India and Pakistan

donaghs

You could possibly stick this thread in Politics, but as I'm mostly looking backward in time, I think History is more apt.

Looking at the current problems in Pakistan, and the advances being made in India, you'd have to ask yourself: Where did it all go so wrong for Pakistan?

I think Jinnah was mostly right to split Pakistan from India. The sectarianism and tribalism would probably have erupted in violence eventually.

That said, India manages it own variety (races, sects, religions, languages, etc) quite well relatively speaking. And looking at the major reason for the India/Pakistan schism - I believe there's actually more Muslims living in India than in Pakistan.

donaghs

Would it be a good idea moving this to Politics? Theres lots of lively debate there on Musharraf, etc.

I starting to think the History forum is fairly moribund except for people who view the entire world through the prism of "Provos good" or "Provos bad". All the active threads have that feel to them.

brianthebard

I'm interested in the topic, but the way you've presented it is a bit...it just feels like you've dumped a century or so of history on the screen and said "sort this". I mean are there some points that interest you more than others?

donaghs

With the current problems in Pakistan, I can't help but wonder how the two countries ended up in such differing condition, 60 years later.

gurramok

Pakistan seems to have more militancy from Islamists which cannot be controlled, only contained.
This contrasts with India which don't have a serious threat within its borders which helps India develop more.

Hence, alot of Pakistans resources have been tied up in fighting internal wars unlike India which really only has a small Maoist problem.

Fratton Fred

I think you need to look at the tribalism around the Afghan border and the Muslim fundamentalism there to get some sort of understanding.

India by the way is a secular country, whereas Pakistan (I believe) is a Muslim country. I see Pakistan as a kind of the flash point between Muslim extremism and middle of the road Muslims, hence the infighting.

donaghs

So Fred, do you think if Pakistan had embraced a more secular outlook from the beginning of its existance, it wouldn't face as many problems as it does now?

General Zia's (late 70s) increasing the use of Islam in public life probably also helped create of lot of the problems that Musharref is struggling with now.

Fratton Fred

donaghs wrote: »

So Fred, do you think if Pakistan had embraced a more secular outlook from the beginning of its existance, it wouldn't face as many problems as it does now?

General Zia's (late 70s) increasing the use of Islam in public life probably also helped create of lot of the problems that Musharref is struggling with now.

I don't think it would have made any difference. The areas around the Afghan border are pretty tribal and the local chiefs pretty much make the rules.

From what I gather, and I am happy to be corrected on this, is that when the Mujahadeen (sp?) were busy fighting the Soviet army in Afghanistan, their families all lived in refugee camps in Pakistan, where all the kids were brought up to mirror their older brothers and fathers as fighters and the only education was through strict fundemental schools run by hard line Immams. This is where the Taliban came from (with lot of funding from a certain well known Saudi terror chief). The low level of literacy is not an accident, the Immams there only teach what they want people to believe and the Kouran is very widely open to interpretation, so you seem to have a whole generation whose only reading ability is the Kouran and they interpret it the way their radical teacher has taught them. They can't gat anyother opinion, because they can;t read western newspapers etc.

My take on this (purely my own opinion) is it seems to have set the tone for the whole area. To these guys, anyone who is not a strict Muslim is no better than the infidels in the west, so they consider Musharref no better than Bush, worse to some extent because he has "sold out". What on earth they think of Benazir Bhutto, a female moderate politician god knows, but I can't see her regaining power making the situation easier, although it will probably have to get worse before it gets better.

Please feel free to put me right where necessary.

donaghs

Depends how relevant you think the tribal areas like Warizistan are to the rest of Pakistan. They've always been a fairly wild area, and been left to its own devices. Even in the days of the British Empire.

I recall reading the British in the 1930s would occassionally use the RAF to bomb villages there if the locals had upset them too much.

Pakistans current malaise seems to be affecting the whole country.

InFront

India has a horribly unfair, often racist and bigoted social system with many problems of its own, I'm not sure what it's supposed to have gotten 'right'.

Pakistan is a country which began with impeccable, but arguably impossible, ideals.
It might be usefully compared to a fat person who pledges to run 10km before lunch, then is awoken to the magnitude of the task, and resigns himself to sitting down and eat ice-cream for the day out of grief. Pakistan has gotten ideologically "fat" and its causa essendi is a long forgotten memory.

It is a state with no direction, run largely by gangsters, serving a divided, often uneducated populace with no great unity, loyal to differing political objectives, some militantly so. Make that country an unwilling belligerent on the "War on Terror" and modern Pakistan is what you get.

donaghs

Do you mean India is racist, in the sense that one race are dominant, or that there is racial tension between various groups? By bigoted do you mean the legacy of the caste system?

Nehru did his best to prevent one race or religion being dominant in India. He was a firm believer in secularim and egalitarianism. He opposed the caste system and introduced affirmative action programs. I understand Hindu "nationalists" criticise his legacy for allegedly appeasing the Indian Muslim community.

Jinnah also started out with high ideals, but Pakistan was profoundly different in that it marked itself out as an Islamic state for the beginning. Jinnah apparently wasn't a particularly observant Muslim, but wanted to preserve the unique Islamic identity of the regions that made up Pakistan and Bangladesh. Conservative Hindus have been elected in India but the secular and egalitarian ethos has remained. Pakistan has drifted further towards theocracy.

"Right" is admittedly a broad and vague term. But India has free elections, has had a Muslim President and a Sikh Prime Minister. Pakistan has an ex-army general dictator, struggling to contain many problems, some of them worse than him.

donaghs

India's economy has also been growing a very fast pace in recent years since their government ditched their earlier socialist-inspired policies.

PDN

donaghs wrote: »

Would it be a good idea moving this to Politics? Theres lots of lively debate there on Musharraf, etc.

I starting to think the History forum is fairly moribund except for people who view the entire world through the prism of "Provos good" or "Provos bad". All the active threads have that feel to them.

There certainly do seem to be a few posters with chips on their shoulders when it comes to Irish history.

Have you read Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat? He strongly sees India's emergence from socialism as a real leap forward. Pakistan seems to be getting sucked into the economic black hole of the Middle East.

