolved with the centuries and
continues to be oppressive in this day and age .. proof is all over the world ..
We in india are fighting against caste system with the help of our constitution , reservations in
schools colleges and offices ,reformation drives etc
Id like to see a similar change in the muslim world .. im in no way saying that all muslims are like
this .. infact we have muslims family friends that are we so close with that i call them mamu mami
( uncle & aunt ) . Some members of my extended family came from lahore during partition and
one of them even studied medicine at lahore medical college .. and she regales us with stories of
pakistan sometimes So No hate here .. bt i cannot and will not stand anti hindu sentiments ..
SouthAsian Says:
!139

kpr: Welcome to the blog and thanks for the appreciative words. In response to your comments, I
would like to raise a few points for discussion in the spirit of this blog.
1. I dont believe it is justifiable to attribute the decision of many Muslims to stay in India to
patriotism and by implication that of those who left to lack of patriotism. There were very violent
riots on both sides of the border, especially in Punjab and Bengal from where the majority of the
migrations took place, and many who left their homes had no option but to flee to save their lives.
Patriotism is not a good touchstone in any case for such decisions. Many South Asians have
migrated to the West to better their lives. Should we attribute a lack of patriotism to them?
Finally, Muslims in India ought to be seen as Indian citizens like all other citizens. Implicit
arguments pertaining to their patriotism are a subtle form of discrimination the othering of a
group not quite considered at par with the majority.
2. I dont believe you need to defend Hinduism vis a vis the Abrahamic faiths. Its an ancient
tradition that has no need to comply with the norms of Abrahamic faiths. As for dirty words
they are floating all over the place on every side and need to be ignored if we are to move
forward.
3. I am most concerned about your last sentence: I cannot and will not stand anti Hindu
sentiments. This puts you in the same category as the angry Muslims who cannot stand anti
Muslim sentiments. If that is the case, the critique of angry Muslims loses force. Unless we
develop the ability not to be provoked we will always remain at the mercy of those who benefit by
inflaming our emotions.
4. Your sentence plz rein in your radical Islam is problematic. Why is it mine? What is the basis
for that claim?
LeGrand Says:
Historically, India was like a small continent comprised of many countries/nations/states. Thats
why India was called the Subcontinent also.
!140
Vikram Says:
Historically, India was like a small continent comprised of many countries/nations/states.
Thats why India was called the Subcontinent also.
Historically, every part of the world that had the economy to generate enough surplus and
establish a state (which was not forcibly taken over by another) was a country. National
consciousness only arrived in post enlightenment Europe in the 18th century as people sought a
new source of sovereignty following the delegitimization of monarchies. Due to the various twists
and turns of history, and the preexisting demographics of religion, it culminated in monolingual
nation states. These monolingual nation states, the borders of most of which defied natural logic
set the stage for the two Great Wars in Europe.
In India, the history of nationalism begins with the 1857 war. Most nationalist movements in
India, evolving as they were under a multilingual, multireligious empire took on a more broad
based definition of the nation than religion or language. It is the events from 1857 to 1947, that
form the core of nationalist memory in India today. The independence movement still shapes
how Indians think about politics.
SouthAsian Says:
Vikram: This is a very important subject you have touched upon. I would like to move it forward
by submitting the following observations:
Historically, every part of the world that had the economy to generate enough surplus and
establish a state (which was not forcibly taken over by another) was a country.
The concept of country is a very late arrival. Historically, there were states of different forms
but they cannot be classified as countries the way we know them today. They were either citystates, principalities, kingdoms, or empires.
National consciousness only arrived in post enlightenment Europe in the 18th century as people
sought a new source of sovereignty following the delegitimization of monarchies.
!141
This may not be strictly correct. For example, the city-states of Athens and Sparta exhibited quite
a fierce nationalism over two thousand years ago. The 14th and 15th century city-states of
Milan, Florence, Venice, etc., were at war with each other and are well known. Machiavelli is the
best-known name associated with this period.
Also, many empires only disintegrated after WW1. The Russian Empire even later.
Due to the various twists and turns of history, and the preexisting demographics of religion, it
culminated in monolingual nation states.
Monolingual nation-states did not emerge out of a natural process. A lot of ethnic cleansing was
involved in creating linguistic homogeneity. The Slavic episode is still fresh in our memories. We
should remain aware of how European nation-states came into being. A little bit of that is
discussed in a review of Tony Judts monumental work Post-War: He also observes that because
war, genocide, and ethnic cleansing had separated the fractious, ethnically diverse regions of
Eastern Europe into tidy, homogeneous nation-states, the stability of postwar Europe rested
upon the accomplishments of Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler. (http://nymag.com/news/
features/64626/)
Also, there are still a number of nation-states in Europe that are not monolingual Switzerland,
Belgium, Spain, UK, among them. Even the US is not monolingual. Also, some city-states have
survived into the present era, e.g., Monaco, San Marino, etc. These are sub-national states
surrounded by nation-states in which people are of the same ethnicity and speak the same
language.
In India, the history of nationalism begins with the 1857 war.
We tend to refer to this as nationalism but it was more an anti-colonial movement.
Most nationalist movements in India, evolving as they were under a multilingual, multireligious
empire took on a more broad based definition of the nation than religion or language.
I wish that had been the case. The Indian Western-educated elite was unable to think beyond the
European nation-state as the norm. This was what led to Muslims suddenly beginning to think of
!142
themselves as a separate nation. The same trend continues today with the desire of some to
transform India into a Hindu state.
India was and still is a civilizational-state and that is the way it should have been imagined.
Vikram Says:
Monolingual nation-states did not emerge out of a natural process. A lot of ethnic cleansing was
involved in creating linguistic homogeneity. The Slavic episode is still fresh in our memories. We
should remain aware of how European nation-states came into being.
I was including all the nastiness in the twists and turns of history, I should have a more
deliberate word. But the key point I want to emphasize here is the religious demographics.
Medieval Europe was overwhelmingly Christian (with a splattering of Jews), and the various
denominations of Christianity played a key role in the formation of national identities.
The nation states that emerged in Europe, were thus not only monolingual, but monoreligious (at
the level of Christian denomination) as well. There were exceptions as you point out, but this was
the norm. A similar process seems to be underway in the Middle East as well.
India was and still is a civilizational-state and that is the way it should have been imagined.
Both modern day Indian nationalism and even Hindu nationalism essentially imagine India as a
civilization state. Indeed, so does Muslim nationalism in modern South Asia. Its just that they
refer to different civilizations.
With the establishment of the first Persianate state by the Ghaznavids in Lahore, a policy
continued by future Turkic/Iranic rulers in the Delhi Sultanate, Deccan Sultanate and the
Mughal Empire a decidedly Persianate Muslim identity emerged in the Northern regions of the
subcontinent. The surplus generated in these states was appropriated to develop a Persian based
culture in South Asia.
I dont think this attempt to create a Persianate culture would be such a problematic historical
memory given that India was plural long before the establishment of these states. But the fact
!143
that it was accompanied by wanton destruction of the existing heritage and the removal of
Sanskrit and other Indian languages from the court and literary circles created a very different
impression of this period among different groups. Support to native traditions seems to have been
sporadic and token. (I would be interested to know how Richard Eaton explains Aurangzebs
artillery bombardment of the Bamiyan Buddhas.)
Perhaps for a lot of the Muslim elite, the roots of the demands for Pakistan can be found in the
desire to see this Perso-Islamic culture form the basis for a modern Muslim (or even secular)
culture in South Asia. This can be seen for example, in the elevation of Urdu to a
sweet ,beautiful inclusive language, even though its vocabulary and modes of expression are
overwhelmingly Persian.
It is ironic then that the key modern expression of the culture Persianate Muslims in South Asia
