Would a "cleaner" partition of India have been a good thing ?

[joncha]

Feel free to share your heavy argument with us. So long as you punctuate it correctly, that is.

[MonwarH]

A Bangladeshi's Opinion

Aneesh,

I have just read through this thread. I thought you were more liberal than the postings in this thread convey. It's my personal opinion, but I think you still have somewhat of a Hindu bias, my friend. I am not saying the Indian Muslims are the most pacifist of population, but from my experience I would say they are pretty well integrated, especially for a third world country. You seem to be subtly blaming the Muslims for 'the tensions'. Just a gut feeling, and I can't quote (too much work), but it seems to me. Also, I totally understand the situation with the Pundits, and in fact anyone who follows Nehru and Gandhi's works will sympathize, however, as both of us know, there is a lot more to 'the purge'.

I come from Bangladesh, a country of 148 million people with over 18 million Hindus (12%+). We did not have a riot after 1955 (Noakhali). I, personally, coming from a conservative Muslim middle class family, have never differentiated between Hindus and Muslims. I have many close Hindu friends. However, recently, I have been noticing many Indian Hindus 'speaking out' (and in some cases, villifying) against their (and other) Muslims. Whereas I can attribute part of that to the global Islamic terrorism, some of the points they argue are clearly communal ('shamprodayik' - if you know Bengali; there isn't a clear English translation'; ='communal+racist') and related to the partition. I don't really have the time to elaborate now, but a careful pursual of the history of the partition will probably show any observer that neither the Hindus nor the Muslims are the one to blame for the chaos, rather, the Brits are the most responsible. I understand that I would face the wrath of the British in this board, but up till now, every informed Brit I know (including a historian) have accepted that notion. Anyway, I have nothing against Brits in general (and of course not in 'Poly), but one of my teachers used to say: 'She obicharer kotha mone hole nijeke domate pari na, ekhono krodhbohni jole othe' ('When I remember of that injustice, I can't resist myself, and fire of rage burns through my body'). The Bengali were especially upset that Bengal was partitioned, and both Congress and Muslim Leage of Bengal (including Suhrawardy and Sharat Bose) tried their very best to atleast stop the partition of Bengal. Incidentally, the teacher is a Hindu, Mr. Phanindra Chandra Banik.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by binTravkin

Umm, hardly, you said they're living peacefully.

Well , the communities I mentioned in my posts are living peacefully . The Godhra riots were between Hindus and Muslims . None of the other communities I mentioned were involved .

Originally posted by binTravkin

Besides your argument (?), that 'Kashmir ascended to India and there it should remain' contradicts the 75% muslim 25% hindu case.

If it really was 3:1, then the land of kashmir should be partitioned 3:1 whereas 3 are given to Pakistan, 1 to India, and that would be the best case for India, because if we take the original decision factor 'majority = muslim -> Pakistan, majority = hindu -> India', then Kashmir should be fully Pakistanese.

As I said earlier , I reject the idea of partition based on religion . I just ask a what-if question . What if partition was cleaner ? If the choice was up to me , I would not have supported partition at all .

Originally posted by binTravkin

Or do you think all those hindu who were driven out of Pakistan (which also was pretty barbaric) should be returned there and the land reclaimed?

There is no reclamation necessary . That 25 % land in Kashmir is still owned by Hindus . They are just scared to actually use it .

[binTravkin]

EDIT: nvm

[aneeshm]

Re: A Bangladeshi's Opinion

Originally posted by MonwarH
Aneesh,

I have just read through this thread. I thought you were more liberal than the postings in this thread convey. It's my personal opinion, but I think you still have somewhat of a Hindu bias, my friend.

What do you mean by a "Hindu bias" ? I am not baised for or against any community . I just feel that when my own community is wronged , it is our job to speak out , not anyone else's .

Originally posted by MonwarH

I am not saying the Indian Muslims are the most pacifist of population, but from my experience I would say they are pretty well integrated, especially for a third world country. You seem to be subtly blaming the Muslims for 'the tensions'.