Snickers Man

PDN wrote:

There certainly do seem to be a few posters with chips on their shoulders when it comes to Irish history.

McArmalite

donaghs wrote: »

You could possibly stick this thread in Politics, but as I'm mostly looking backward in time, I think History is more apt.

Looking at the current problems in Pakistan, and the advances being made in India, you'd have to ask yourself: Where did it all go so wrong for Pakistan?

I think Jinnah was mostly right to split Pakistan from India. The sectarianism and tribalism would probably have erupted in violence eventually.

That said, India manages it own variety (races, sects, religions, languages, etc) quite well relatively speaking. And looking at the major reason for the India/Pakistan schism - I believe there's actually more Muslims living in India than in Pakistan.

"I think Jinnah was mostly right to split Pakistan from India. The sectarianism and tribalism would probably have erupted in violence eventually." - sorry my clever friend, but could you enlighten us on that ? ? ?

Sure there was historical ill feeling between the 2 groups, but by 1921 Ghandi's Indian Congress had united both religions in the pursuit of an independent India ? In 1937 provincial elections the Congress won clear majority. Jinnah's Muslim league failed to win a single province. But still the brits maintained Jinnah and his organisation as a deciding entity in India's future ?

Indeed, though anomosity between various groups had it's historical roots before the british annexed the country, much of the secterianism resulted from the british strategy to gain and hold control of the large territory of India by keeping its people divided along lines of religion, language, or caste, by the imposition of puppet princely ruled petty states throughout India ? So while Ghandi had united the people, the british, 'rabbit out of the hat style' introduced the whisky drinking Jinnah and his political Muslim organisation to try and destroy the unity, sadly succeding ?

ejmaztec

As a Sikh acquaintance of mine recently remarked, his ancestors had been fighting the Muslims for eight hundred years, so I don't think that you can pin all of this on the Brits. (couldn't find an emoticon for "yawn")

Gobán Saor

ejmaztec wrote: »

.....so I don't think that you can pin all of this on the Brits. (couldn't find an emoticon for "yawn")

Not all of it perhaps!

But it is a bit odd that so many of today's hot political troublespots went through the familiar cycle of British invasion, colonization, independence struggle, the use of "divide and conquer" tactics to undermine the independence struggle, civil war and ultimate partition. Ireland, India, Palestine, Iraq/Kuwait and Cyprus spring to mind. I'm sure others (Hello, McArm:)) could supply a longer list.

In fairness it wasn't just the British empire that followed a very deliberate strategy of divide and conquer. The French and other European colonial powers were also expert at it.

McArmalite

ejmaztec wrote: »

As a Sikh acquaintance of mine recently remarked, his ancestors had been fighting the Muslims for eight hundred years, so I don't think that you can pin all of this on the Brits. (couldn't find an emoticon for "yawn")

Can you not understand plane wording ?? I didn't " pin all of this on the Brits " .... " though animosity between various groups had it's historical roots before the british annexed the country,......" Sure there was historical ill feeling between the 2 groups ". I'm not going to try and simplify it any more, maybe someone who teaches in a Montessori school or something could simplify it for you to understand.

Getting back to the OP, "I think Jinnah was mostly right to split Pakistan from India. The sectarianism and tribalism would probably have erupted in violence eventually." Firstly Jinnah didn't have the power to partition India. Although he is obviously partly to blame as he acted as a british puppet in the travesty, it was britian who was the real driving force behind partition. Mountbatten kept the boundary lines of India and Pakistan under lock and key until the pageantry, splendor and photo opportunities of Indpendence day and the British would not be be blamed for the violence which would erupt. His reasoning: "the earlier it was published, the more the British would have to bear the responsibility for the disturbances which would undoubtedly result". And to think the IRA blew up such a lovely man.

The story of the British Empire's ' great success ' was it's ability of nurturing local hatreds and instigating violence to serve it's inhuman and selfish ends. Approxiately one million people died in the resultant conflict and 14.5 million people became refugees. It's no wonder that it has been said about the british ruling class - " the cancer of humanity ".

Instead of the secular political state the Indian Congress wished to create, the whiskey drinking Jinnah and the british authorities created the secterian entity of Pakistan. It should also be noted that Jinnah was quite happy to leave 25-30 million Muslims who stayed behind in India, just like our unionist friends did for their fellow unionists and Ulstermen in the 'south'. I would have thought that the papallels with Ireland couldn't be more obvious.

As for the " current problems in Pakistan ", much of it is due to the frivolous expenditures on the military in it's competition with the much larger India, and also with it the resultant military influence in political descision making to the determent of economic and democratic development.

Can'nt blame it all on the brits, but they did contribute to the whole malaise in a very major way .

ejmaztec

I don’t read your posts McArmalite. I only read your “interesting” facts above when I spotted “Montessori”. I feel sorry for the unfortunate individuals whose education didn’t get that far. Fortunately, my history lessons didn’t end at that stage of my education.

The reason for my not reading your posts is due to their inaccuracy and my low boredom threshold where waffle is concerned.. You quote your subject matter as Gospel, but it’s quite a bit removed from that. You don’t quote sources to prove anything that you say. For example, when you say that “It's no wonder that it has been said about the British ruling class - " the cancer of humanity".

Who actually said this? As far as I can see, it’s been said about the white race, the Jews, the USA, The West – but never about the British ruling classes.

I’m interested in History, but not in making it up as I go along.

Gobán Saor

Gobán Saor wrote: »

In fairness it wasn't just the British empire that followed a very deliberate strategy of divide and conquer. The French and other European colonial powers were also expert at it.

It mainly comes down to colonial powers creating countries that suit their administrative ideal, without having any regard for the indigenous population.
The map of Africa would have been very different if the tribal boundaries had been considered when the colonial power left.
I'm not saying that all would have been peace & harmony, but some of the worst civil wars would have been averted.

Capt'n Midnight

Pakistan has been spending a very large % of GNP on weapons in a mini arms race with India that alone has to have an effect on development.

Actually a better country to compare Pakistan with would be Bangladesh, which only gained it's independence in '71and has gone though similar military coups and a similar history.

McArmalite

ejmaztec wrote: »

I don’t read your posts McArmalite. I only read your “interesting” facts above when I spotted “Montessori”. I feel sorry for the unfortunate individuals whose education didn’t get that far. Fortunately, my history lessons didn’t end at that stage of my education.