came from Mumbai in India rather than Pakistan. But in India, there is not contradiction
between the growth of this culture and the rendering of Indian epics on the modern medium of
television. See any Indian channel, and you will see a seamless blend of shows based on the
stories of the Buddha, Mahabharata and Akbar-Birbal. Turn on Indian radio, and you will hear
mushairas and bhajans. The Indian state supports AIR Akashvaani in Hindi and AIR Urdu.
So how then is India not a civilization state ?
SouthAsian Says:
Vikram: Thanks for the response. Here are some further comments:
On religious demographics: It is not clear how various denominations of Christianity played a
key role in the formation of national identities. When the English Protestants and Catholics were
in conflict they were both English. It was similar in the other countries of Europe. In the Middle
East today, if Sunnis ad Shias are arrayed against each other in Iraq, they are both Iraqis.
On India as a civilizational-state: One can imagine India as a civilization but as soon as one
begins thinking in terms of Hindu or Muslim nationalism, one has transitioned in real terms to
the paradigm of the nation-state.
!144
A civilizational-state, if it had been imagined, would have been a different model, one accepting
its composite Indian-ness without making exceptions. But the thinking you have outlined, one of
grievances, whether justified or not, precluded that outcome and led naturally in the direction of
the nation-state model. From there followed the construction of different civilizations each
glorifying its own nation-state.
As for the grievances, you have to cite more evidence for the wanton destruction of existing
heritage and the removal of Indian languages from literary circles. If Muslim identity emerged in
the northern areas of the subcontinent, how did it manage to eliminate Indian languages all over
India? If the destruction happened sequentially, one has to provide the sequential evidence of the
measures that eliminated Indian languages. To take a more recent example: Are Indians
abandoning mastery of their own languages for English voluntarily or was/is there a systematic
design to eliminate Indian languages from offices, courts, and literature?
There can be a quite different perspective on the phenomenon you have mentioned. It is but
natural for a foreign group coming from outside India to bring along its own traditions. But it is
remarkable how quickly the Muslim foreigners were Indianized giving rise to what is referred to
as the Ganga-Jamni tehzeeb (civilization) in Northern India. This is not to say that there were no
political conflicts but it would be hard to argue that political conflicts did not exist in India before
the arrival of the foreigners.
William Dalrymple provides one example of this Indianization in his research on the tradition of
erotic literature in India (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2008/jun/26/india-theplace-of-sex/):
It was not, therefore, during the Islamic period that the dramatic break with Indias erotic
traditions occurred; instead that change took place during the colonial period with the arrival of
evangelical Christian missionaries in the mid-nineteenth century.
This, despite the fact that, in Dalrymples words:
Islam brought with it to India a very different attitude toward sexuality, which was much closer
to Eastern Christian notionsthe environment in which so many early Islamic attitudes
developedand which divided the mind from the body, and the sensual from the metaphysical.
Like much early Christian thought, Islam emphasized the sinfulness of the flesh, the dangers of
!145
sexuality, and, in extreme cases, the idealization of sexual renunciation and virginity. Yet,
remarkably, Islamic rule did not disturb the long Indian tradition of erotic writing. The
Kamasutra survived and in time even helped to convert to the life of pleasure Indias initially
puritanical Muslim rulers.
The same was the case with music, language, religion, lifestyles. The syncretism of the period was
quite remarkable what Dara Shikoh described in his Majma-ul-Baharain: The Commingling of
Two Oceans.
However, if you are arguing that the foreigners should never have come to India in the first place
you are being ahistorical. There were no countries at that time, only empires with no fixed
borders. Just read the history of England to see how many different foreign groups went and
ruled there and became English in turn even the present royal house is German in origin.
Kabir Altaf Says:
There was no India before August 15, 1947. Before that, there was British India and a bunch
of princely states. Before the British, there was Hindustan (which did not include all of what is
today India). This idea that India was always one united country and its boundaries were
recognized as such is completely ahistorical.
The Republic of India and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan are exactly the same age. Both are
socially constructed entities. Neither was ever inevitable.
A Pung Says:
India and China are great nations but greatness is not automatic. It requires quality leadership
during important moments in history. Unfortunately, Indian leadership of the forties was shortsighted and lacked quality. China seized its moment by emerging as one giant nation after its
communist revolution and has never looked back. India missed its opportunity when the British
left. Instead of having one voice to represent the Indian nation, it got two and later, three. Three
voices to represent the opinion of one nation that is ridiculous and self-defeating as more often
than not, they drown each other out. The partition of India was a monumental failure of the
prevalent Indian leadership and a historical error which, unfortunately, will probably never be
undone. India is not great anymore and will not be until its division is undone. Instead
!146
competing with nations such as China and the United States, India has been reduced to a
regional power. China makes sure that the distraction of Pakistan keeps India too busy to
compete with it a distraction which would not have existed in a united India.
Vikram Says:
The evidence for the damage done to native traditions by the invasion and subsequent policies of
Turko-Iranian invaders is overwhelming.
1) Change of official languages. Before replacement by Persianate dynasties, North India was
ruled by the Shahis (Sanskrit), Gurjara-Pratihara/Vaghela (Sanskrit, Gujarati), Pala (Sanskrit,
Pali) dynasties. Central India was ruled by Yadava dynasty (Kannada, Sanskrit). None of the
invading dynasties (Delhi/Gujarat/Bahmani/Bengal sultanate) retained these official languages.
In South India, which was under the Vijaynagar Empire (Kannada, Telugu) neither the Qutb
Shahi nor the Adil Shahis maintained continuity.
Sanskrit, Marathi and Kannada did not return as official languages until the Maratha Empire
and Wodeyar kingdoms were established. And Tipu Sultan changed the official language of the
Wodeyar to Persian again.
The pattern is clear.
2) Loss of patronage for native artists. The example of Vidyapati illustrates this. http://
www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/627989/Vidyapati
Many of these love songs were written in the court of Shiva Simha, grandson of Vidyapatis
first patron. When in 1406 Muslim armies routed the court, Shiva Simha, Vidyapatis friend and
patron, disappeared, and Vidyapatis golden age was over.
2) Contrast with the policies of similar invaders in Central Asia. The Samanids, Ghaznavids,
Seljuks who were Turkic maintained Persian as the official language of the Iranian lands they
conquered. In Iranian history, they are renowned for being Persianate states who restored Persian
to a high status after Arab conquest. This is what allowed folks like Rumi (surplus of Seljuks),
Hafiz (Timur, Muzzafarids) etc to thrive.
!147
By contrast, native Indian poets like Kabir, Tulsidas and Surdas had to make their own living.
Narsinh Mehta had to live in poverty.
4) Destruction of architectural legacy. Koenraad Elst has an adequate response here to Eatons
thesis. http://www.outlookindia.com/article/vandalism-sanctified-by-scripture/213030
I do not accept Elsts thesis that temples were destroyed because of Islamic scripture, there are
plenty of examples of the original Muslims not harming the holy buildings of other religions.
The real reason was more likely Turko-Iranian contempt for Indic traditions.
But it is clear that there was no norm of temple destruction in India. No Hindu/Buddhist/Jain
scripture talks about it, and the example in the Ramayana is the very opposite. The handful of
examples Eaton are not enough.
And then, there is just the simple fact that in North India, where Hindus are the overwhelming
majority, and were an even bigger majority a hundred years ago, not a single major temple of the
kind found in South India survives.
5) Behaviour of other Muslim communities in India. Contrast the Muslims of Kerala, Dawoodi
Bohras and Ismailis to the Persianate Muslims.
I would like to remind of you of your own words where you once mentioned that Muslims in the
Middle East do not want to suffer the same fate as the native Americans. Neither did the native
Indians. Persian culture may have a lot to be admired, and Indian traditions may have many
flaws, but I doubt the vast majority of Indians wanted to become Persianized.
Vikram Says:
However, if you are arguing that the foreigners should never have come to India in the first
place you are being ahistorical.
Lest I be misunderstood, this is not my argument at all. Given the experience of the Parsis, the
Arab Muslim communities on the west coast, a syncrectic Indo-Islamic culture would have