Not really . I am of the opinion that any country which has two proud communities living in it will inevitably face tensions , irrespective of who those communities are ( unless they share a common root , such as Jains and Buddhists and Parsees and Hindus ) . You will notice that a country with a 50-50 Christian-Muslim population will also have a lot of tension . There is tension between blacks and whites and Hispanics in the USA . Any place with two major communities divided radically by religion and culture will experience communal tension . That's just a sad fact of life .

Originally posted by MonwarH

Just a gut feeling, and I can't quote (too much work), but it seems to me. Also, I totally understand the situation with the Pundits, and in fact anyone who follows Nehru and Gandhi's works will sympathize, however, as both of us know, there is a lot more to 'the purge'.

The Kashmir situation is today's ignored tragedy . It is my opinion that the Indian state must be ruthless in curbing terrorism ( and to hell with civil liberties ( in Kashmir ) until the terrorist problem is cracked - civil liberties have no meaning when you see what the Kashmiri Pundits are undergoing - Kashmir has cost India too much blood already ) , and must not rest until Ksahmir is safe for the Pundits again .

Originally posted by MonwarH

I come from Bangladesh, a country of 148 million people with over 18 million Hindus (12%+). We did not have a riot after 1955 (Noakhali). I, personally, coming from a conservative Muslim middle class family, have never differentiated between Hindus and Muslims.

You are lucky in that regard . The religious right is rising in power in Bangladesh . You saw what happened to novelist Taslima Nasrin . It is up to people like you to stop politics from being polarised .

I myself judge Muslims on the basis of my interaction with them , not on the basis of their religion .

Originally posted by MonwarH

I have many close Hindu friends. However, recently, I have been noticing many Indian Hindus 'speaking out' (and in some cases, villifying) against their (and other) Muslims. Whereas I can attribute part of that to the global Islamic terrorism, some of the points they argue are clearly communal ('shamprodayik' - if you know Bengali; there isn't a clear English translation'; ='communal+racist') and related to the partition.

Then that is clearly wrong . You can judge a religion , but you cannot judge its followers on the basis of the judgement you have pronounced upon the religion .

Originally posted by MonwarH

I don't really have the time to elaborate now, but a careful pursual of the history of the partition will probably show any observer that neither the Hindus nor the Muslims are the one to blame for the chaos, rather, the Brits are the most responsible. I understand that I would face the wrath of the British in this board, but up till now, every informed Brit I know (including a historian) have accepted that notion. Anyway, I have nothing against Brits in general (and of course not in 'Poly), but one of my teachers used to say: 'She obicharer kotha mone hole nijeke domate pari na, ekhono krodhbohni jole othe' ('When I remember of that injustice, I can't resist myself, and fire of rage burns through my body'). The Bengali were especially upset that Bengal was partitioned, and both Congress and Muslim Leage of Bengal (including Suhrawardy and Sharat Bose) tried their very best to atleast stop the partition of Bengal. Incidentally, the teacher is a Hindu, Mr. Phanindra Chandra Banik.

I recognise that partition was largely British-orachestrated , but I cannot but blame Jinnah for some of it . He are pork , smoked , drank , did not pray at the appointed times , and in general was neither a devout nor a practising Muslim , yet had the gall to try to claim that the Muslims were a separate nation . We know now the result of partition - Pakistan is a failed state , Bangladesh is slowly falling into the clutches of the religious right , and Kashmir festers . Again , my question was a hypothetical one - what if partition happened as Jinnah envisaged it happening ( that is , completely ) ?















As for the more general criticism - that I am unwilling to concede to the Muslim community the benefit of the doubt - I must say that the disgusting behaviour of the Muslim politicians and religious leaders in India leaves me with no option but to condemn their leadership . The rot in the community leadership has spread so far that it is enough to make any liberal Muslim , like you , despair and lose hope . I have studied this matter in some detail , so I have come in contact with many sordid details you may not know . I urge you to read the book "The World of Fatwas" , by Arun Shourie ( assuming that you can find in in Bangladesh - if you can't , then you'll have to contact the publisher in India ) . You have no idea how miserable life would be for a Muslim if he decided to fully follow the guidelines laid down by the leaders of the community here in India . It is a sad fact that the books written in India , in Deoband , serve as textbooks in terrorist-sponsored Madarsas in Pakistan occupied Kashmir .

