Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-05-2019, 05:20 PM
Tastes of Chocolate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: slightly north of center
Posts: 4,755

Could India and Pakistan have survived as a single country, if England hadn't divided then in 1947?


What were relations like between the Hindu and the Muslims, before the partition of India, in 1947? I know that the partition resulted in millions of people becoming refugees, as they left their existing homes and moved because they no longer felt they could live where they were a minority.

Would a non-divided country have been stable as it was? Were the relations good enough to allow for ongoing co-existance as neighbors and a common community, or was the partition, while disruptive, in the long run a necessity?

With 72 year hind sight, was a two state solution the better choice or a terrible mistake?
__________________
2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2
  #2  
Old 05-05-2019, 07:48 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
You mean he's STILL here?
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 25,715
Gandhi was assassinated by a Hindu extremist who thought Gandhi was too eager to appease Muslims.

I can't say how widespread Hindu-Muslim tensions were, but there were definitely tensions.
  #3  
Old 05-05-2019, 07:57 PM
gdave is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 193
As usual, Wikipedia has a pretty good summary.

In short:

When the UK finally decided to grant India independence in 1946, it actually wanted to keep an independent India united. It was the Muslim League that wanted an independent Pakistan, and had been agitating for such for decades. It won a majority of the Muslim vote in 1946. It might have accepted greater regional autonomy for Muslim majority areas rather than outright partition, but Nehru and other Congress party leaders rejected such a deal. There were communal riots in 1946 that killed thousands of Muslims and Hindus.

By 1947, a united independent India was largely a dead letter. The Muslim League would almost certainly have never accepted it. The Indian National Congress was formally in favor of a united India, but there were factions within it that wanted the Muslim majority areas out of India almost as much as the Muslim League did, and a working majority of pragmatists who saw partition as the only way to avoid a civil war. Partition was what the Indians wanted, the Muslim League eagerly, Congress reluctantly. And as disastrous as partition wound up being, trying to keep India united would likely have resulted in a far bloodier civil war, and eventually an independent Pakistan anyway.
  #4  
Old 05-05-2019, 08:17 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,099
Correct me if I am wrong, but was the subcontinent not a quilt of various fiefdoms prior to the British conquest? Was not the single Indian nation an artificial creation to begin with?
  #5  
Old 05-05-2019, 08:18 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,419
If gdave wrote, partition wasn't something the United Kingdom imposed on India. It was done at the request of the local population. (At least some of the local population. Essentially, Indian Hindus wanted to stay a single country and Indian Muslims wanted a separate country for themselves.)
  #6  
Old 05-05-2019, 08:25 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
Correct me if I am wrong, but was the subcontinent not a quilt of various fiefdoms prior to the British conquest? Was not the single Indian nation an artificial creation to begin with?
It was still a quilt of various fiefdoms in 1947. There were a number of what were called princely states, which were essentially autonomous regions with their own local government functioning under British oversight. When Britain surrendered its control, there was very little binding these autonomous states to new state of India.

Getting these states to submit to the national government was the second most difficult issue the Indian faced in 1947 (after partition).
  #7  
Old 05-06-2019, 02:47 AM
Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,322
Do we have any people from India or Pakistan on this board who might be able to give us their perspective?
  #8  
Old 05-06-2019, 04:35 AM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malden Capell View Post
Do we have any people from India or Pakistan on this board who might be able to give us their perspective?
‘sup.

I am busy right now and will write a longer post, but the short answer is no and the longer answer is fuck no

Last edited by AK84; 05-06-2019 at 04:38 AM.
  #9  
Old 05-06-2019, 04:38 AM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
Correct me if I am wrong, but was the subcontinent not a quilt of various fiefdoms prior to the British conquest? Was not the single Indian nation an artificial creation to begin with?
The sub continent has been undergoing two millenia of rule by single power, followed by break into squabbling kingdoms, then single power, then squabbling kingdom...and continue.
The British were merely the last:
  #10  
Old 05-06-2019, 03:00 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
The sub continent has been undergoing two millenia of rule by single power, followed by break into squabbling kingdoms, then single power, then squabbling kingdom...and continue.
The British were merely the last:
Yes, this seems to be a recurring pattern in history... for example the many "civil wars" in Chinese history or the repeated empires and breakups of the Orient and Occident respectfully.