!148
emerged in the North in any case with the migration of sufis, artists and noble men from Central
Asia.
It is only the actions and policies of the Turkic rulers and the inability to look at them objectively
which is the stumbling block.
SouthAsian Says:
Vikram: Let us accept all the facts you have mentioned. But facts have to be interpreted in some
framework. The framework you are employing seems problematic to me for the following
reasons:
1. Surely you cannot be arguing that there is a moment in time before which a pristine culture
exists and after which traditions are wantonly destroyed. The Turkic invaders were not the first
invaders of the Indian subcontinent. Before them there were the Huns and before them the
Kushans. These invasions too must have caused some destruction of traditions. And there were
constant expansions of empires within the subcontinent simply because there was no united
Indian entity in those times. You must definitely have read about the Kalinga War nothing like
which has reputedly happened in India before or after.
What might be called the natives of India (the first settlers) were driven into the forests where
they survive today not very different from Native Americans and where their indigenous
languages are dying out. Sanskrit was replaced by Pali when Buddhism emerged as the ruling
religion. At some point, the tradition of varna was imposed, the consumption of beef was
curtailed, whole segments of society were declared untouchables. All these can be considered
wanton destruction of preceding traditions. One only has to refer to Dr. Ambedkars The
Annihilation of Caste to accept that radical interventions in tradition were the norm, not the
exception, in the times we are talking about.
And such interventions are not limited to olden times. After 1947, the attempts to impose Hindi
on other languages a displacement of tradition were curtailed only after fierce resistance.
Similar was the case of the attempt to impose Urdu in Pakistan.
2. One cannot compare Parsis and Arab communities on the west coast with the Turkic invaders.
The first arrived as refugees, the second as traders; it is natural for such groups to assimilate
!149
rapidly within the host communities on whose goodwill they survive. The Turkic invaders arrived
as rulers of small kingdoms; you would expect some differences in their behavior. Your
comparison with invaders in Central Asia is also problematic. Persian was the dominant language
of that region. Even the Turkic invaders to India did not bring their own language with them but
the dominant Persian language. This need not be all that surprising. The language adopted by
the Russian nobility was French though no one seems to have imposed it on them.
3. It was to highlight these comparisons that I mentioned the analogous history of Britain. It was
invaded continuously from Europe and was under Roman, Danish, Saxon, and Norman rule for
periods extending over centuries. The Normans made French the language of the court and the
British Royal Coat of Arms even today has its mottos in French (See here: http://
resources.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/motto.html). Latin came to Britain
with the Romans, feudalism with the Normans. All these could be considered major destructions
of preceding traditions. See the timeline and facts of British history here: http://
resources.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/history.html
4. The really relevant point is that after all these invasions, impositions, and destructions, there
emerged an English identity that went on to create the biggest empire in the world instead of
lamenting wanton destruction of some pristine culture of the Britons. The analogous question is:
Did the Turkic dynasty ever become Indian in a similar sense? There were continuous
intermarriages and as early as Jehangir many of the Mughal rulers had Rajput mothers. If one
argues that the lineage can never be accepted as Indian then one is indirectly arguing that India
can only be a nation-state of and for Hindus. But that is not what Indians would own up to
asserting. So, there is a contradiction in the argument that needs to be resolved. And this
unresolved contradiction would, in my opinion, stand in the way of Indian civilization achieving
its potential.
5. This brings us to your concluding sentence: It is only the actions and policies of the Turkic
rulers and the inability to look at them objectively which is the stumbling block. It is not clear
what it is a stumbling block to? As I said in the beginning, let us accept all the facts you have
enumerated and conclude objectively that in comparison to all other invaders in history the Turks
were the worst, then what? What would be the implication of that for the India of today?
!150
Vikram Says:
1. SA, no disagreement over the fact that Central Asia (esp. its South-East) has always been part
of the political matrix of the subcontinent. And invasions and incursions have gone both ways,
and my framework is certainly not one of the corruption of a pristine culture. My stress was on
the policies of Turko-Iranian rulers, particularly their linguistic and religious policies. In
particular, since these policies seem to be relevant to peoples political and social views even
today.
2. Regarding language, I have some new information from Dr. Audrey Truschko that indicates
that my previous views were incorrect. Perso-Islamic rulers (as she calls them) did mostly adopt
local languages for administration. It was not really until Akbar that Persian was declared and
firmly became the official language of the Delhi polity. Sanskrit was never used as an official
language by South Indian kingdoms, the Guptas and Harsha did use it in the North but it was
gradually restricted to literary and religious purposes in subsequent Indic kingdoms.
Truschko in fact mentions that when Shivaji made Sanskrit the official language, it had been so
long since Sanskrit was used for such mundane purposes that his officials had to invent Sanskrit
equivalents for many Persian words in use.
3. We are now left with religious policies, particularly temple desecration. Structures like Nalanda
and Somnath become institutions and enduring parts of peoples identity. Nalanda especially was
patronized by a succession of Indian kings (both Hindus and Buddhists from its inception till its
destruction by Khilji, and no Muslim king revived this institution). Sites like these were not only
for Hindus and Buddhists inside India, but also maintained enduring networks between India
and South East and East Asia, which became linked spiritually and materially.
In this matter, the record of Indias Turkic rulers, with the exception of Akbar seems very
problematic. Add to this the fact that the overwhelming majority of structures built by Muslim
emperors were mosques and other Persian inspired architecture (with Indian embellishments) and
we can start seeing why the attitudes towards those rulers are often hostile. Wrongly or rightly,
temple desecrations are a reminder of how helpless and powerless Hindus were.
It is quite possible that my understanding of the temple issue is also incomplete, but I find Eatons
explanation very unsatisfactory. If the destruction of your opponents prestige religious structures
!151
was such a big part of Indian politics, why didnt the Marathas and Sikhs go around destroying
Mughal mosques ?
Since identities are intimately connected to history, it is quite clear that if Muslims regard
political control of India by Turkic families as their high point in India (although this view has
now started to be questioned by Muslims themselves), and Hindus see it the same period as one
of helplessness, a civilization state project based on the Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb will not succeed
(not to mention the regional limitations of such a strategy).
Instead, a nationalist strategy where Indians jointly resist a colonizer, and the entire idea of the
strong dominating the weak seems much more promising. And when one resists through a
political strategy which allows the weakest member of the society to take part in the struggle, and
politicizes each section of society, preparing the grounds of democracy, the chances of success
increase dramatically.
A nationalist movement of this kind will produce a civilization state that allows cultures within
itself to express themselves. And this is what has happened in India, notwithstanding the intense
politicization of linguistic and religious identity, most groups in modern India has been able to
express themselves and develop further.
brqp Says:
May 1, 2015 at 2:26 pm | Reply
Backtracking from the Cabinet Mission Plan was a blunder committed by Nehru which led to the
Partition. Azad writes in India wins Freedom
!"# rt(k Says:
May 5, 2015 at 12:12 pm | Reply
Hindus would never have been able to rule Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan or the Frontier.
Hindus dont rule anything India! India is a DEMOCRATIC secular country.
The Partition is big load of Bullsh!#t! only muslims were given a chance to go to form a Islamic
country but Hindus were not given a chance.. theyre worthless i guess!
!152
Paksitan is an Islamic country but India has be a Democratic pseudo-Secular country(AKA AntiHindu) because Hindus dont deserve anything!
I swear to God Gandhi&Nehru were the real anti-hindu people and Jinnah was the TRUE
Hindu saviour who wanted to take away all the muslims away from Indian sub-continent!
SouthAsian Says:
Vishnu: Your comment is perplexing. At first, it seemed you were proud that India was a
democratic secular country and of the fact that the concept of ruling, at least permanently,
