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

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,739
New Delhi, India
Indeed, the Indus Waters Treaty. The overall point though is that its a situation where India has the advantage and the leverage due to the Partition. No wars over the control and (improper) usage of these waters have been fought and disputes have largely been settled legally, but I cannot say if that will remain the case under India's current administration or future nationalistic ones.
Why should you say that India has an advantage in the Indus water treaty, and where from it gets its so-called advantage. It is arrived after international arbitration and Pakistan signed it. Why should Pakistan have any problem with that? India would never renegade on its commitments, and India is totally correct to exploit the treaty while remaining within the provisions of the treaty. If Pakistan ever wants more than its share, then India would surely take corrective steps. However, I generally agree to the rest of your post.
Yes, the "hostage theory". Even before the 1971 war though, few non-Muslims remained in Pakistan after Partition and those that did remained in the distant East. This was hardly a consolation to those Muslims in India who supported the Muslim League and resided in regions not destined to become a part of future Pakistan. In any case, they simply preferred to migrate.
Muslims in India are not hostages, India has never viewed them in that way. They are completely the citizens of this country and we have the instruments of law to protect their welfare. Many have fought and died for India. There have been Muslim Presidents, Chief Justices of the Supreme court and Chief Ministers of many states. Most Muslims in India did not ever want to migrate. They were happy where they were. That is why we have 170 million Muslims today, perhaps the second largest population of Muslims anywhere in the world. All the hullabaloo was created by a few League Muslims of Uttar Pradesh.

Going to Pakistan was an experiment with them. 'Let us go to Pakistan and see what happens'. That is why many have part of their families still in India.

@Futurist, Hindus still make 79% of the Indian population (You said 60%). It is not that bad as yet. :)

EternalWay said:
India annexing/keeping lands outside of its sphere of influence in the subcontinent has no interest for me.
India would never do that. We know there will be costs involved and hardly any advantage. We are not ready to pay the cost. We are not even trying to take back Pakistan occupied Kashmir, unless it falls in our bag by itself.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2017
204
USA
Why should you say that India has an advantage in the Indus water treaty, and where from it gets its so-called advantage. It is arrived after international arbitration and Pakistan signed it. Why should Pakistan have any problem with that? India would never renegade on its commitments, and India is totally correct to exploit the treaty while remaining within the provisions of the treaty. If Pakistan ever wants more than its share, then India would surely take corrective steps. However, I generally agree to the rest of your post.
Simple: India controls the upstream waters. India, by constructing dams and other irrigating works upstream, can affect the volume of water Pakistan receives further downstream.

The reason I noted this factor is because it is another example of the inequities between the two countries resulting from the Partition.

Muslims in India are not hostages, India has never viewed them in that way. They are completely the citizens of this country and we have the instruments of law to protect their welfare. Many have fought and died for India. There have been Muslim Presidents, Chief Justices of the Supreme court and Chief Ministers of many states. Most Muslims in India did not ever want to migrate. They were happy where they were. That is why we have 170 million Muslims today, perhaps the second largest population of Muslims anywhere in the world. All the hullabaloo was created by a few League Muslims of Uttar Pradesh.

Going to Pakistan was an experiment with them. 'Let us go to Pakistan and see what happens'. That is why many have part of their families still in India.
You did not understand my original post.

The "hostage theory" refers to a view held by the Muslim League/Pakistan early on that essentially meant (quoting John Keay) "fair treatment for your co-religionists in our country depends on fair treatment of our co-religionists in your country." I did not claim that Muslims in India were hostages.

Most Muslims overall indeed did not migrate, for Pakistan was too remote and alien to them (linguistically, ethically, etc), but many of those who strongly supported the demands of the ML, who resided in regions that were to remain in India (like UP and other parts of Northern India), and were not assuaged by the "hostage theory" (i.e. had a considerable fear of Hindu domination) preferred to migrate.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,755
SoCal
Simple: India controls the upstream waters. India, by constructing dams and other irrigating works upstream, can affect the volume of water Pakistan receives further downstream.

The reason I noted this factor is because it is another example of the inequities between the two countries resulting from the Partition.



You did not understand my original post.

The "hostage theory" refers to a view held by the Muslim League/Pakistan early on that essentially meant (quoting John Keay) "fair treatment for your co-religionists in our country depends on fair treatment of our co-religionists in your country." I did not claim that Muslims in India were hostages.

Most Muslims overall indeed did not migrate, for Pakistan was too remote and alien to them (linguistically, ethically, etc), but many of those who strongly supported the demands of the ML, who resided in regions that were to remain in India (like UP and other parts of Northern India), and were not assuaged by the "hostage theory" (i.e. had a considerable fear of Hindu domination) preferred to migrate.
FWIW, the Muslim percentage in what is now India fell from 12% to 9% as a result of partition. So, about a quarter of India's Muslim population emigrated to Pakistan during this time. So, Yes, most Indian Muslims stayed behind in India.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,755
SoCal
@Futurist, Hindus still make 79% of the Indian population (You said 60%). It is not that bad as yet. :)
The 60% figure was for a united India--specifically meaning an India that would have hypothetically still included both Pakistan and Bangladesh. 80% is correct for the territory that remained in India after the partition, but I wasn't talking about that here; rather, I was talking about the territory of pre-partition India here.