The reason for my not reading your posts is due to their inaccuracy and my low boredom threshold where waffle is concerned.. You quote your subject matter as Gospel, but it’s quite a bit removed from that. You don’t quote sources to prove anything that you say. For example, when you say that “It's no wonder that it has been said about the British ruling class - " the cancer of humanity".

Who actually said this? As far as I can see, it’s been said about the white race, the Jews, the USA, The West – but never about the British ruling classes.

I’m interested in History, but not in making it up as I go along.

" I only read your “interesting” facts above when I spotted “Montessori”. " Liar, liar your pants are on fire, etc, etc

" The reason for my not reading your posts is due to their inaccuracy " How do you know their inaccurate if you don't read the posts in the first place And anyway, it's a basic rule of arguing/discussing a subject, that you listen to or read ALL the opposition's statement before making a reply, otherwise you are not fully informed of the other person's position and cannot make a proper judgment of their opinion.

" You don’t quote sources to prove anything that you say. For example, when you say that “It's no wonder that it has been said about the British ruling class - " the cancer of humanity". " Correct, neither does anyone else ( and possibly yourself, though I haven't read much of your posts yet, only the 1 or 2 attempting to be 'funny'). But I may add a link where the information appears on the web, but I'm not going to start writing, X said " ABC " in such and such a book, page 137 or Susan McKay, Irish Times 24/12/2007 page 31. ( The quote regarding the British ruling class and cancer of humanity is something I read from A Noam Chomsky discussion. If I remember correctly he was quoting a Scandinavian newspaper that was so shocked at the behavior of britain in India th the time. If I ever come across the web page I'll send the pm to you )

Having said all of that, McArm is just human and can make mistakes. Indeed I'd be the first to say that some of my postings are written in a say, less than PC style when it comes to british Imperialist thuggery. I make no apologies for that.

McArmalite

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Pakistan has been spending a very large % of GNP on weapons in a mini arms race with India that alone has to have an effect on development.

Actually a better country to compare Pakistan with would be Bangladesh, which only gained it's independence in '71and has gone though similar military coups and a similar history.

Getting back on subject, didn't know Bangladesh had similar problems. Compare that with India which could well be said to be emerging as a new superpower while it's old colonial misruler, britian, is now a second rate power in Europe and a third rate power in the world.

purple'n'gold

McArmalite wrote: »

Getting back on subject, didn't know Bangladesh had similar problems. Compare that with India which could well be said to be emerging as a new superpower while it's old colonial misruler, britian, is now a second rate power in Europe and a third rate power in the world.

The UK's Royal Navy operates around 50 nuclear-armed Trident II D-5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles and four Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines from Clyde Naval Base on Scotland's west coast.
Dosn’t sound like a third rate world power to me.

ejmaztec

McArmalite wrote: »

Getting back on subject, didn't know Bangladesh had similar problems. Compare that with India which could well be said to be emerging as a new superpower while it's old colonial misruler, britian, is now a second rate power in Europe and a third rate power in the world.

I'm sorry that you don't appreciate a good sense of humour, McArmalite (if that is in fact your real name;)), but I was forced, much against my better judgement, to read some of your posts.

I would say that 1% of their content is probably just about ok for submission to a history forum, but the balance, which, according to my Montessori teacher, would be 99%, is more suited to a Political Ranting forum.

One question for you. Why did it take our ancestors 800 years to get rid of the British, when all of the other former colonies did the job in a much shorter time? I think that they must have liked them a lot more than you do, for some reason.:D

Capt'n Midnight

purplengold wrote: »

The UK's Royal Navy operates around 50 nuclear-armed Trident II D-5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles and four Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines from Clyde Naval Base on Scotland's west coast.
Dosn’t sound like a third rate world power to me.

at one point in the maintanence cycle they only have one on patrol with the others back at base. So they'd be one trawler net away from having no retaliation capability.

still they spend more on "defense" than anyone except the US, and between them they spend more than everyone else put together

McArmalite

ejmaztec wrote: »

I'm sorry that you don't appreciate a good sense of humour, McArmalite (if that is in fact your real name;)), but I was forced, much against my better judgement, to read some of your posts.

I would say that 1% of their content is probably just about ok for submission to a history forum, but the balance, which, according to my Montessori teacher, would be 99%, is more suited to a Political Ranting forum.

One question for you. Why did it take our ancestors 800 years to get rid of the British, when all of the other former colonies did the job in a much shorter time? I think that they must have liked them a lot more than you do, for some reason.:D

First, this thing is this is getting dragged out, so hopefully this will have to be the last post I have to reply to your comments started by you on 19th " so I don't think that you can pin all of this on the Brits. "

" I'm sorry that you don't appreciate a good sense of humour ". No probs with my sense of humor, but you've obviously given up your line of attack by trying to be a ' funny guy ' and now trying it by been bitchy and dismissive.

" I would say that 1% of their content is probably just about ok for submission to a history forum, but the balance, which, according to my Montessori teacher, would be 99%, is more suited to a Political Ranting forum. " My reply was to explain the historical background of the creation of the Pakistan state in reply to donaghs " I think Jinnah was mostly right to split Pakistan from India. The sectarianism and tribalism would probably have erupted in violence eventually. " My basic view is that the Indian Congress and Ghandi had united all sects to proceed to peacefully create an independent India, but the britiish and their puppet Jinnah had raised ancient animosity's to partition the country.

However, in all the of the comments I have made e.g. " Although he (Jinnah) is obviously partly to blame as he acted as a british puppet in the travesty, it was britian who was the real driving force behind partition...... In 1937 provincial elections the Congress won clear majority. Jinnah's Muslim league failed to win a single province. But still the brits maintained Jinnah and his organisation as a deciding entity in India's future ? etc, " you haven't made a single point to counter me, only replying by been bitchy and making personal comments about me and avoiding discussing the subject. What's your version on the partition of India, let me guess, - a benign and well meaning britain unfortunately misunderstood a very complex situation and innocently created the partition of the country ? :rolleyes: If anyone is ranting here it's you pal.