doesnt make sense in modern democracies. But then you defined the worth of Hindus by their
having a Hindu state. And you have termed India pseudo-secular because it is allegedly antiHindu. Finally, about Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah: It seems to me that the last thing Jinnah
intended was to be a true Hindu savior. Also, he never wanted to take Muslims away from the
Indian subcontinent, only to have self-rule in Muslim-majority areas. And, if he really thought he
could take away all the Muslims to the latter areas, he made a tragic error in judgment. It is
impossible for me to pull all these thoughts together and would request you to clarify what kind
of country you would like India to be today.
APUNG Says:
India should not have been divided in the first place. It was a crazy idea propounded and
supported by Jinnah and others. In a country like India where you find Muslims in every village
and town, the idea of partition was ridiculous because it was impossible to have a complete
exchange of populations like the exchange that occurred in the Greece-Turkey scenario. So if
you a partition a country on the basis of religion, then no partition would make sense unless
there was a complete and total exchange of population which was impossible in the Indian
context. So, the only result of the partition was that the Muslim majority areas of British India
which had 70% population of Muslims increased that majority to 90% and despite this increase
due to the mass migration of Muslims and Hindus, as of today, there are 150 million Muslims
still living in India. So the purpose of partition was not served at all. Infact, there was no logic
and rationale for the partition. If anything, the entire idea of Pakistan was propounded by the
influential upper class Muslims of Uttar Pradesh who wanted a country of their own where there
would be virtually zero influence of other religions. Unfortunately, a substantial number of
middle class Muslims and poor Muslims also bought into the idea as they fell victim to the fearmongering of the Muslim League. Further, the Hindu-Muslim riots pushed the leaders of the
!153
day into a knee-jerk reaction of accepting partition without fully understanding its implications.
An opportunity to stay united was lost and a message was sent for generations to come that
Hindus and Muslims cannot live together in peace.
birla Says:
May 10, 2015 at 9:11 pm | Reply
Azad was not very influential. Nehru & Patel were. Once Nehru rejected the 1946 Cabinet
Mission Plan, all hopes to avoid the Partition were gone. Jinnah had accepted the Plan.
Vikram Says:
May 14, 2015 at 11:36 pm | Reply
SA, let me reposit my question in a simpler form.
Why was the Congress definition of Indian nationalism not reflective of Indias composite
civilization ? And subsequently, how do the theoretical underpinnings of the modern Indian
nation state not reflect the ideal composite nationalism you describe ?
SouthAsian Says:
Vikram: Sorry for a very delayed response. I have done fairly extensive reading so as to make
what I believe is an accurate assessment of the historical record.
I believe one can say that there was no one definition of Indian nationalism that reflected the
Congress position. It is fair to say that the top INC leadership (Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Azad) were
keen on the INC standing for a composite nationalism. However, the lower tiers of leadership
and the majority of Congress rank and file were much more inclined to the Hindu revivalist
position. One indicator of this was the struggle over the language supported by the INC. Gandhi,
Nehru, Patel and Azad tried their best to advocate Hindustani but the factions headed by PD
Tandon, Govind Das and others succeeded in their campaign for Hindi as part of their Hindu,
Hindi, Hindustan platform. The pressure that was built for Hindi persistently described Urdu as
an alien language and insisted that Hindi be cleansed of all foreign contaminants. The extremely
rapid Sanskritization of Hindi that followed on All India Radio, much to the annoyance of
Nehru, was the result of the success of this campaign. Language policy was one concrete
!154
manifestation of how the desire for a composite nationalism expressed by the top leadership was
negated by INC rank and file.
This probably also explains why so many Muslim leaders including Jinnah, Iqbal, and Maududi
who started off aligned with Congress or parties allied with Congress broke away over time once
the weight of the lower tiers of INC leadership became obvious.
As far as the modern Indian nation state is concerned, it has moved a long distance from the the
commitment of the early leadership to composite nationalism. Theoretical underpinnings are not
the best barometer of the state of play. Rather, one should look at concrete manifestations. Any
time a senior minister can divide the nation into Ramzadas and Haramzadas without any
censure or penalty, it should be obvious that composite nationalism is dead, at least for the
moment.
SouthAsian Says:
Vikram: Here is a tantalizing glimpse of contours and possibility of a composite culture and also
of its fragility which Dalrymple labels heartbreaking. It is not really the religion or ethnicity of
the ruler that determines the outcome but the spirit of the enterprise. The question for us today
is whether we want a composite culture in which everyone has an equal sense of belonging and
respect or do we want our side, however we define it, to be calling the shots while being nice to
the others. The two are not equivalent.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/jun/25/renaissance-sultans/
Vikram Says:
The question for us today is whether we want a composite culture in which everyone has an
equal sense of belonging and respect or do we want our side, however we define it, to be calling
the shots while being nice to the others.
If this is indeed the case in India, it is because the vision of the Constitution has not been
achieved and the ideals of the freedom fighters forgotten. The communally biased freedom
fighter is the exception, not the norm.
!155
The culture produced and practiced by the majority of Indians is still a composite one, with even
more influences than before. But yes, a major section of the middle class that has embraced
political Hindutva, and Western materialist mores.
SouthAsian Says:
June 17, 2015 at 9:59 am
Vikram: I feel the key point to grasp is that the vision of the Constitution was not singular. The
leadership championed a vision that was not owned by the majority. There is nothing wrong with
that except to note that the nature of the contestation widened the divisions in society Gandhi
was murdered for being pro-Muslim.
Vikram Says:
The extremely rapid Sanskritization of Hindi that followed on All India Radio, much to the
annoyance of Nehru, was the result of the success of this campaign. Language policy was one
concrete manifestation of how the desire for a composite nationalism expressed by the top
leadership was negated by INC rank and file.
SA, this debate was about the official language of the Indian Union government, it has nothing
to do with nationalism per se. If the INC rank and file expressed a desire for a Sanskritized Hindi
as the official language, it perhaps reflected the desires of their constituents. If it doesnt, the
official language can be changed (as indeed it has).
The decision about what should be the official language of a modern nation state should be
made by the majority, no matter how lofty the goals of the minority that oppose it.
I would agree with your argument here if the Congress rank and file overruled the top leadership
on matters of religious equality and freedom, and giving religion a presence in the nationalism.
The negation of the vote on including God in the Preamble and the affirmation of religious
freedom as a fundamental right clearly indicate that the rank of file shared the basic values of the
Congress leadership.
!156
SouthAsian Says:
Vikram: I was not pointing to the debate over the official language of the Indian Union
government. My reference was to the contestation over the language in which the official
transactions of the INC were to be conducted and recorded. Gandhi convinced the INC in 1925
to employ Hindustani as official language for the conduct of its proceedings. The top leadership
supported this position but it triggered an ultimately successful resistance led by the second tier
leadership.
The debate over the official language of the Union government came in the twilight of the
struggle for composite nationalism. The Constituent Assembly was formed in December 1946. At
its initial session the Rules Committee decided that the Assembly proceedings would be in
Hindustani or in English. By the fourth session in July 1947, this position was abandoned in favor
of Hindi.
I have no problem with the adoption of Sanskritized Hindi as the official language of India. My
aim was to highlight the struggle between composite nationalism and religious nationalism as
reflected in the struggle over the particular register of language to be adopted. One cannot
subscribe to composite nationalism and majoritarianism at the same time.
Also, it is impossible to separate nationalism from language in the Indian context both in the first
half of the 20th Century when languages were assigned religions and in the second half when
linguistic identities served as the basis for articulating sub-national demands which were
accommodated by the reorganization of states along linguistic lines.
A reference I consulted is Language Conflict and National Development: Group Politics and
National Language Policy in India by Jyotirindra Das Gupta. It is availabe on the Internet at:
h t t p s : / / b o o k s . g o o g l e . c o m . p k / b o o k s ?
id=qGACL5YJRjEC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
For a more recent example from Europe of the intertwining of nationalism and language,
seehttp://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2012/11/language-and-nationalism
Vikram Says:
June 17, 2015 at 8:06 pm
!157
There seems to be an insistence on seeing the composite Indian nationalism in the Hindustani
language which was heavily, heavily Persianized. It was spoken as a link language by many due to
economic and political compulsions, much like English is today. Maybe the majority simply had
an aspiration to speak a language that was more rooted in their soil, and saw the making of
Hindi as official language part of that goal. There was no summary removal of Persian and
Arabic words from the Hindi language. Its just that proportion of Sanskrit words has increased.
I see the composite Indian nationalism in the language Aamir Khan uses in his introduction in
the show Satyameva Jayate and Bollywood cinema uses in general.
SouthAsian Says:
June 18, 2015 at 2:02 pm
Vikram: Surely the point is not what you or I or the majority desires as the official language of
India. It is a matter of historical record that the leadership of the INC voted for Hindustani as
the language of record of the INC as also of the Constituent Assembly. Is this an incorrect
statement? If not, what was the reason for that choice? Surely, the leaders of the freedom
movement had the intelligence to see whether it was a language used mainly due to economic
and political compulsions on top of being heavily, heavily Persianized. Why did the great freedom
fighters make such an obviously ridiculous choice?
Vikram Says:
June 18, 2015 at 10:11 pm
SA, the discussion started with a original claim was that the demand for a Sanskritized Hindi
versus Hindustani reflected the communally prejudiced nature of the majority of Congress
members.
That is the claim I am contesting, not whether Hindustani was the language of record for the
INC. There are many reasons why Hindustani could have been chosen, perhaps the leadership
genuinely thought it could have brought more politically powerful Muslims into the party.
However, if we say that even an aspiration to use more Sanskrit vocabulary is communally biased
then there isnt much room for negotiation. In your opening argument, you equated this
aspiration to Hindu revivalism. Sure, some extreme arguments might have been used in the
language debates, but that surely doesnt mean that the bulk of Sanskrit proponents were Muslim
!158
haters. You further extended this to claim that Jinnah, Iqbal and Maududi might have left
Congress because it was filled with such people.
Please find me the prominent Congress leaders who:
1) Claimed Hindus and Muslims were completely distinct and could never live together.
2) Proclaimed a man convicted of murdering a Muslim as a matchless warrior of Hindus.
3) Advocated the creation of an Indian state with Hinduism as an official religion where all other
religions would have inferior status.
SouthAsian Says:
June 19, 2015 at 7:53 am
Vikram: The claim was that the adoption of Hindustani was an attempt by the INC leadership at
a composite nationalism. The resistance in favor of Sankritized Hindi was a part of the Hindu
revivalist movement and is described as such in books on the language controversy. The record
also shows that the campaign was carried out not on linguistic terms but on those of purification.
There is no argument with the rights or wrongs of such a political campaign except that it was
not compatible with composite nationalism. There is no necessity to have a composite
nationalism.
Vikram Says:
The leadership championed a vision that was not owned by the majority.
SA, I have already mentioned that the Constituent Assembly decisively negated the proposals by
the right-wing lobby to give religion a major say in national organs, and to give preferential status
to any particular religion. This shows that the majority was with the leadership on this issue, but
not on the language issue.
If indeed the majority did not share a secular vision for the Indian state, it could have voted in
the appropriate party and gotten the Constitution amended. In fact, the Constitution became
even more clearly secular in the 1974, a non Congress party with a leadership more right wing
was voted in, major amendments to the Constitution were made, but the secular aspect was
untouched.
!159
Now a right wing party is in power, but the PM only reaffirms the Constitutional commitment to
religious equality. So how does the majority not agree with the leadership on these matters ?
SouthAsian Says:
Vikram: the PM only reaffirms the Constitutional commitment to religious equality. I wonder
if someone can design an interesting study to validate that claim.
Vikram Says:
June 19, 2015 at 12:13 am | Reply
One can see how the equation of more Sanskrit vocabulary as opposed to Perso-Arabic as Hindu
extremism, falls into the trend line of denouncing Satyagraha as a Hindu word alienating to
Muslims, yoga as something unIslamic, the singing of Vande Mataram as anti-Muslim, i.e.
anything with any Indian roots is unMuslim.
Why is this is the case ? N. Hanif points out that Islam entered India more as empire and
culture, than spiritual message. (Islam and Modernity: Pg. 260). So the constitutional guarantee
of professing and practicing Islam freely did not mean much to many of the Muslim leaders of
the time. What was more important to them was the preservation of Muslim political power and
supremacy of the high Muslim culture of North India, even at the expense of the culture of the
other Muslim communities of the subcontinent.
One can see here the key difference between leaders like Azad and Khan Abdul Ghaffar who
emphasized the spiritual dimension of Islam and its impact on and blending with subcontinental
traditions, versus leaders like Iqbal and Jinnah who stressed more on political power and the
Persianate culture of North Indian Muslims.
SouthAsian Says:
Vikram: You are reversing the situation here. Place it in the historical context in which anything
with Muslim associations was anti-Indian requiring purification (like Ghar Wapsi). Given the
demographics, one claim had much more latent power than the other with all its political
implications. Read the note on Shuddhi on the Arya Samaj website: http://
www.aryasamaj.com/enews/2012/jan/4.htm
!160
Both sides had cosmopolitans and communalists in their ranks and the communalists carried
more weight in the end. That can be read as a democratic majoritarian outcome which is fine. It
would be good to go back and re-read the first chapter of Sunil Khilnanis Idea of India. There
were a number of competing ideas at the outset and one of them emerged dominant. That too
has lost its hold over time. The objective here is not to assign blame just to record the transition.
Vikram Says:
I am sure there were people who felt (and who still feel) that anything with Muslim association
was anti-Indian requiring purification, and the Arya Samaj was one of them. But it is incorrect to
ascribe this view to the majority of Hindus, otherwise they would not spend millions of dollars
supporting a film industry in which Indo-Islamic culture is pervasive and Muslim artists
ubiquitous.
On the contrary, the idea that anything that happened in India before the establishment of
Muslim political dominance is either seen as communal or inferior by a much larger proportion
of the Muslim elite. This is why even the Islam in South India and Bengal, which did not have
the political dimension is not seen as authentic by them.
SouthAsian Says:
Vikram: I am sorry I have fallen behind but I do intend to reply to your excellent comments. In
the meantime, I am thankful to Kabir for forwarding a link to a very rich debate organized by the
Asia Society on the legacy of partition. This should prove useful to all the participants on our
forum:
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2015/07/india-and-pakistan-the-legacy-ofpartition.html
SouthAsian Says:
Vikram: The psychology of human beings is complex they can hold seemingly contradictory
positions. Thus, Pakistanis can enjoy Indian movies and be anti-Indian at the same time. But, of
!161
course, what is the view of the majority (or of a minority) is an empirical question that cannot be
presumed.
I couldnt figure out your second paragraph.
Vikram Says:
July 7, 2015 at 2:20 pm
SA, I doubt Pakistanis watch Indian movies. It is more likely Urdu movies with Muslim stars ?
I would actually like some solid data on how popular Hindi movies are in Pakistan. My thesis
would be that even though some sections of urban Pakistanis watch both American and Indian
movies, they employ various justifications to see the Indian movies as essentially Muslim products.
Regarding my second paragraph, it is an observation I have made before. There is immense
confusion among the Muslims of North SA regarding attitudes to SA history before the
establishment of Muslim led polities. The very identity of Muslims in this region has become tied
to political power and purported Iranian/Arabic origins. The Islam in Bengal was very different,
and the Bengali Muslims were not seen as authentically Muslim by the Pakistani elite.
SouthAsian Says:
July 8, 2015 at 7:32 am
Vikram: I can only attribute such gross misperceptions to the lack of communication between the
two countries.
Some of the links below will be of help:
http://movies.india.as/2013/03/popularity-of-bollywood-movies-by.html
http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2011/11/28/city/karachi/for-many-pakistanis-indiaalready-mfn/
http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/03/15/how-pakistan-fell-in-love-with-bollywood/
!162
The entertainment pages of Pakistani newspapers are full of the comings and goings of Shahid
Kapoor, Deepika Padukone, and Hrithik Roshan because these stars have fans in Pakistan.
Incidentally, Indian TV is even more popular with the middle class especially with women. This
has none of the Urdu/Muslim links of Bollywood that you mention.
http://www.aawsat.net/2013/08/article55310054/pakistans-housewives-take-indian-soaps-toheart
SouthAsian Says:
July 8, 2015 at 8:58 am
Vikram: As for your second paragraph, I feel the generalization about North South Asia is too
broad. Muslims in NWFP were with the INC almost till 1947, those in Punjab were happy with
their Unionist coalition, those in Balochistan were uninvolved. The movement for Pakistan was
dominated by Muslims in Bengal and UP. So, it is not clear how Islam in Bengal was very
different.
It was only after political differences arose between West and East Pakistan that the West
Pakistani elite began to denigrate all aspects of Bengaliness including the authenticity of its
religion.
As a general point, regional chauvinism is widespread. The stereotype of the Bengalis has them
considering themselves much more intellectual than other sub-nationalities in South Asia. At one
time the attitude of North Indians towards South Indians was also quite problematic. It is
reassuring that this has changed significantly as the Indian economy has integrated. But note the
attitudes towards people from regions that are less integrated, e.g., the Northeast.
Vikram Says:
SA, it is important to note that the debate between Persianate Hindustani and purified Hindi as
the national language was an elite one. I havent heard of too many pro-Hindi or pro-Sanskrit
mass agitations, certainly nowhere near the scale of pro Telugu/Bengali/Tamil movements.
!163
The nationalism of the Congress Command, and the Hindu right were among the myriad other
nationalist movements (communist, Dravidian, Dalit) active in the anti-colonial movements and
the eventual outcome in the Constitution was a compromise between these movements. Granville
Austins book details these deliberations and compromises.
The point of disagreement remains that you ascribe the desire for a Sanskritised Hindi to a *mass
based* Hindu revivalist movement. It is not at all clear that the Hindu revivalist movement had
mass appeal. Remember that the Arya Samaj only really gained prominence in Punjab where
Hindus were a minority. In the first election after independence (1951), the largest political
formation after the Congress was the left with about 20% of the vote, the Jana Sangh managing
only 3%.This trend remains in subsequent elections. It is not clear why a Hindu revivalist
electorate would continue supporting the secular Congress and not migrate to the Jana Sangh.
And if indeed we accept the argument that the majority on both sides was communally inclined,
it puts into focus into the nature of religious syncretism in the subcontinent. It seems that it was
unable to withstand the test of modernization and mass politics. Why was this the case ?
SouthAsian Says:
Vikram: The answer to most of these questions is best articulated by Sunil Khilnani and Pratap
Bhanu Mehta. The fact is the the pre-1947 nationalist movement was very elitist. It could not be
classified as a mass movement from below in any way. In this context, the relevant observation is
that not the masses but the leadership of the INC, leaving aside those at the very top, were
motivated by revivalist sentiments. This leadership then aroused people, by playing on their
prejudices and fears, for particular outcomes that accorded with their preferences. The language
movement, orchestrated from above, was one example of this. Khilnani goes so far as to say:
Hindu nationalism was a real mover in the agitation for Partition, both directly through the
organization and action of Hindu communalists, and through its influence within
Congress (The Idea of India, pp. 161-2). And he also articulated the divisions with the
leadership: But its [Hindu nationalisms] definition of an Indian nation was an ever-present
imaginative magnet, the pole against which men like Gandhi and Nehru constantly had to
act (op cit, p. 161).
In this framework, the claim is not that the people on both sides were communally inclined.
Rather, that the leadership on both sides opted to push communal buttons at various points in
time. This practice continues to this day.
!164
Your comment that there couldnt be a Hindu revivalist electorate because the Jana Sangh
managed only 3% of the vote is commonly made but requires unpacking. The best counterexample is from Pakistan. It is readily believed that all Pakistanis are infused by an Islamist
sentiments, yet the religious parties hardly ever get more that 5% of the seats in parliament. How
and and on what basis people vote is a complex matter involving as it does a tradeoff between
material interests and psychological satisfaction. The theory of the rational voter can explain this
seeming conundrum.
Also, for the sake of general interest, there should be clarity about what is meant by Hindustani.
It was not that a Persianate Hindustani and and a Sankritized Hindi existed at the same time and
a choice had to be made between the two. Professor Frances Pritchett who taught Urdu and
Hindi at Columbia has a very useful page on issues of language: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/
mealac/pritchett/00urduhindilinks/hu_history_books.html
In this list, there is a particularly good history of Hindustani by Dr. Tara Chand (1944). He
clarifies that the term Hindustani referred to Khari Boli which was the lingua franca of the
Upper Ganjetic Doab: Hindustani is thus no new-fangled name, invented to replace Hindi and
Urdu, but a well-recognized and old established term for the speech which is the common basis
of its two divergent forms, Hindi and Urdu.
h t t p : / / w w w. c o l u m b i a . e d u / i t c / m e a l a c / p r i t ch e t t / 0 0 u rd u h i n d i l i n k s / t a r a ch a n d /
03misconceptions.html
Vikram Says:
Your comment that there couldnt be a Hindu revivalist electorate because the Jana Sangh
managed only 3% of the vote is commonly made but requires unpacking. The best counterexample is from Pakistan. It is readily believed that all Pakistanis are infused by an Islamist
sentiments, yet the religious parties hardly ever get more that 5% of the seats in parliament.
SA, there can hardly be any comparison between the Jana Sangh and the Islamist parties of
Pakistan. The Jana Sangh from the start accepted democratic and constitutional politics, and
agitated on specific issues like cattle slaughter, uniform civil code and language. Even if defined
India as a culturally Hindu country, there was no proposal from it to usher in a Hindu state.
!165
The comparison with Pakistans Islamist parties is improper because they are demanding the
implementation of an Islamic state, while the state already claims to do this as it has declared
itself to be an Islamic Republic and the constitution gives Islam a position of primacy in the
country.
If Pakistanis are not infused by Islamist sentiments, why not give equal citizenship to the Ahmedis
and the Hindus ?
SouthAsian Says:
Vikram: You misunderstood the argument and also made an incorrect assumption.
There are exclusively Islamic parties in Pakistan that accept democratic and constitutional
politics and participate regularly in electoral politics. These include the Jamaat-e Islami and
various factions of the Jamiat-e Ulama-e Pakistan. Pakistanis are infused with Islamic sentiments,
therefore, according to your logic, they should vote for such parties so that the country has a
more religiously oriented leadership than it has now. The fact is that they dont. That shows that
voting behavior is not simplistic and that the vote is not entirely determined by religious
inclination or preference.
Yes, there are Islamist groups in Pakistan that are not part of electoral politics like the various
lashkars but it is not that case that there are no religious parties committed to electoral politics
and offering voters a choice.
khemesh Says:
undivided india will be more beautiful country of mixed several cultures and united nation will
be a message for the world how to live unite together. it will just like a garden of several beautiful
flower. and its constitution consist of secularism equality democratic value helps to stable and
develope the country. but this stupid partition was injustice and illiterate decision. which gave
only problems to both the country like terrorism, war etc
undivided india could have very large area and population recources etc.
!166
SouthAsian Says:
khemesh: What has happened has happened and in terms of human cost it was an immense
tragedy. But there is nothing that prevents each country in South Asia from striving to be an
example of how to live together internally and externally. Unfortunately, most of them have
failed to do so and it is useful to think about the possible causes.
SouthAsian Says:
Vikram: An amusing example of what is considered shuddh Hindi in India involves Christine
Fair. There seems a lot of confusion at the level of the masses!
http://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/american-was-refused-by-autowala-heres-her-revenge-in-shuddhhindi-777934
Vikram Says:
SA, there is no confusion. In India, Hindi is understood to be a dialect continuum, i.e. there are
many Hindis. Of these, the masses are most influenced by the Hindi of Bollywood, Hindi
television and increasingly advertisements. But most speak a combination of Hindi and English,
or Hinglish.
Shuddh Hindi here just means Hindi without any English words.
SouthAsian Says:
Vikram: Perhaps post-1947 Shuddh Hindi means Hindi without any English words but earlier it
was very much focused on purifying the local vernacular of Persian and Arabic accretions. All
histories of that period document that. A good reference is Religious Controversy in British
India: Dialogues in South Asian Languages edited by Kenneth W. Jones (SUNY, Albany, 1992).
!167
Moulin Says:
Partition of India wasnt something totally new. Partition of Bengal was a fair precursor
SouthAsian Says:
Moulin: Bengal was reunited after the partition you mention. Should that also be taken as a fair
precursor for the future?
Vikram Says:
SA, regarding the popularity of Indian movies in Pakistan, my specific claim is that Muslimness
plays an important part in how these entertainment products are consumed. I doubt a movie like
Baahubali would get any audience in Pakistan. So Pakistanis arent really watching these movies
under an Indian cinema umbrella, but picking and choosing specific movies based on a variety
of factors, the Muslimness of the product being a major one. I am sure the same applies vis-a-vis
Hollywood products (by both Indians and Pakistani), but the filters there are very different and
much more limited.
My perception here has developed by following articles on Pakistani newspapers and social media
trends.
Regarding the attitudes of Muslim elites in North India, I wouldnt include NWFP elites in that
category and I very much doubt they would like to be called Indian. I specifically include first
the UP elite and the Punjabi elite in this category. Ajmal Kamal provides a good perspective on
this,
After dealing with the 1857 Mutiny (or the War of Independence if you like), the British colonial
authorities decided to replace Persian with English at the higher levels of education,
administration and judiciary and with the local vernaculars at the lower levels of primary
education, thana, kutchery, post office, land revenue, irrigation etc. At most places this did not
create a problem, for example in Sindh and Bengal, respectively Sindhi and Bengali were
adopted for this purpose. But it did create a problem in that portion of the Hindi Belt which
was later designated as United Provinces (called North West Provinces and Oudh then). A huge
!168
ruckus ensued as a result of associating the language to this or that script, although the public
(which was till then referred to as ryot or subjects) was mostly illiterate and had nothing to do
with either the Persian or the Nagri script. But since the area was close to Delhi, where the postMutiny Muslim elites still had economic and cultural clout, the knowledge of the Persian script
was made compulsory for those wishing to be employed at different lower levels of administration
etc. However, a vast part of the areas population was learning the Nagri script. They too aspired
for those sarkari jobs and found the doors shut to them because of the script condition. This led
to a campaign which demanded that the knowledge of the Nagri script be also made a criterion
of eligibility.
In 1900 an order was issued by the Lt. Governor of the NWP&O, Anthony McDonnel, which
accepted this demand. The order did not remove the Persian script or replace it with Nagri, but
the spectre of erosion of the Muslim elites monopoly over government jobs made this into a big
political controversy within the province, and government jobs and patronage came to be
known as the means for survival of the Urdu language. A strange phrase of Urdu ki
khidmat (service to Urdu) was invented, which is still current. (Have you ever heard a boatman
claim that he is serving the river, or the boat?) The immediate purpose of this identity campaign
was to make more jobs available to those who were proficient in reading and writing Urdu in the
Persian script. The linguistic community was divided into the Urdu-walas and Hindi-walas and
both camps began to make extravagant claims about their separate languages. Both bragged
about their language being spoken in the whole subcontinent; a claim which was fraudulent from
the point of view of those speaking Bengali, Tamil, Sindhi, Gujarati and so on.
http://www.dawn.com/news/1156166/columnthe-uses-of-language-snobberyurdu-the-identitypolitics
Note that in 1900, the use of Devanagri was not acceptable to the Muslim elite of UP, despite the
fact that they were a minority and most of the population did not understand the Arabic script.
Attitudes like these form the background of later conflicts over language in the subcontinent
which we have been discussing.
SouthAsian Says:
July 15, 2015 at 10:15 am | Reply
Vikram: The notion of a Muslimness filter is truly amusing. Believe me people in Pakistan can
keep their politics and entertainment separate. There is lot of Anti-Americanism yet Hollywood
films remain very popular. China is Pakistans best friend yet no one watches Chinese movies
!169
unless they are pornographic. You can only verify your suppositions with a visit seeing is
believing. One contra-indication to your hypothesis is the immense popularity of Indian soapoperas on TV. There is no Muslimness there to serve as a justification.
As for Baahubali, I dont know much about it but looking it up on Wikipedia tells me it is a
Telegu movie. If so, it will not be a surprise if it is less watched in Pakistan. People wish to
understand what is being said and at the very least want to have the script dubbed. My sense is
most people watch Indian movies for the item songs (nothing could be more anti-Islamic) and
savor the double-meanings. If they dont understand the language the pleasure is lost.
It is unfortunate that you quote Ajmal Kamal to support your argument on language. That is like
quoting Huma Yusuf to make a point about Ibne Sinas science. Ajmal Kamal is not a scholar.
He just has a hypothesis like you and me and many historians have dismissed it as incorrect. You
would be much better off reading a scholarly account of the language controversies. I had linked
one in an earlier email. Here is the link again: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/
00urduhindilinks/king/king.html.
In particular, look at Chapter III. You will note many interesting facts and realize your mistake of
conflating scripts with religion not all Hindus favored Nagari and not all Muslims favored the
Persian script. The key decisions were being made by the British and not by either Hindus or
Muslims. The British were partial to the Persian script for their own reasons that the book
explains. Also, the Nagari script was opposed not just by many Muslims but also by many
Hindus. In Bengal, with a very significant Muslim minority, there was no demand for either
Persian or Bengali in a Persianized script.
The language issue was complex and one cant leave it to the mercy of newspaper columnists like
Ajmal Kamal.
Vikram Says:
SA, yes of course, not all Hindus supported Nagari and vice versa. But the reasons for the
opposition were instrumental (as the book you linked clearly points out), in the sense, that they
would lose an advantage. I understand how the Hindu and Muslim differences crystallized and
got accentuated as the Raj went about setting itself up and recruting/interfacing with the locals.
!170
In fact, even caste divisions crystallized much in the same way in that time, and have sharpened
even more since independence.
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7191.html
I am not sure why Ajmal Kamals argument is much different from that in the book. Kamal is
thorough with his references. His argument is presented in a different way, putting a spotlight on
the attitudes of elite Muslims who dominated Muslim political activism. You mentioned
Bengali, and that asks the question, why was the Bengali script acceptable to Bengali Muslims,
but Nagari not to UP Muslims. Like I said earlier, the main reason for this has to be that Islam in
the North Indian Muslim elite was a political and social identity. The language and script of
administration is an important sign of who is in power, and hence the reluctance to let go of it.
I hope you understand the immense confusion and frustration such attitudes lead to among the
majority. Nobody can justify the tyranny of a majority, but on matters like the official language,
the majority point of view has to hold, and then others accommodated. It is quite clear that the
majority in UP desire Hindi in the Nagari script to be the official language. A logical compromise
would have been to use both Hindi and Urdu in the Devanagari script, but it is the elite Muslims
who associated script and religion.
SouthAsian Says:
July 27, 2015 at 11:55 pm | Reply
Vikram: You are making an elementary mistake by conflating interest group politics with religion.
Interest group politics is the universal norm. Whenever a group has power it is not willing to
relinquish it. It has nothing to do with religion accept by coincidence. You associate the difference
between Bengal and UP to a special kind of Islam. A more convincing explanation would emerge
by examining the gains and losses of a particular stance. The gains that were at stake in the UP
were not so in Bengal. That is also why there were people of both religions on both sides of the
political conflict.
To push this further, on can say that the majority in UP or India desire social justice. Does that
convince those who hold economic power to concede it to them. In this case there is no religious
complication since the majority on both sides belongs to the same religion.
Vikram Says:
!171
July 28, 2015 at 2:28 am

SA, hardly a couple of CMs in India are from the so called high caste families. The
overwhelming majority come from the peasant communities and OBCs who form the plurality
of the Indian electorate and commander the vote of farm labourers due to their economic
dependence on them.
The high castes (Brahmin, Bania and Kshatriya) hardly make up 15 % of the Indian population
and the establishment of democracy by a Constituent Assembly where members of such groups
were in a majority would be tantamount to a relinquishment of political power according to me.
Similar things could be said of post apartheid South Africa.
I dont think people in India desire social justice, although they are not opposed to it. In fact this
conversation points us to why this might be the case. The very nature of politicization in the
subcontinent has been identity based, starting with Hindu-Muslim and then later on after
independence with caste. Where there has been political mobilization based on economic justice,
there has been land redistribution. Actually, most of India has since quite a bit of land reform
(s ee Table 4 in this paper http://www.ag rarians tudies.org/Us erFiles /F ile/
1Bakshi_Social_Inequality_in_Land_Ownership_in_India.pdf) and the high levels of inequality
are more a consequence of an urban rural divide and general population increase.
So all in all, yes a lot of Indians have given up unfair economic power (starting with the
abolishment of zamindari) when confronted with an articulate political movement.
Vikram Says:
July 28, 2015 at 2:30 am
Another example of a group willingly relinquishing power and becoming part of a democratic
order,
http://political-science.uchicago.edu/faculty-articles/Rudophs%20%20Baviskar.pdf
anton Says:
might I add that whitehall already decided to divide India because they did not want a powerful
coloured country, the same as they european powers did to the Arabs and created Isreal, nothing
!172
against Jews but these were the same people who turned back Jewish refugees and alerted the
Nazis to their Jewish communities.
Jinnah wanted autonomy not a separate country. This was the work of the Colonial Government
and yet the sub-continent still cannot see that!
Maryam Says:
I too agree with the author, some other solution would have definitely worked out if India was
not partitioned. But it was something that was bound to happen as a result of de-colonization, as
it happened everywhere else in the world. We can sit here ask this question because more then
half a century later we now understand what happened in British India and every where else in
the world.
Heres something else to ponder about, what would have happened if Pakistan was formed, but
for some reason, the Indian Muslims changed thier minds at the last moment and had decided to
stay where they were?
Vikram Says:
Maryam, partition ultimately was the result of the specific modes of politicization of first the
educated elite and then the masses of British India, and the inability or disinterest of leaders to
check this mode of politicization. I think demographic trends also played a part, with the
proportion of Muslims in the entire subcontinent rising from 19% in 1871 to 25% in 1941, with
particularly sharp increases in Punjab (40% to 60%) and Bengal (50% to 56%).
Other colonized areas of course went through a similar process, but the question could be asked
if India can include Hindu Tamils, Bengali Christians and Rajasthani Muslims, why not Punjabi
and Sindhi Muslims ?
Regarding the question you have put forward to think about, I feel that your premise is incorrect.
The overwhelming majority of Indian Muslims stayed where they were. The Muslim population
of the current day India decreased only slightly from 13.4 % to 10.4%. Most of those who left
were forced to do so. Today the Indian Muslim population is back to 14%.
!173
The far more dramatic change has been in the Hindu population of Pakistan and Bangladesh. In
Pakistan, the Hindu population dropped from 19.7% in 1941 to 1.6% in 1951. In Bangladesh,
the change has been more gradual, but just as decisive, 29.61% in 1941 to 22.89% in 1951, and
just 9% as of 2011.
Dehlavi Says:
A perfect article, Altaf ! Couldnt agree more. Partition sowed the seeds of the worst ever family
feud ever!
!174

India Partition What If Scenario Disaster

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

India Partition What If Scenario Disaster

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What If India Were Not Partitioned?

341 Responses to What If India Were Not Partitioned?

Ahmed Bihari Says:

Arun Gupta Says:

all indian leaders envisaged india to have universal adult franchise.

Ganpat Ram Says:

I notice you seem to be avoiding the major part of my message.

September 27, 2009 at 5:07 pm | Reply

I wait for your answer.

January 30, 2011 at 4:38 am | Reply

Anil Kala Says:

Tanveer Ahmed Says:

May 8, 2014 at 9:30 am | Reply

No, my point # 3 is not expansionism. It is simply an acknowledgement of the reality that

Kabir Altaf Says:

Anil Kalai Says:

communications until each individual princely state signed a permanent Instrument of

January 13, 2015 at 1:49 pm | Reply

January 14, 2015 at 12:59 pm | Reply

All abrahamic relegions have this view .

April 25, 2015 at 5:58 am | Reply

July 28, 2015 at 2:28 am

You might also like