Has anyone here read Ambedkar's book "Pakistan, or, The Partition of India"?

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,739
New Delhi, India
He's pro-Pakistan, though.
He was certainly not that. He abhored Abrahamic religions, that is why he turned to Buddhism. As for Pakistan, many Indian leaders wanted partition to get rid of the problem. And thankfully, that happened.
".. the demand should be conceded in the interest of the safety of India." From your Wikipedia link.
 
Last edited:

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,714
SoCal
He was certainly not that. He abhored Abrahamic religions, that is why he turned to Buddhism. As for Pakistan, many Indian leaders wanted partition to get rid of the problem. And thankfully, that happened.
".. the demand should be conceded in the interest of the safety of India." From your Wikipedia link.
Yes, I clarified later on in this thread that he was more "pro-Pakistan creation".
 
Aug 2017
204
USA
I have not read his book, but you stated its main argument was to argue in favor of the Partition of India (or the creation of Pakistan). Perhaps it is 28 thread pages too late to ask for this, but could you expand upon his specific arguments for the creation of Pakistan? If you presented this earlier in this thread, could you point out where specifically?

Without knowing Ambedkar's arguments, I cannot accurately or fairly assess them. However, given what I know about general discourse on Partition in the time period and about Ambedkar in general, I can probably draw some reasonable inferences about them. Personally, I tend to have a low opinion of either the arguments in favor of Partition or of the advocates of Partition in general. Ambedkar would likely fall into the former camp but that might change depending on the nature of his arguments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,714
SoCal
I have not read his book, but you stated its main argument was to argue in favor of the Partition of India (or the creation of Pakistan). Perhaps it is 28 thread pages too late to ask for this, but could you expand upon his specific arguments for the creation of Pakistan? If you presented this earlier in this thread, could you point out where specifically?

Without knowing Ambedkar's arguments, I cannot accurately or fairly assess them. However, given what I know about general discourse on Partition in the time period and about Ambedkar in general, I can probably draw some reasonable inferences about them. Personally, I tend to have a low opinion of either the arguments in favor of Partition or of the advocates of Partition in general. Ambedkar would likely fall into the former camp but that might change depending on the nature of his arguments.
I posted a link to his entire book at the beginning of my OP here. Here it is again:

Pakistan, or, The Partition of India, by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar

His book has a lot of stuff in it so I'm not sure how to do a good job of summarizing it, but the link above does show you the contents of each chapter as well as the questions that Ambedkar discusses in each chapter. For instance, here is a summary of Chapter IX:

"CHAPTER IX -- Lessons from Abroad
Part I [The case of Turkey shows a steady dismemberment and loss of territory]​
Part II [The case of Czechoslovakia, a country which lasted only two decades]​
Part III [Both were brought down by the growth of the spirit of nationalism]​
Part IV [The force of nationalism, once unleashed, almost cannot be stopped]​
Part V [Hindustan and Pakistan would be stronger, more homogeneous units]"​
Here's Chapter IX in its entirety--where he elaborates on every single one of his points here in order:

309

As you can probably tell from this summary, in Chapter IX he discusses the failure to create stable multi-ethnic states in both the Ottoman Empire and Czechoslovakia and talks about how this resulted in the eventual dismemberment of both of these countries. I don't remember if it's in this chapter or in some other chapter, but somewhere in his book he talks about how if India is partitioned into "Hindustan" and Pakistan right now, then a religiously homogeneous India is subsequently going to be able to maintain the rest of its unity whereas if India isn't partitioned right now, then it could eventually see a secession not only of its Muslim-majority territories, but also of various of its Hindu-majority territories as well.

The other chapters of this book are as easy to read as Chapter IX is. Each chapter is divided into a couple or more bullet points to elaborate on each of his points in this chapter--which is really nice and makes this book extremely convenient and very interesting to read. :)

As for my own thoughts on India's partition, I tend to view it in a similar prism as to how I view national self-determination movements during the 20th century in general. I really do wish that the partition of India would have been much less bloody, though.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: EternalWay

rvsakhadeo

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
9,212
India
I liked it that Ambedkar had opined that after the then proposed partition of India, both parts will grow into two strong individual entities. The Republic of India has certainly become stronger. Cannot say the same about Pakistan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,714
SoCal
I liked it that Ambedkar had opined that after the then proposed partition of India, both parts will grow into two strong individual entities. The Republic of India has certainly become stronger. Cannot say the same about Pakistan.
Bangladesh does appear to be pretty strong, no? Poor but nevertheless strong. As for Pakistan, having to worry about terrorism due to the spread of radical Islam from Afghanistan over to Pakistan certainly didn't help matters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: prashanth