~Max
  #11  
Old 05-06-2019, 10:47 PM
am77494 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tastes of Chocolate View Post
What were relations like between the Hindu and the Muslims, before the partition of India, in 1947?
Thats not a good premise to start with. So allow me to illustrate with an example :

Say the Texans are the most prominent Republicans in the US and they decide to divide the US in two parts. So the Texans choose the states above the Mason-Dixon line to be the new R-Country and also Florida. All the Republican Texans move to the states above the Mason Dixon line and force the Democrats out of the states. Similar population movement happens in Florida. After a few years, Florida is just fed up with Texans looking down at them and fight on their own to become an independent country (aka Bangladesh). That's pretty much what happened

It is to be noted that both Indian Hindus and Muslims fought against the British in the war of 1857 (called the mutiny by the British). But Hindus and Muslims were definitely at odds in the years leading up to 1947. BUT and this is a big BUT it was only in a few parts of India.

The results of the 1946 election is shown with details of Muslim league winnings here :

The Muslim league won elections only in 3 states : The Punjab, Sindh and Bengal. Consider Punjab and Sindh to be States above the Mason-Dixon line and Bengal as Florida while the leadership of Muslim league was from Gujarat/UP/Bihar (Texas . The Muslims of South India and even the state of UP did not vote for the Muslim League.

So India was divided into two parts (later Bangladesh separated from Pakistan in a bloody war ) where the Muslims from some Indian states went on to make a new country and impose their culture on other Muslims living there.

The separation of Bangladesh from Pakistan provides evidence that the bond of culture /language was stronger than the bond of religion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tastes of Chocolate View Post
I know that the partition resulted in millions of people becoming refugees, as they left their existing homes and moved because they no longer felt they could live where they were a minority.
My family went through this - i.e. the members who survived. Without getting into personal details, people were generally forced out or killed on both sides.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tastes of Chocolate View Post
Would a non-divided country have been stable as it was? Were the relations good enough to allow for ongoing co-existance as neighbors and a common community, or was the partition, while disruptive, in the long run a necessity?
That's a hard question to answer. In India, in some states Hindus and Muslims live happily in coexistence while in other states there is perpetual friction.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tastes of Chocolate View Post
With 72 year hind sight, was a two state solution the better choice or a terrible mistake?
Better choice or terrible mistake depends on your values. I have personal (family) history to be totally objective and leave the call to the others.
  #12  
Old 05-06-2019, 11:01 PM
am77494 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
Correct me if I am wrong, but was the subcontinent not a quilt of various fiefdoms prior to the British conquest?
That's what the Brits want you to believe. The history of democracy is ancient in India. Gana / Sanghas the earliest democracies were active around 6th century BCE. Both Buddha and Mahavira have their origins in this type of polities. The Buddhist texts have extensive description on how the gana/sanghas worked.

Before the British "contest", it was Muslim rulers who were running India.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
Was not the single Indian nation an artificial creation to begin with?
Ashoka's empire stretched from Afghanistan to Bengal to southern India. Several modern maps depict it as covering nearly all of the Indian subcontinent, except the southern tip. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka....250_BCE_2.png

Granted before and after Ashoka, India had many sub-divisions but they were Indians by shared cultural beliefs and values.
  #13  
Old 05-06-2019, 11:45 PM
Tastes of Chocolate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: slightly north of center
Posts: 4,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by am77494 View Post
Better choice or terrible mistake depends on your values. I have personal (family) history to be totally objective and leave the call to the others.
Thank you for your views, as someone with family that was involved in the partition. And for what I was wondering, your views are pretty much exactly what I was looking for. It's one thing to sit on the outside, decades later, and declare that something was good or bad. It's a totally different thing to have a personal connection with the events.
__________________
2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:08 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017