Why I oppose the Aryan invasion theory

[DinoDoc]

Ethnic Cleansing

[Arrian]

Technically religious cleansing, no? But yeah.

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian
I'm not sure it is. Partly because my knowledge of Indian/Pakistani history post-partition is weak. Partly because I think forcing people to move for the reasons you set out is just wrong. Partly because I think that your way would've still failed to prevent bloodshed.

-Arrian

Even I think it is wrong. The point is that India was faced with two wrongs. There was NO right way.

Once the idea of partition was implanted in the common mind, it became inevitable. Had the country not been partitioned, religious tension would have torn it apart, and the entire energies of the state would have been spent in simply trying to hold itself together.






Utopian: No partition, everyone lives happily ever after

Ideal, given real world constraints: peaceful, slow, organised transfer of populations

Current: Botched partition, lots of problems, but problems still manageable

Dystopian: No partition, India's entire energy spent in holding herself together, total religious tension all over the country

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Ethnic Cleansing

Don't blame us, it was the Muslims who asked for it, the Hindu parties and secular parties opposed it.

[Arrian]

The Hindu parties likely opposed it because without partition they would have still been a dominant majority, wouldn't they?

The secularists, well yeah.

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

Poor, persecuted Brahmin. I understand. It was the evil Muslims that did it. There absolutely wasn't violence coming from both sides in the years leading up to the partition. How can the whole world be against you? One would almost think you were a Dalit.

[KrazyHorse]

[Provost Harrison]

aneeshm is not one in any ordinary caste, he is in the PolyCasteâ„¢

[Barnabas]

I want to be a PolyDalit™ Ill clean Asher´s toilet

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Poor, persecuted Brahmin. I understand. It was the evil Muslims that did it. There absolutely wasn't violence coming from both sides in the years leading up to the partition. How can the whole world be against you? One would almost think you were a Dalit.

There definitely was violence from both sides. The Muslims because they wanted to partition the country, the Hindus because they wanted to stop the partition of the country.

The Muslims used slogans like:

"But ke rahega Hindustan, ban ke rageha Pakistan"
(India will be divided, Pakistan will be made) (It's far more hurtful than that, but that's the gist of it)

People who didn't want to see their country being torn apart in two opposed this.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian
The Hindu parties likely opposed it because without partition they would have still been a dominant majority, wouldn't they?

The secularists, well yeah.

-Arrian

Not really. Partition would have been beneficial to the Hindu parties, in fact - they'd have one country with a dominant Hindu population instead of one with a less dominant one.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by aneeshm

that I'm looking for stuff confirming my suspicions or views.

=unscientific.
We explained this many times.


Again I am not saying you are right or wrong about your idea, and frankly at this point I don't care very much.

All I'm saying is the method you have of coming up with a "proof" that your side is right can be used by anybody, including proponents of the opposite side to come up with a "proof" that THEIR side is right.

So it is of no value to anyone you are trying to convince.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by aneeshm
People who didn't want to see their country being torn apart in two opposed this.

Killing people was an excellent way to show the Muslim population that thier fears that they would be mistreated in a unified state are unfounded, don't you think?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Killing people was an excellent way to show the Muslim population that thier fears that they would be mistreated in a unified state are unfounded, don't you think?

It wasn't a period of rational thought. Also, partition was already decided upon.

Really, though, most of the killing was part of an escalating spiral of ***-for-tat.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme


=unscientific.
We explained this many times.


Again I am not saying you are right or wrong about your idea, and frankly at this point I don't care very much.

All I'm saying is the method you have of coming up with a "proof" that your side is right can be used by anybody, including proponents of the opposite side to come up with a "proof" that THEIR side is right.

So it is of no value to anyone you are trying to convince.

Actually, in this particular case, it can't. Because

a) All upper castes are spoken of as a homogeneous entity

b) They are shown as the active oppressors, who oppressed knowing full well and consciously what they were doing, instead of simply people who were continuing a system which had grown beyond their ability to change even if they wanted to (and many did so want, actually)

c) They are never mentioned at all except in a negative context. (If you're going to speak of people in terms of caste, and if you are going to speak of the negatives of a particular caste, then it is obligatory to mention the positives of the same (or higher) order of magnitude. Not doing so would be clear indication of bias.)