" One question for you. Why did it take our ancestors 800 years to get rid of the British, when all of the other former colonies did the job in a much shorter time? I think that they must have liked them a lot more than you do, for some reason.:D " :rolleyes::rolleyes: That must surely rate as the most ridiculous comment ever made on this board. I would have thought that anyone with an ounce of intelligence would see that the history of this country for 800 years has been dominated with attempts to get rid of foreign rule, far from the vast majority having " liked them ".

" Why did it take our ancestors 800 years to get rid of the British " Firstly we're not totally rid of them, their still occupying the six north eastern counties of the country. Secondly, did it ever not occur to you Einstein that britain having much larger forces and proximity to Irealnd, and aided directly by local collaborators and indirectly by internal squabbling between chieftains/leaders ( same happened with Scotland, also the French resistance for that matter between communists and anarchists and Basque nationalists etc but that's another story ) managed to keep keep it's occupation ? :rolleyes:

" get rid of the British, when all of the other former colonies did the job in a much shorter time " Apart from America and the Afghan's kicked them out also as far as I knew, when we broke from from britian, if not the first, then one of the earliest to break away, and initiated the great crack in the british empire - if today we lose Ireland, tomorrow we will lose the empire I think Churchill said in 1919. I'm not going to say we where totally responsible for it's downfall, but we certainly can be proud of the part we did play and punched well above our weight for our size

Hopefully this answers all your comments Einstein.

* (if there is any other countries correct me if I am wrong anyone, I'd be interested to know )

McArmalite

McArmalite wrote: »

First, this thing is this is getting dragged out, so hopefully this will have to be the last post I have to reply to your comments started by you on 19th " so I don't think that you can pin all of this on the Brits. "

" I'm sorry that you don't appreciate a good sense of humour ". No probs with my sense of humor, but you've obviously given up your line of attack by trying to be a ' funny guy ' and now trying it by been bitchy and dismissive.

" I would say that 1% of their content is probably just about ok for submission to a history forum, but the balance, which, according to my Montessori teacher, would be 99%, is more suited to a Political Ranting forum. " My reply was to explain the historical background of the creation of the Pakistan state in reply to donaghs " I think Jinnah was mostly right to split Pakistan from India. The sectarianism and tribalism would probably have erupted in violence eventually. " My basic view is that the Indian Congress and Ghandi had united all sects to proceed to peacefully create an independent India, but the britiish and their puppet Jinnah had raised ancient animosity's to partition the country.

However, in all the of the comments I have made e.g. " Although he (Jinnah) is obviously partly to blame as he acted as a british puppet in the travesty, it was britian who was the real driving force behind partition...... In 1937 provincial elections the Congress won clear majority. Jinnah's Muslim league failed to win a single province. But still the brits maintained Jinnah and his organisation as a deciding entity in India's future ? etc, " you haven't made a single point to counter me, only replying by been bitchy and making personal comments about me and avoiding discussing the subject. What's your version on the partition of India, let me guess, - a benign and well meaning britain unfortunately misunderstood a very complex situation and innocently created the partition of the country ? :rolleyes: If anyone is ranting here it's you pal.

" One question for you. Why did it take our ancestors 800 years to get rid of the British, when all of the other former colonies did the job in a much shorter time? I think that they must have liked them a lot more than you do, for some reason.:D " :rolleyes::rolleyes: That must surely rate as the most ridiculous comment ever made on this board. I would have thought that anyone with an ounce of intelligence would see that the history of this country for 800 years has been dominated with attempts to get rid of foreign rule, far from the vast majority having " liked them ".

" Why did it take our ancestors 800 years to get rid of the British " Firstly we're not totally rid of them, their still occupying the six north eastern counties of the country. Secondly, did it ever not occur to you Einstein that britain having much larger forces and proximity to Irealnd, and aided directly by local collaborators and indirectly by internal squabbling between chieftains/leaders ( same happened with Scotland, also the French resistance for that matter between communists and anarchists and Basque nationalists etc but that's another story ) managed to keep keep it's occupation ? :rolleyes:

" get rid of the British, when all of the other former colonies did the job in a much shorter time " Apart from America and the Afghan's kicked them out also as far as I knew, when we broke from from britian, if not the first, then one of the earliest to break away, and initiated the great crack in the british empire - if today we lose Ireland, tomorrow we will lose the empire I think Churchill said in 1919. I'm not going to say we where totally responsible for it's downfall, but we certainly can be proud of the part we did play and punched well above our weight for our size

Hopefully this answers all your comments Einstein.

* (if there is any other countries correct me if I am wrong anyone, I'd be interested to know )

Says the man who has the anglophobic blinkers welded to his head (the sig advertises this fact).

As it was in the US war of independance most of the colonalists were British in the first place!

The empire was largely lost due to the fact Britain as nearly bankrupted by the Great war & WWII along with some "lend/lease" with the US that had strings attached, one of these relating to dismanteling the empire.

McArmalite

Deleted User wrote: »

Says the man who has the anglophobic blinkers welded to his head (the sig advertises this fact).

As it was in the US war of independance most of the colonalists were British in the first place!

The empire was largely lost due to the fact Britain as nearly bankrupted by the Great war & WWII along with some "lend/lease" with the US that had strings attached, one of these relating to dismanteling the empire.

" anglophobic " - ME Really, do many others think so ? Well, Fred Fratton can take credit for my appearent anglophobia on this forum, though he has toned it down this last few months and not hi jacking and wrecking any discussion which is in any way mildly critical of britian. However I stand over my view that britian engineered the secterian strife in India to partition the country.

Capt'n Midnight

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_federations_by_military_expenditures


World Total 1,200,000,000,000
NATO Total 849,875,309,000
United States 623,000,000,000
United Kingdom 70,000,000,000
Japan 49,100,000,000
China 45,000,000,000
South Korea 26,050,000,000
Russia 32,400,000,000
India 21,330,000,000
Pakistan 4,800,000,000
Ireland 1,300,000,000
Bangladesh 836,900,000

McArmalite

McArmalite wrote: »

However I stand over my view that Britian engineered the secterian strife in India to partition the country.

At the time of the East India Company, the whole region was a not one state but hundreds of individual (kingdoms - not sure if that's the correct terminology) that became one state under the Empire, dividing this "country" up was always going to be difficult whereever the lines were drawn. Imagine trying to split up Norm Iron between the two tribes, impossible to do without having many on the "wrong side" could YOU have divided up India without "engineering the secterian strife" I KNOW that I couldnt! and nor could anyone else.

McArmalite

Deleted User wrote: »

At the time of the East India Company, the whole region was a not one state but hundreds of individual (kingdoms - not sure if that's the correct terminology) that became one state under the Empire, dividing this "country" up was always going to be difficult whereever the lines were drawn. Imagine trying to split up Norm Iron between the two tribes, impossible to do without having many on the "wrong side" could YOU have divided up India without "engineering the secterian strife" I KNOW that I couldnt! and nor could anyone else.

India, often called a sub continent, is a huge country containing many religions, languages and ethnic diversity. Naturally throughout history their has been many conflicts, territorial disputes etc. The territorial area that the Indian Congress wished to form as the entity India consisted of that area ruled by the british from 1858 to 1947, basically, what would in geographic terms be called, the sub continent of India or the Indian tectonic plate. This includes the states of Pakistan and Bangladesh.

" could YOU have divided up India " I wouldn't have wanted to divide up India but would have agreed to Ghandi and the Indian Congress who wished to create a secular, democratic republic, with the aims of the state been run on federal lines, unlike britian who connived to create the sectarian state of Pakistan and the consequently civil strife with it. As I wrote before " Sure there was historical ill feeling between the 2 groups, but by 1921 Ghandi's Indian Congress had united both religions in the pursuit of an independent India ? In 1937 provincial elections the Congress won clear majority. Jinnah's Muslim league failed to win a single province. But still the brits maintained Jinnah and his organisation as a deciding entity in India's future ? "

Today India is a federal republic comprising twenty-eight states and seven union territories and the world's largest democracy. It's not a prefect Utopia ( where is ?) having such a diverse population, but the mass blood shed brought on by britian creating the sectarian entity of Pakistan could have been avoided.

What the brits done in India ( and that includes the Irish men who served in it's ranks ) was as comparable as the nazi's in Europe.

McArmalite

McArmalite wrote: »

" could YOU have divided up India " I wouldn't have wanted to divide up India but would have agreed to Ghandi and the Indian Congress who wished to create a secular, democratic republic, with the aims of the state been run on federal lines, unlike britian who connived to create the sectarian state of Pakistan and the consequently civil strife with it. As I wrote before " Sure there was historical ill feeling between the 2 groups, but by 1921 Ghandi's Indian Congress had united both religions in the pursuit of an independent India ? In 1937 provincial elections the Congress won clear majority. Jinnah's Muslim league failed to win a single province. But still the brits maintained Jinnah and his organisation as a deciding entity in India's future ? "

Do you seriously believe that Hindus & Muslims could have lived side by side - with many Indian provinces having a substansal Minority and the Hindus always being able to elect Hindu councillors and run these provinces their way (re: Norm Iron .....)

McArmalite wrote: »

Today India is a federal republic comprising twenty-eight states and seven union territories and the world's largest democracy. It's not a prefect Utopia ( where is ?) having such a diverse population, but the mass blood shed brought on by britian creating the sectarian entity of Pakistan could have been avoided.

It is now a relativly homogenious state, therefore the vast majority are like minded when it comes to how the country is run.

McArmalite wrote: »

What the brits done in India ( and that includes the Irish men who served in it's ranks ) was as comparable as the nazi's in Europe.

Care to elaborate on that statement or withdraw it!

Capt'n Midnight

McArmalite wrote: »

The territorial area that the Indian Congress wished to form as the entity India consisted of that area ruled by the british from 1858 to 1947, basically, what would in geographic terms be called, the sub continent of India or the Indian tectonic plate. This includes the states of Pakistan and Bangladesh.

The British did not rule all of India from 1858, there were even independent states in India after partition. Also the British ruled Burma too, are you saying the Indian Congress wanted it too ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princely_state#Accession

After independence in 1947, the princely states were forced to accede — and thus sign away their political autonomy — either to the secular, mainly Hindu dominion of India or the majority Islamic dominion of Pakistan (consisting of West Pakistan and East Pakistan; the latter would later break away as Bangladesh). The accession was to be chosen by its ruling Prince, not by the population, akin to the 16th century European principle of cuius regio eius religio. Most acceded peacefully, except for four: Junagadh, Hyderabad, Jammu and Kashmir and Tripura

McArmalite

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you seriously believe that Hindus & Muslims could have lived side by side - with many Indian provinces having a substansal Minority and the Hindus always being able to elect Hindu councillors and run these provinces their way (re: Norm Iron .....)

It is now a relativly homogenious state, therefore the vast majority are like minded when it comes to how the country is run.

Care to elaborate on that statement or withdraw it!

If your not capable of understanding my posts, ask your Montessori teahcher.

McArmalite

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The British did not rule all of India from 1858, there were even independent states in India after partition. Also the British ruled Burma too, are you saying the Indian Congress wanted it too ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princely_state#Accession

Whatever Capt'n, I'm just about bored discussing this.

McArmalite

McArmalite wrote: »

If your not capable of understanding my posts, ask your Montessori teahcher.

I understand your post all too well! hence my response.

McArmalite

Deleted User wrote: »

I understand your post all too well! hence my response.

:rolleyes: Schoo fly.

McArmalite

McArmalite wrote: »

Whatever Capt'n, I'm just about bored discussing this.

McArmalite wrote: »

:rolleyes: Schoo fly.

Oh dear! McA's not playing anymore and he's run away with the ball!

History has shown that short of creatiing a large number of independant states , the division of the indian sub-continent was the best of a bad job.

McArmalite

In reply to that thick plank, dolanbaker -

" As it was in the US war of independance most of the colonalists were British in the first place! " Starting in the late 16th century, the British, the French, the Spanish, Swedes and the Dutch began to colonize eastern North America*. And of those listed as ' british ', I wonder how many of them were actually Irish or Scottish nationalists ( Highland Scots especially ) who certainly had no love of England or the british state. And if we take those whoose ethnicity was 'british', since many had been arriving since the Mayflower in 1620, by the time of the American war of Indepence in the 1770's, a period of 150 years, I would easily say that their feelings of loyalty and belonging to mother England had greatly diminished if not entirely gone, the success of the American Revoulotion proving that one. Obviously they were some loyal to britian but these were mostly the merchant sea class who did not want to see their trade with britian disrupted.


" The empire was largely lost due to the fact Britain as nearly bankrupted by the Great war & WWII " As for WW1, as Snickers man once posted -the british empire was actually larger after WW1 than before it was before, so much for the war for the freedom of small nations !!!

" along with some "lend/lease" with the US that had strings attached, one of these relating to dismanteling the empire. " Obviously britian was bankrupt ( although it has always been morally bankrupt ) after WW2. Although it was on the winning side thanks mainly to the USSR and America, but effectively it was a bankrupt and beaten country. I remember watching a programme a while ago ( the details are a bit hazy, correct me where I'm wrong, but I'll give the main details of the story ) and basically it told how the brits had to go cap in hand to Washington with a ass kissing letter " My dear, dear American friends.....how much we have struggled together etc " asking for a interest free loan. No can do said Uncle Sam. A privately infuriated britian then directed John Maynard Keynes to negotiate a loan with interest. The Yanks bargained with him, gave them something like a 50 year loan at 2% ( seems very reasonable ) and some small print. The brits having no other choice had to accept. Part of the small print insisted that commonwealth countries, if they wished, could trade with britian in US dollars and not just pounds as previously demanded by britian. These countries then started trading in dollars instead of pounds, the net effect of further reducing the pound in strength and weakening the british economy further. Three cheers for America !!!

" Do you seriously believe that Hindus & Muslims could have lived side by side - with many Indian provinces having a substansal Minority and the Hindus always being able to elect Hindu councillors and run these provinces their way (re: Norm Iron .....) "......" It is now a relativly homogenious state, therefore the vast majority are like minded when it comes to how the country is run. India is the second most culturally, linguistically and genetically diverse geographical entity after the African continent......Over 800 million Indians (80.5%) are Hindu. Other religious groups include Muslims (13.4%), Christians (2.3%), Sikhs (1.9%), Buddhists (0.8%), Jains (0.4%), Jews, Zoroastrians, Bahá'ís and others.[99] Tribals constitute 8.1% of the population.**

As I said in my previous posting - Today India is a federal republic comprising twenty-eight states and seven union territories and the world's largest democracy. It's not a prefect Utopia ( where is ?) having such a diverse population, but the mass blood shed brought on by britian creating the sectarian entity of Pakistan could have been avoided. ( Compare that to the british created secterian entity of Pakistan which is 96% Muslim. But ofcourse you would'nt be able to see that becasue your thick as a plank.)

" History has shown that short of creatiing a large number of independant states , the division of the indian sub-continent was the best of a bad job. " A situation engineered causing the death of approxiately 1 million people and 14 million refugees and he calls it " the best of a bad job ". You sick b@stard, but then sure your british, what else could be expected from you crowd, you just LOVE yourselves don't you.

" Care to elaborate on that statement or withdraw it! " I'm not going to spoon feed you as your too thick and such a great british patriot to be told anything different, you have to be a brit to spout all that racist sh!te about the neccessity of partition India, or Ireland or Cyprus for that matter. As I said in a previous posting in reply to ejmaztec - What's your version on the partition of India, let me guess, - a benign and well meaning britain unfortunately misunderstood a very complex situation and innocently created the partition of the country ? You lot just LOVE yourselves don't you.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_america
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India#Demographics

Fratton Fred

I do laugh at the way mcArm accuses me of hijacking threads, then goes off on another very predictable anti British rant.

India has become a major international economy whilst Pakistan appears to be ravaged by internal violence. Maybe McArm can get us back on topic by explaining how this came about.

By the way, I heard that the British were to blame for bed bugs. According to Frank McCort they were not in Ireland before the British came.:D

McArmalite

[rant]

McArmalite wrote: »

In reply to that thick plank, dolanbaker -

" As it was in the US war of independance most of the colonalists were British in the first place! " Starting in the late 16th century, the British, the French, the Spanish, Swedes and the Dutch began to colonize eastern North America*. And of those listed as ' british ', I wonder how many of them were actually Irish or Scottish nationalists ( Highland Scots especially ) who certainly had no love of England or the british state. And if we take those whoose ethnicity was 'british', since many had been arriving since the Mayflower in 1620, by the time of the American war of Indepence in the 1770's, a period of 150 years, I would easily say that their feelings of loyalty and belonging to mother England had greatly diminished if not entirely gone, the success of the American Revoulotion proving that one. Obviously they were some loyal to britian but these were mostly the merchant sea class who did not want to see their trade with britian disrupted.


" The empire was largely lost due to the fact Britain as nearly bankrupted by the Great war & WWII " As for WW1, as Snickers man once posted -the british empire was actually larger after WW1 than before it was before, so much for the war for the freedom of small nations !!!

" along with some "lend/lease" with the US that had strings attached, one of these relating to dismanteling the empire. " Obviously britian was bankrupt ( although it has always been morally bankrupt ) after WW2. Although it was on the winning side thanks mainly to the USSR and America, but effectively it was a bankrupt and beaten country. I remember watching a programme a while ago ( the details are a bit hazy, correct me where I'm wrong, but I'll give the main details of the story ) and basically it told how the brits had to go cap in hand to Washington with a ass kissing letter " My dear, dear American friends.....how much we have struggled together etc " asking for a interest free loan. No can do said Uncle Sam. A privately infuriated britian then directed John Maynard Keynes to negotiate a loan with interest. The Yanks bargained with him, gave them something like a 50 year loan at 2% ( seems very reasonable ) and some small print. The brits having no other choice had to accept. Part of the small print insisted that commonwealth countries, if they wished, could trade with britian in US dollars and not just pounds as previously demanded by britian. These countries then started trading in dollars instead of pounds, the net effect of further reducing the pound in strength and weakening the british economy further. Three cheers for America !!!

" Do you seriously believe that Hindus & Muslims could have lived side by side - with many Indian provinces having a substansal Minority and the Hindus always being able to elect Hindu councillors and run these provinces their way (re: Norm Iron .....) "......" It is now a relativly homogenious state, therefore the vast majority are like minded when it comes to how the country is run. India is the second most culturally, linguistically and genetically diverse geographical entity after the African continent......Over 800 million Indians (80.5%) are Hindu. Other religious groups include Muslims (13.4%), Christians (2.3%), Sikhs (1.9%), Buddhists (0.8%), Jains (0.4%), Jews, Zoroastrians, Bahá'ís and others.[99] Tribals constitute 8.1% of the population.**

As I said in my previous posting - Today India is a federal republic comprising twenty-eight states and seven union territories and the world's largest democracy. It's not a prefect Utopia ( where is ?) having such a diverse population, but the mass blood shed brought on by britian creating the sectarian entity of Pakistan could have been avoided. ( Compare that to the british created secterian entity of Pakistan which is 96% Muslim. But ofcourse you would'nt be able to see that becasue your thick as a plank.)

" History has shown that short of creatiing a large number of independant states , the division of the indian sub-continent was the best of a bad job. " A situation engineered causing the death of approxiately 1 million people and 14 million refugees and he calls it " the best of a bad job ". You sick b@stard, but then sure your british, what else could be expected from you crowd, you just LOVE yourselves don't you.

" Care to elaborate on that statement or withdraw it! " I'm not going to spoon feed you as your too thick and such a great british patriot to be told anything different, you have to be a brit to spout all that racist sh!te about the neccessity of partition India, or Ireland or Cyprus for that matter. You lot just LOVE yourselves don't you.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_america
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India#Demographics

[/rant]

Strange most of this reply actually concurs with a lot of what I said, as for Cyprus, the invading Turkish army had a lot to do with that partition.

Fratton Fred

Deleted User wrote: »

Strange most of this reply actually concurs with a lot of what I said, as for Cyprus, the invading Turkish army had a lot to do with that partition.

come on now, lets not let truth get in the way of a good rant.

(Actually, it would be fair to say that Turkey had everything to do with the partition but at least it gives the Irish defence Force somewhere warm to go)

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I do laugh at the way mcArm accuses me of hijacking threads, then goes off on another very predictable anti British rant.

India has become a major international economy whilst Pakistan appears to be ravaged by internal violence. Maybe McArm can get us back on topic by explaining how this came about.

By the way, I heard that the British were to blame for bed bugs. According to Frank McCort they were not in Ireland before the British came.:D

My responce was to the statement in the OP " I think Jinnah was mostly right to split Pakistan from India. The sectarianism and tribalism would probably have erupted in violence eventually. " as I have pointed out before and will probably have to do so again for the benefit of that other brit dolanbaker. Discussing britian's invovlement in the creation of Pakistan and the subsquent nature of it's society is not hijacking a thread, it's completely relevant. Now if I came on, the IRA did this, the IRA did that, the IRA did the other like you have done to wreck any thread mildly critical of britian, it would indeed be a hijack as the IRA have nothing got to do with the partition of Pakistan and it's resulting society.

As for " India has become a major international economy whilst Pakistan appears to be ravaged by internal violence. Maybe McArm can get us back on topic by explaining how this came about. " As I said on the 21st "As for the " current problems in Pakistan ", much of it is due to the frivolous expenditures on the military in it's competition with the much larger India, and also with it the resultant military influence in political descision making to the determent of economic and democratic development. Can'nt blame it all on the brits, but they did contribute to the whole malaise in a very major way "

As for Frank McCourt, never read much he had to say, the guy is a total crank from what I have heard.

One important thing I have noticed though, there has been a considerable upping of the ante with McArmalite in the last few days, you been joined by fellow brit dolanbaker and your old friend, the closet unionist, croppyboy1798 who has appeared on the scene by coincidence having been absent for a long time. Should I have to muster the Republican cavalry ?? Did my posting regard Fred's hijacking of threads critical of britan have anything to do with it ??

SpitfireIV

McArmalite wrote: »

croppyboy1798 who has appeared on the scene by coincidence having been absent for a long time.

Nah, I'm still here matey, but this forum has become such a joke as of late that I just dont bother with it anymore as it seems all thread go the same way :rolleyes:. Lots of armchair historians and wiki bashers.

McArmalite

CroppyBoy1798 wrote: »

Nah, I'm still here matey, but this forum has become such a joke as of late that I just dont bother with it anymore as it seems all thread go the same way :rolleyes:. Lots of armchair historians and wiki bashers.

Oh God, that reply was quick, not bad for a closet unionist All of Freds friends are have got very busy this last few days. Coincidence ?

going back to the original query, here is the transcript of one Mountbattens reports regarding the division of India

http://www.movinghere.org.uk/deliveryfiles/BL/L_PJ_10_79__ff235-40__277-277v/0/1.pdf

http://www.movinghere.org.uk/deliveryfiles/BL/L_PJ_10_79__ff235-40__277-277v/0/2.pdf

Draw your own conclusions

McArmalite

Deleted User wrote: »

going back to the original query, here is the transcript of one Mountbattens reports regarding the division of India

http://www.movinghere.org.uk/deliveryfiles/BL/L_PJ_10_79__ff235-40__277-277v/0/1.pdf

http://www.movinghere.org.uk/deliveryfiles/BL/L_PJ_10_79__ff235-40__277-277v/0/2.pdf

Draw your own conclusions

The orginal query was not about Mountbatten and the division of India, but basically " Where did it all go so wrong for Pakistan? "*

( My first responce - was to the statement in the OP " I think Jinnah was mostly right to split Pakistan from India. The sectarianism and tribalism would probably have erupted in violence eventually. " as I have pointed out before and will probably have to do so again for the benefit of that other brit dolanbaker). Did'nt take too long before I did have to repeat it



* You could possibly stick this thread in Politics, but as I'm mostly looking backward in time, I think History is more apt.

Looking at the current problems in Pakistan, and the advances being made in India, you'd have to ask yourself: Where did it all go so wrong for Pakistan?

I think Jinnah was mostly right to split Pakistan from India. The sectarianism and tribalism would probably have erupted in violence eventually.

That said, India manages it own variety (races, sects, religions, languages, etc) quite well relatively speaking. And looking at the major reason for the India/Pakistan schism - I believe there's actually more Muslims living in India than in Pakistan.

McArsalite

No, haven't gone away:D

ejmaztec

McArmalite wrote: »

First, this thing is this is getting dragged out, so hopefully this will have to be the last post (no chance) I have to reply to your comments started by you on 19th " so I don't think that you can pin all of this on the Brits. "

" I'm sorry that you don't appreciate a good sense of humour ". No probs with my sense of humor, but you've obviously given up your line of attack by trying to be a ' funny guy ' and now trying it by been bitchy and dismissive.

Oh dear, what more can I say?

McArmalite wrote: »

I would say that 1% of their content is probably just about ok for submission to a history forum, but the balance, which, according to my Montessori teacher, would be 99%, is more suited to a Political Ranting forum. "

However, in all the of the comments I have made e.g. " Although he (Jinnah) is obviously partly to blame as he acted as a british puppet in the travesty, it was britian who was the real driving force behind partition...... In 1937 provincial elections the Congress won clear majority. Jinnah's Muslim league failed to win a single province. But still the brits maintained Jinnah and his organisation as a deciding entity in India's future ? etc, " you haven't made a single point to counter me, only replying by been bitchy and making personal comments about me and avoiding discussing the subject. What's your version on the partition of India, let me guess, - a benign and well meaning britain unfortunately misunderstood a very complex situation and innocently created the partition of the country ? If anyone is ranting here it's you pal.

Sorry, never heard of britian, so couldn’t comment. You’re wasting your time if you think that I would involve myself in a pointless discussion on any matter with you. With regard to your admission in another Boards forum, I also cannot bring myself to believe anything that you write. As for my ranting – where was this exactly?

McArmalite wrote: »

One question for you. Why did it take our ancestors 800 years to get rid of the British, when all of the other former colonies did the job in a much shorter time? I think that they must have liked them a lot more than you do, for some reason. "

McArmalite wrote: »

That must surely rate as the most ridiculous comment ever made on this board.

You must be referring to your own signature.

McArmalite wrote: »

I would have thought that anyone with an ounce of intelligence would see that the history of this country for 800 years has been dominated with attempts to get rid of foreign rule, far from the vast majority having " liked them ".

" Why did it take our ancestors 800 years to get rid of the British " Firstly we're not totally rid of them, their still occupying the six north eastern counties of the country. Secondly, did it ever not occur to you Einstein that britain having much larger forces and proximity to Irealnd (Ireland?), and aided directly by local collaborators and indirectly by internal squabbling between chieftains/leaders ( same happened with Scotland, also the French resistance for that matter between communists and anarchists and Basque nationalists etc but that's another story ) managed to keep keep it's occupation ?

" get rid of the British, when all of the other former colonies did the job in a much shorter time " Apart from America and the Afghan's kicked them out also as far as I knew, when we broke from from britian, if not the first, then one of the earliest to break away, and initiated the great crack in the british empire - if today we lose Ireland, tomorrow we will lose the empire I think Churchill said in 1919. I'm not going to say we where totally responsible for it's downfall, but we certainly can be proud of the part we did play and punched well above our weight for our size

The British got everything that they wanted when Ireland became independent – they even gave the Free-Staters use of a variety of military hardware and stood back to watch Irish people killing Irish people during the civil war. Huge tracts of land were still in the hands of the Anglo-Irish and still are today. The Bolsheviks, they did proper revolutions, and had a clean sheet to work with when they defeated their enemies – after annihilating them. The British simply prepared a profit and loss account, cut their losses and stepped aside. Ireland was then run by its own version of Robert Mugabe i.e. DeValera, who, for a mathematician, wasn’t very good at sums, especially where the Irish economy was involved. Irish people left this country in droves, worked their balls off in the UK, the US, and anywhere else they went. They could have stayed here and watched their families starve to death to promote DeValera’s idyllic farm-yard Ireland. It was the money that these people earned in Britain etc, that subsidised Ireland’s paupers. Now, Ireland is run, for the most part, by the chinless descendants of the last men standing in 1922. “Vote for me, my grandfather was a Civil-War victor”. Ireland is full of these mini-monarchies – and people are still voting for them! Whilst you’re belly-aching about the British and the 800 years, you’re oblivious to the cause of Ireland’s woes during the last 80.

McArmalite wrote: »

Hopefully this answers all your comments Einstein)

(surely you jest).

I should point out, finally, that the British Empire is dead and gone, completely down the toilet, buried, never to be again, but you seem to think that it’s still alive and kicking. Any complaints – write to George Bush, he’ll let you know how the US inherited it.

Fratton Fred

I’d like to try and resurrect this, as I think it is an interesting subject, maybe we could all try and avoid the bitching (Myself included). I had some general thoughts on this whilst driving home last night and I thought I would share them, for discussion purposes.

National borders are, generally speaking, decided by some form of conflict. This may be expanding borders ala the British/Spanish/French/Belgian Empires or post war Soviet Bloc, or establishing borders when an “Empire” or regime breaks up, such as India/Pakistan or the former Yugoslavia.

Now then, back to the subject of this thread and the point I am trying to make. When a nation takes over another and rules it with a strong fist as the British Empire did, then all the inter racial tension that has gone before is effectively removed or managed by that regime. When that controlling country leaves, then all the inter racial tension comes back but there is no governing imperial nation to control it, for example Rwanda/Congo.

Pakistan is a country that is very tribal in areas and has several different forms of Islam varying from what we would consider moderate, to the extremes of the Taliban on the Afghan border. There is also I believe a mix of Shia and Sunni. Maybe, the reason a more bloody conflict has not broken out is because of the way Pakistan is governed, with a very strong military, but a military that is struggling to cope. India on the other hand has a very strong government and whilst a moderate secular democracy, it has a strong army and police force who can keep order.

Maybe the answer to Pakistan’s problems is breaking it up further, along tribal borders or even merging parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan to create a new nation (Although this would, I suggest, create a threat to world security again). If Pakistan were part of India then I don’t believe it would have made any difference, it would just be India’s problem rather than a solely Pakistani one.

Please discuss freely (And courteously:))