[binTravkin]

What do you mean by a "Hindu bias" ? I am not baised for or against any community . I just feel that when my own community is wronged , it is our job to speak out , not anyone else's .

He's not only one who feels that bias, you know, and sentences as

Kashmir belongs to India and there it will remain

do not help your portrait.

Not really . I am of the opinion that any country which has two proud communities living in it will inevitably face tensions , irrespective of who those communities are ( unless they share a common root , such as Jains and Buddhists and Parsees and Hindus ) . You will notice that a country with a 50-50 Christian-Muslim population will also have a lot of tension . There is tension between blacks and whites and Hispanics in the USA . Any place with two major communities divided radically by religion and culture will experience communal tension . That's just a sad fact of life .

Yes, and only one(s) who can do anything about it is the government, by ensuring equality and raising education and prosperity.

We have roughly 55% Latvians and 45% Russians (+ Ukrainians, Belorussians, etc) in Latvia.
We have tension, but that is mostly raised by old, idiotic, radicalism (both left and right) and Russia's propaganda, telling people lies about the WW2 and such.
Most young and educated people live together well.

The Kashmir situation is today's ignored tragedy . It is my opinion that the Indian state must be ruthless in curbing terrorism ( and to hell with civil liberties ( in Kashmir ) until the terrorist problem is cracked - civil liberties have no meaning when you see what the Kashmiri Pundits are undergoing - Kashmir has cost India too much blood already ) , and must not rest until Ksahmir is safe for the Pundits again .

Do you realise that as long as one side is 'ruthless' the other is no better?
Religious and racial hate is one of the main reasons of terrorism, and if the state promotes this hatred by being ruthless, there can be nothing good in result.
So your own country is responsible by the blood, whine at them.

what if partition happened as Jinnah envisaged it happening ( that is , completely ) ?

1.There would be more victims of riots and travelling
2.There would be more economical disruption
3.Your and Pakistani government would make propaganda vs each other about different reasons, not like 'look how bad muslims live in India, you're persecuting them' and 'You muslim barbarians, look how many people your brethren have killed, and this terrorism is something really monstrous!'

Basically, people themselves can get on well, unless there is some force in whose interests it is to promote conflict and tension.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by binTravkin

He's not only one who feels that bias, you know, and sentences as

do not help your portrait.

That just shows that I'm biased in favour of my nation . Nothing to do with religion .

Originally posted by binTravkin

Yes, and only one(s) who can do anything about it is the government, by ensuring equality and raising education and prosperity.

Ensuring equality ? The government can only provide equal opportunity . As the situation is today , Muslims are being given more government money per capita than Hindus by the Indian government .

It is a sad fact that they need it , because their community leaders have an interest in keeping them backwards . This is because it is easier to get votes from undeucated people as a vote bank .

Originally posted by binTravkin

We have roughly 55% Latvians and 45% Russians (+ Ukrainians, Belorussians, etc) in Latvia.
We have tension, but that is mostly raised by old, idiotic, radicalism (both left and right) and Russia's propaganda, telling people lies about the WW2 and such.
Most young and educated people live together well.

So you admit that there is tension ?

Originally posted by binTravkin

Do you realise that as long as one side is 'ruthless' the other is no better?

How was the Khalistani movement crushed ? By a ruthless operation . What happened ? The problem was solved .

Originally posted by binTravkin

Religious and racial hate is one of the main reasons of terrorism, and if the state promotes this hatred by being ruthless, there can be nothing good in result.

On the contrary . I am a believer of the idea "If brute force doesn't work , you're not using enough" . Brute force defined as whatever form of force is applicable to the situation . In a war , force is actual force . In other environments , it means other things . In Kashmir , it means setting up a covert operators' network covering on the Kautilyan model ( that is , all-pervasive ) . A secret police , reporting to the Army , with a presence everywhere . Once the terrorists stop trusting each other , our job is made easy .

Originally posted by binTravkin

So your own country is responsible by the blood, whine at them.

Nope . This blood has been spilt combating terrorists . For over thirty years . And it has taken a far bigger toll than any single incident the Western world has seen . 9/11 is insignificant in front of what we have faced .

Originally posted by binTravkin

1.There would be more victims of riots and travelling
2.There would be more economical disruption
3.Your and Pakistani government would make propaganda vs each other about different reasons, not like 'look how bad muslims live in India, you're persecuting them' and 'You muslim barbarians, look how many people your brethren have killed, and this terrorism is something really monstrous!'

Pakistan will never have a lasting peace with India , as long as they define themselves as everything India is not . You should read their newspapers and textbooks soemtimes . It was a revelation for me . I , till then , did not know how much they despised us . And that is the situation officially .

Originally posted by binTravkin

Basically, people themselves can get on well, unless there is some force in whose interests it is to promote conflict and tension.

And that force happens to be the community leaders of the Muslims ( and , far more rarely , the Hindus ) , who are interested only in votes , which they find easier to get from uneducated people . The ordinary Muslim on the street would be far better off without these obnoxious religious and political leaders , and if they had some sensible liberal Muslims in their places . I've been saying almost the same thing all along .

[binTravkin]

That just shows that I'm biased in favour of my nation . Nothing to do with religion .

Still, it's bias.
Besides, I'd like to see your 'nation' defined.
Sikhs clearly don't count.

Ensuring equality ? The government can only provide equal opportunity . As the situation is today , Muslims are being given more government money per capita than Hindus by the Indian government .

It is a sad fact that they need it , because their community leaders have an interest in keeping them backwards . This is because it is easier to get votes from undeucated people as a vote bank .

That is what I was talking about, the government need to step in and really ensure equality.

So you admit that there is tension ?

Shouldn't I?
Should I lie?

Wonder what was your point in me admitting/not admitting and how does it make an argument..

How was the Khalistani movement crushed ? By a ruthless operation . What happened ? The problem was solved .

Khalistan is envisaged by its proponents as a secular state, rejecting theocracy and espousing a liberal form of nationalism in which all communities may live as equals.

So you call massacring an alternatively liberal, national Sikh movement 'problem solving'?

The army operation was followed by wholesale killings of Sikh males between the ages of 15 and 35 in Punjab’s villages. These violent events, together with organised massacre of Sikhs in India’s major cities in November 1984, and daily terror families subsequently experienced in Punjab’s villages gave rise to resistance.

source

3 points:

1.Massacre is solving?
2.As article suggests, brute force gives rise to resistance.
3.Giving rise to resistance is solving?

Akhem, I feel that you're being a rascist person, who supports mass killing minorities in your country.

I think this is the last time I don't ignore you.

On the contrary . I am a believer of the idea "If brute force doesn't work , you're not using enough" . Brute force defined as whatever form of force is applicable to the situation . In a war , force is actual force . In other environments , it means other things . In Kashmir , it means setting up a covert operators' network covering on the Kautilyan model ( that is , all-pervasive ) . A secret police , reporting to the Army , with a presence everywhere . Once the terrorists stop trusting each other , our job is made easy .

Then you're a believer of wrong ideology.
Of ideology which fights results not the root of the problem.
You cannot use brute force against root of the problem unless you want to eradicate the particular group of people altogether.

Nope . This blood has been spilt combating terrorists . For over thirty years . And it has taken a far bigger toll than any single incident the Western world has seen . 9/11 is insignificant in front of what we have faced .

Umm, how does 'combating terrorists' make my argument contradicted?
How does 'taken bigger toll' contradicts my argument?
How does '9/11 being insignificant' contradict my argument?

As far as I read, it only enforces my argument:
Your country is using brute force to fight the results not the root of the problem, and as a result there's a lot of tension in other parts of country, where people see this brutal, barbaric way of solving problems, a lot of blood spilt and finally more and more terrorism as a mean to oppose the way your government and the people who support it, like you, goes about it.
What else do those people have?
Succumb to your will, get expelled, persecuted or even slaughtered?
You ever tried to think about it from their point of view?

Pakistan will never have a lasting peace with India , as long as they define themselves as everything India is not . You should read their newspapers and textbooks soemtimes . It was a revelation for me . I , till then , did not know how much they despised us . And that is the situation officially .

The policies of both of your countries are tended to keep peoples minds away from other problems inside the country, and you people are happy to comply either in the name of Islam or united India..
Classical divide and conquer scenario.

And that force happens to be the community leaders of the Muslims ( and , far more rarely , the Hindus ) , who are interested only in votes , which they find easier to get from uneducated people . The ordinary Muslim on the street would be far better off without these obnoxious religious and political leaders , and if they had some sensible liberal Muslims in their places . I've been saying almost the same thing all along .

You admit yourself, that they happen to be muslims.
If you are not criticising the people belonging to religion, why all this anti Pakistan rant?

And as I said, the propaganda can do a lot more than that, and if people who believe in something (like Islam) are 'being solved' with brute force, their faith gets only stronger as they feel the life is being unfair for them.

Blame your government, it's feeding the flame.

[binTravkin]

How was the Khalistani movement crushed ? By a ruthless operation . What happened ? The problem was solved .

During the late 1980s and the early 1990s, there was a dramatic rise in Sikh militancy in Punjab. Scholars have been unable to assess the claims of the government concerning the scale of violence. Lack of independent reporting by the press contributed toward the defamation of militants who enjoyed popular support toward the beginning of Khalistan's independence movement.[83] The Times of India reported:

"Often and unwittingly…journalists fall prey to the government disinformation which suavely manages to plant stories…The confusion gets compounded when government agencies also resort to feeding disinformation on letterheads of militant organisations since there is no way of confirming or seeking clarifications on press notes supposedly issued by militants who are underground and remain inaccessible most of the time."[84]

Ram Narayan Kumar, a human rights activist with considerable work experience in Punjab, provides remarkable insights into the workings of the state that sought to discredit the Sikh movement. He writes:

"My own research on Punjab…suggested that the state agencies were creating vigilante outfits in order to infiltrate the Sikh radical movement and generate a climate of moral revulsion by engineering heinous crimes which they then attributed to armed Sikh groups."[85]

In 1994, the United States Department of State reported that the Indian government had paid out more than 41,000 cash bounties to police officers for killing Sikhs. [citation needed] That saem year, the Indian newspaper Hitavada reported that the Indian government paid about $1.5 billion to the late governor of Punjab, Surendra Nath, to foment and support terrorist activity in Punjab and in Kashmir.[citation needed]

The Movement Against State Repression issued a report saying that the Indian government holds over 52,000 Sikhs as political prisoenrs without charge or trial. [citation needed] Some have reportedly been held since 1984. The Punjab State Magistracy and human-rights groups compiled figures showing that over a quarter of a million Sikhs were murdered at the hands of Indian forces. [citation needed] These figures were published in Inderjit Singh Jaijee's The Politics of Genocide.

Umm, 'solving the problem'?

(same source as in previous post)

[binTravkin]

'Fighting terrorists' 10 years after there was an official statement that there are actually no real terrorism, only the government-fed one..
Buddy, your data are soooo old..

[binTravkin]

More of Khalistan solution
Sikh genocide

To preserve the unity of India, if we have to eradicate 20 million Sikhs, we will do so.
- Balram Jakhar, a former Indian Cabinet Minister and Speaker of the Indian Parliament

[binTravkin]

I suggest you watch the Genocide video in the last link..

[MonwarH]

Re: Re: A Bangladeshi's Opinion

What do you mean by a "Hindu bias" ? I am not baised for or against any community . I just feel that when my own community is wronged , it is our job to speak out , not anyone else's .

Bah, and the Muslims of Kashmir haven't been wronged? I understand you aren't specifically implying that, but you are making it sound like Kasmiri Muslims have suffered less than the Pundits. At least, the Pundits are living with some honor and dignity in other areas of India, and wow, some of them are 'lucky enough' to be even PMs and ministers! Even now, Kashmiri Muslims are not given many of the basic rights a Maharashtrian, or say, someone from Uttar Pradesh will get.

The Kashmir situation is today's ignored tragedy . It is my opinion that the Indian state must be ruthless in curbing terrorism ( and to hell with civil liberties ( in Kashmir ) until the terrorist problem is cracked - civil liberties have no meaning when you see what the Kashmiri Pundits are undergoing - Kashmir has cost India too much blood already ) , and must not rest until Ksahmir is safe for the Pundits again .

I expressed my sympathy for the Pundits, but I also said there is a lot of background for 'The Purge' (in fact, many Hindus have now gone back). Again, do you have any idea how oppressed the general Muslim was in Kashmir before 1940? The 'Great' Maharajah of Kashmir betrayed his people totally, even Hindu historians will agree to that, and a supposedly 'secular' government in '47 agreed to that, on the words of a corrupt and drunk autocrat, come to think of that!

You are lucky in that regard . The religious right is rising in power in Bangladesh . You saw what happened to novelist Taslima Nasrin . It is up to people like you to stop politics from being polarised .

I can't do that with the kind of Muslim-bashing you are doing. I can't agree with you in most of the points you presented here. I don't believe in fervent nationalism, but if I agree with your (quite biased) points I feel like I betray my people. The very reason for that is the kind of characterization you are drawing of the Muslims, and I as a societal human being can't agree wholesale to that, though that might be true for a minority. Simply put, a more moderated language and attitude will generally result in greater agreement.

I myself judge Muslims on the basis of my interaction with them , not on the basis of their religion .

Nice to know. However your general view of Muslims is so full of 'disdain' that I am afraid you need to work on that as well. Such extreme viewpoints never bring good. You need to take the Muslims from a different socio-economic perspective to understand them. I do understand you have your logic and arguments, but I must say I find you to be Anti-Islamic to a point of being irrelevant.

As for the more general criticism - that I am unwilling to concede to the Muslim community the benefit of the doubt - I must say that the disgusting behaviour of the Muslim politicians and religious leaders in India leaves me with no option but to condemn their leadership .

I know little of Indian internal politics, but I was upset but Hazi Yakoob and the other Muslim MP. That said, I still believe the Indian Muslim is generally more liberal and assimilated in the Indian society to a greater extent than other minority Islamic societies around the world (NDTV has been broadcasting some wonderful documentaries on Northern Muslims). However, Hindu Indians seem to have a lot of trouble accepting this fact. As long as you do not consider the Muslims a part of YOUR people, a combined whole, I am afraid India can't really flourish.

Aneesh, without any offense, let us try to see clearly the other person's point of view. Let the Indian Hindus listen to the Indian Muslim, understand the Indian Muslim. For with attitudes like yours, who seems like a bright young Indian, I really am afraid of sectarian segregation in India. Yes, let me put it straight, I think you need to liberalize your attitude toward the Indian Muslim a lot more. I can never imagine posting the way you post about Bangladeshi Hindus (with complete understanding of the argument you'll bring of then being more peaceful and such). You seem to be growing a innate hatred for Islam and Muslims. That is very sad to see. If you have Muslim friends or neighbors, please argue and debate with them and clear out your confusion, you owe your intellect this chance. You never know what this kind of 'hatred' can breed. I might sound aggressive, but I am writing this because I think you are a thinking man, and a thinking man needs to think from as neutral a perspective as possible. Again, no offense.

Oh, and the punctuation, my dear friend!

[binTravkin]

Bah, and the Muslims of Kashmir haven't been wronged?

In 1994, the United States Department of State reported that the Indian government had paid out more than 41,000 cash bounties to police officers for killing Sikhs. [citation needed] That saem year, the Indian newspaper Hitavada reported that the Indian government paid about $1.5 billion to the late governor of Punjab, Surendra Nath, to foment and support terrorist activity in Punjab and in Kashmir.[citation needed]

[MonwarH]

Surendra Nath, to foment and support terrorist activity in Punjab and in Kashmir.

Uhu, it doesn't quite make sense to me, though I am not denying the allgations. Why would the Indian Govt., of all people, support terrorist activity in Kashmir?!