Partition really did do wonders for India's Hindu demography. Instead of being a small majority, they became a solid majority. Interestingly enough, the Hindu percentage in India in several decades is likely to be extremely similar to the Hindu percentage in British India in 1881. So, basically, as a result of lower Hindu birth rates, even with the loss of Pakistan and Bangladesh, India's Hindu % in 2050 or 2060 (76-77%) would be extremely close to what the Hindu % in British India was back in 1881 (75%). On the bright side, though, as Devdas previously said, India nowadays doesn't have many non-Hindu-majority territories--unlike British India.
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,739
New Delhi, India
Simple: India controls the upstream waters. India, by constructing dams and other irrigating works upstream, can affect the volume of water Pakistan receives further downstream.
The reason I noted this factor is because it is another example of the inequities between the two countries resulting from the Partition.

The "hostage theory" refers to a view held by the Muslim League/Pakistan early on that essentially meant (quoting John Keay) "fair treatment for your co-religionists in our country depends on fair treatment of our co-religionists in your country." I did not claim that Muslims in India were hostages.

Most Muslims overall indeed did not migrate, for Pakistan was too remote and alien to them (linguistically, ethically, etc), but many of those who strongly supported the demands of the ML, ..
The treaty mentions what % of water India can use, from which rivers and in what way (for irrigation or for generating electricity). India has never gone back on its word and will not do so in future.
River water treaty is with international arbitration, and just as we stick to our word, Pakistan should not expect more than what the treaty allows them to. More water than what is stipulated in the treaty goes to Pakistan and if India wants to correct the situation, it is within its rights.

That may be Pakistan's view, but it is not ours. What you mention as 'many' was really a 'minority' of Muslims in India. As you yourself say 'Most Muslims overall indeed did not migrate'. It is like the migration of Jews from India. We did not want them to leave or forced them to leave, but since they wanted to leave, what else could we do?
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,739
New Delhi, India
FWIW, the Muslim percentage in what is now India fell from 12% to 9% as a result of partition. So, about a quarter of India's Muslim population emigrated to Pakistan during this time. So, Yes, most Indian Muslims stayed behind in India.
"Based on 1951 census of displaced persons, 7,226,000 Muslims went to Pakistan (both West and East) from India while 7,249,000 Hindus and Sikhs moved to India from Pakistan (both West and East)."
Islam in India - Wikipedia

"Hindus comprised 306 million(84.1%) and Muslims were 34 million(9.8%) in 1951 census."
1951 Census of India - Wikipedia

That give me a total population of 41 million Muslims in India before partition (34 + 7), and also tells me that 17% of Muslims migrated from India (7 out of a total of 41) to West or East Pakistan. The number of Muslims going to Pakistan was necessarily less than 7.2 million.

Alhamdulillah (Praise be to Allah), he has made them productive and we now have more than 172 million of them in India (i.e., from 34 million to more than 172 million, by birth or by infiltration). :D
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,755
SoCal
"Based on 1951 census of displaced persons, 7,226,000 Muslims went to Pakistan (both West and East) from India while 7,249,000 Hindus and Sikhs moved to India from Pakistan (both West and East)."
Islam in India - Wikipedia

"Hindus comprised 306 million(84.1%) and Muslims were 34 million(9.8%) in 1951 census."
1951 Census of India - Wikipedia

That give me a total population of 41 million Muslims in India before partition (34 + 7), and also tells me that 17% of Muslims migrated from India (7 out of otasl 41) to West or East Pakistan. The number of Muslims going to Pakistan was necessarily less than 7.2 million.
17% isn't too far off from 25%--which was an educated guess on my own part. Also, by Pakistan, I meant within Pakistan's pre-1971 borders. So, including Bangladesh.

Allah has made them productive and we now have more than 172 million of them in India(i.e., from 34 million to more than 172 million, by birth or by infiltration). :D
But you also have much more Hindus as well! :) That said, though, the Indian Muslim percentage does appear to have increased from 10% to 14% over the last 60+ years.
 
Aug 2017
204
USA
The treaty mentions what % of water India can use, from which rivers and in what way (for irrigation or for generating electricity). India has never gone back on its word and will not do so in future.
River water treaty is with international arbitration, and just as we stick to our word, Pakistan should not expect more than what the treaty allows them to. More water than what is stipulated in the treaty goes to Pakistan and if India wants to correct the situation, it is within its rights.
Again, completely irrelevant to my original point.

That may be Pakistan's view, but it is not ours. What you mention as 'many' was really a 'minority' of Muslims in India. As you yourself say 'Most Muslims overall indeed did not migrate'. It is like the migration of Jews from India. We did not want them to leave or forced them to leave, but since they wanted to leave, what else could we do?
Why are we debating what we agree on?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,856
India
The 60% figure was for a united India--specifically meaning an India that would have hypothetically still included both Pakistan and Bangladesh. 80% is correct for the territory that remained in India after the partition, but I wasn't talking about that here; rather, I was talking about the territory of pre-partition India here.

Partition really did do wonders for India's Hindu demography. Instead of being a small majority, they became a solid majority. Interestingly enough, the Hindu percentage in India in several decades is likely to be extremely similar to the Hindu percentage in British India in 1881. So, basically, as a result of lower Hindu birth rates, even with the loss of Pakistan and Bangladesh, India's Hindu % in 2050 or 2060 (76-77%) would be extremely close to what the Hindu % in British India was back in 1881 (75%). On the bright side, though, as Devdas previously said, India nowadays doesn't have many non-Hindu-majority territories--unlike British India.
Except Jammu-Kashmir and Lakshadweep Islands, there is no Muslim majority territory left in India. Three states have Christian majority Nagaland, Meghalaya and Mizoram. Back during Pakistan movement, Punjab and Bengal were huge provinces with a Muslim majority and their huge population could push for partition, now a days Muslims are dispersed as minorities in almost all states less than 20% of the population except some like Kashmir, West Bengal, Assam, Kerala or Lakshadweep.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist