No partition of India

Aug 2015
26
India
When I look at what goes on in threads involving India on this site, I have grave doubts about this.
Well your doubts are not too far away from reality. But thankfully those people are minority. Many on history forums are of these kinds, searching thier roots, proving thier superiority. Humans are bound to create differences and its very easy to incite hatred.
 
Jan 2016
1,637
India
What is so obvious is often overlooked. So it is with India. The name "India" has been around since antiquity. However along the way it has meant many things. The closest generic meaning you can attribute to it is that it referred to geographic space. It is as loose a concept as Asia has been along the timeline. To begin with it meant the far coast of the Aegean. Then Anatolia, then over time expanded to cover Japan. Today I find American's equating "Asia" with far eastern people.

So India is to be taken as a geographic tag like Balkans or even Europe as it is almost as large as Europe but with more diversity - ethnic, language familes and religion. From Tibeto-Burmans, to Iranics, to Indo-Europeans, to Dravidian, to Austro-Aboriginal, it has all them.

Below map of South Asia




Being unified has been exception than a rule. Even that unity was externally imposed. I always liken to how bunch of slaves coralled togather into a ship must have felt. Would that group be "unified"? Yes by external force. The only common thing about them will be they all share a master. As soon as they get freedom from that master they go their way. Naturally they might form some links whilst they are confined togather. Europe by comparison to South Asia is model of homogeneity.

To say India was partitioned suggests a unnatural event. This could not be farther from the truth. Partition was a small step back to the status quo that existed before the British came along. In unified was unnatural because it had come about through the ample use of bayonet, bullet against the "natives" by the British who did not want to be unified into India. Partition was blowback to pre British India and thus natural state of affairs minus external force.

I will demonstrate my point by looking at what is Pakistan now and how it was "attached" to British India in 1840s. THe opposite of this happened in 1940s when it was "detached" or as people say partitioned. In a sense 1940s was undoing of the British "attaching" of 1840s. The main differance is the attaching in 1840s was accomplished by British bullets, blood spilled both of natives and British where the natives expressed their desire to not wanting to join British India. They succumbed to it by British imperial force.

However the so called partition of 1947 was elective ( the natives choose ) and in doing so were erasing the forced conscription of their lands into British India in 1840s. The examples I give here also apply to rest of South Asia but I cover this because of my personal interest and knowledge of.



The conquest of Punjab - Battle of Gujrat 1849. 96 British dead. 2000 Punjabi/Afghans dead.

Source > Battle of Gujrat | Second Sikh War | Britannica.com







The forced conscription of Sindh - Battle of Miani 1843. 40 British dead. Possibly 2000 native Sindhi/Balochi dead.

Source > Battle of Miani | Sind-British conflict | Britannica.com












Therefore the 1947 "partition" (elective) merely reversed the 1849 unification (forced) yet I often see people finding the elective partition to be running against nature but the British imposed union of 1849 to be seen as natural.

The bottom line is British had united a entire sub continent by using ample force which the natives had resisted tooth and nail. In creating a British India was expression of British power. As soon as that waned the sub continent went the way it has always been for the greater time of recorded history. A disjointed, hotch potch of peoples often at war with each other and as often joining outsiders to beat their fellow sub continentals.

Therefore a state of order constructed by outside power could not last for long and as we know it did not. Had the British stayed on for longer the results would have been same.

I always find it rather funny and ironic how South Asian's sometimes in moments of loving exuberance say "British divide and rule". That is lie based on another lie. They ignore that to "divide" requires unity in the first place. They overlook who did the uniting. Battle of Gujrat 1849 or Battle of Miani 1843 are examples of unification being rendered by the British Empire.

The partition of 1947 undid both battles, Miani and Gujrat of 1849. Sindh and most of Punjab went their own way into a federation called Pakistan.

If the British had not done this in 1840s then speculating, I would say we would today have two independant states on the Indus River. Sindh and Punjab of sorts.
Although, I agree that Indians were rarely united under a single state but your post does not make any sense. The partition was on religious lines, not on ethnic lines. Pakistan was not made for Panjabis or Sindhis, but for Muslims. If the area of modern-day Pakistan was as much Hindu as inner India, partition would not have happened. All Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistani Panjab settled in Haryana and Indian Panjab and so did the Sindhi Hindus. They would not have come here if the partition involved "Sind and Panjab going their own way", as you have said. It was basically Hindus and Muslims going their own way. Republic of India is still a hotch-potch as you call it, and so is Pakistan. Partition would not have happened if all of Indians were Dharmic and were not following a middle-Eastern religion.
 
Last edited:

notgivenaway

Ad Honorem
Jun 2015
5,780
UK
hmm....you're Indian,and I know your country's history better than you do....this isn't something you can blame the British for (despite 70 odd years of independence...OK...) Religious violence has been around since Akbar, in ancient India, and up until the John Company/Raj.
 
Feb 2015
2,038
UK
Gentleman (ladies) in my previous posts I gave my reasoning and gave specfic referances with sources. Punjab or Sind were not part of India in 1840. Ten years later thanks to the sacrifices of many British soldiers both regions had been unified by force. The region coterminous to Pakistan had been press ganged into British India. Yes, unified by force. 98 years later in 1947 majorities in both provinces elected, yes elected to divorce the 1849 shotgun marriage. Look to Battles of Miani and Gujrat of 1849 to confirm how the natives resisted unification.

In a funny way most people here resent British rule but worship their creation - British India. They can't handle that the structure they (British) made was not handed over to them in toto. They fail to appreciate that it was a colony. A foreign made colony.

Leaving that asides I would like to put forth a question. Why is it they expect the people of four westerly provinces ~ Pashtun,Punjabi Muslim, Sindhi and Baloch to stay part of British made India? The argument being put forward here is that it was a religious issue. Maybe. But what of Hindu Nepal?

But can we ask these people to look at the facts below.

India - ~ 79.8% Hindu
Nepal - ~ 81% Hindu 9% Buddhist 5% Muslim
Sri Lanka ~70 Buddhist 13% Hindu

Source > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India
Source > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepal
Source > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka#Demographics

Why may I ask is Nepal not united with India considering it is more of Hindu country then India with 81% Hindu? Even most of the rest is made up of what you guy's call Dharmic cultures and religions? In fact Nepal and Sri Lanka appaer to be more Dharmic then India with Sri Lanka having 13% of it's ethnic group made up of Indian origin Tamils. Nepal is contigous with India.

So I ask why are these two countries not part of the "Greater India"? Instead why you guy's wail on about the partition (Punjab, Pashtuns, Baloch and Sindh going their separate way) which in fact was undoing of what Britain had artifically made. Surely if your argument carries any weight Nepal or Sri Lanka should have been subsumed into the Dharmic realm long time ago? Why not focus on them first?

The reason is simple. This is not about Dharma. It is not about India as there never was India before Britain came along. This is about the lust to inherit that jewel that Britain built. This is confirmed by the fact that you guy's seem to be only infatuated about the north westerly Indus region that broke away from the centralised British rule. Specifically Pakistan because most of the historical jewels went with it. Most of IVC, Gandhara Greek Kingdoms, Taxila, Sirkap, Harappa, Mohenjo Daro, Mehrgarh, Indus River etc. Minus the Indus region India does not have much history left. This is a sobering fact. Thus the crying about the 1947 "partition" which even today you guy's struggle to accept as fact. Most of ancient history is in fact Indus basin history.

This is where using terms like "Arabs", or that Pakistan will fall apart anytime hangs in the air. Non of these things is true. I would suggest you put where your mouth is and go after the Dharmic (Hindu/Buddhist) countries and integrate them first with Greater India begining with the No 1 Hindu country in the world - Nepal and then move onto Sri Lanka then Bangladesh as it is more culturally similar to India. Pakistan has huge numbers of Pashtuns who would sooner merge with Afghanistan then India. However nobody ever mentions Nepal or Sri Lanka because Britain chose to keep them out of their British India.

Anyway may I suggest the order of Integration based on Dharmic connections and culture be as below.

1. Nepal
2. Sri Lanka
3. Bangladesh.

After that your claims might just carry some currency as regards Pakistan.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2015
26
India
This topic is about why India was partitioned and what it needed to stay united. British were ruling Indian subcontinent, they choose not to include Nepal and Sri Lanka to be part of British India. People who are being ruled don't have much choices. Due to rise of nationalism and politics they choose to not be a part of India today but does not imply that they were not the part of Greater India historically. Its easy to divide but very difficult to unite. Pakeeza is arguing that Sindhi and Punjabi were forced to join with rest, but fails to explain why did Sikhs and Hindus in large numbers from Punjab, Sindh and other parts of Pakistan migrated to India. Why are Baloch, Pashtun, Sindhi and Punjabi living under one country?

As for what needed India to not be further divided was centralized intelligence which was impossible under foreign rule and literacy among masses which is yet to be found in the sub continent.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2014
1,493
autobahn
Gentleman (ladies) in my previous posts I gave my reasoning and gave specfic referances with sources. Punjab or Sind were not part of India in 1840. Ten years later thanks to the sacrifices of many British soldiers both regions had been unified by force. The region coterminous to Pakistan had been press ganged into British India. Yes, unified by force. 98 years later in 1947 majorities in both provinces elected, yes elected to divorce the 1849 shotgun marriage. Look to Battles of Miani and Gujrat of 1849 to confirm how the natives resisted unification.

In a funny way most people here resent British rule but worship their creation - British India. They can't handle that the structure they (British) made was not handed over to them in toto. They fail to appreciate that it was a colony. A foreign made colony.

Leaving that asides I would like to put forth a question. Why is it they expect the people of four westerly provinces ~ Pashtun,Punjabi Muslim, Sindhi and Baloch to stay part of British made India? The argument being put forward here is that it was a religious issue. Maybe. But what of Hindu Nepal?

But can we ask these people to look at the facts below.

India - ~ 79.8% Hindu
Nepal - ~ 81% Hindu 9% Buddhist 5% Muslim
Sri Lanka ~70 Buddhist 13% Hindu

Source > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India
Source > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepal
Source > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka#Demographics

Why may I ask is Nepal not united with India considering it is more of Hindu country then India with 81% Hindu? Even most of the rest is made up of what you guy's call Dharmic cultures and religions? In fact Nepal and Sri Lanka appaer to be more Dharmic then India with Sri Lanka having 13% of it's ethnic group made up of Indian origin Tamils. Nepal is contigous with India.

So I ask why are these two countries not part of the "Greater India"? Instead why you guy's wail on about the partition (Punjab, Pashtuns, Baloch and Sindh going their separate way) which in fact was undoing of what Britain had artifically made. Surely if your argument carries any weight Nepal or Sri Lanka should have been subsumed into the Dharmic realm long time ago? Why not focus on them first?

The reason is simple. This is not about Dharma. It is not about India as there never was India before Britain came along. This is about the lust to inherit that jewel that Britain built. This is confirmed by the fact that you guy's seem to be only infatuated about the north westerly Indus region that broke away from the centralised British rule. Specifically Pakistan because most of the historical jewels went with it. Most of IVC, Gandhara Greek Kingdoms, Taxila, Sirkap, Harappa, Mohenjo Daro, Mehrgarh, Indus River etc. Minus the Indus region India does not have much history left. This is a sobering fact. Thus the crying about the 1947 "partition" which even today you guy's struggle to accept as fact. Most of ancient history is in fact Indus basin history.

This is where using terms like "Arabs", or that Pakistan will fall apart anytime hangs in the air. Non of these things is true. I would suggest you put where your mouth is and go after the Dharmic (Hindu/Buddhist) countries and integrate them first with Greater India begining with the No 1 Hindu country in the world - Nepal and then move onto Sri Lanka then Bangladesh as it is more culturally similar to India. Pakistan has huge numbers of Pashtuns who would sooner merge with Afghanistan then India. However nobody ever mentions Nepal or Sri Lanka because Britain chose to keep them out of their British India.

Anyway may I suggest the order of Integration based on Dharmic connections and culture be as below.

1. Nepal
2. Sri Lanka
3. Bangladesh.

After that your claims might just carry some currency as regards Pakistan.
Nepal is a borderland between India and tibet. Just so you know Sikkim was integrated with India due to the dharmic connection. A good section of nepal, not a majority but especially in the border areas do like to be part of India. I hope that explains to you. Also Sri lanka has problems of it's own and I doubt even if sri lanka itself wanted India would let it join.
 
Jun 2012
1,780
chandigarh
Gentleman (ladies) in my previous posts I gave my reasoning and gave specfic referances with sources. Punjab or Sind were not part of India in 1840. Ten years later thanks to the sacrifices of many British soldiers both regions had been unified by force. The region coterminous to Pakistan had been press ganged into British India. Yes, unified by force. 98 years later in 1947 majorities in both provinces elected, yes elected to divorce the 1849 shotgun marriage. Look to Battles of Miani and Gujrat of 1849 to confirm how the natives resisted unification.

In a funny way most people here resent British rule but worship their creation - British India. They can't handle that the structure they (British) made was not handed over to them in toto. They fail to appreciate that it was a colony. A foreign made colony.

Leaving that asides I would like to put forth a question. Why is it they expect the people of four westerly provinces ~ Pashtun,Punjabi Muslim, Sindhi and Baloch to stay part of British made India? The argument being put forward here is that it was a religious issue. Maybe. But what of Hindu Nepal?

But can we ask these people to look at the facts below.

India - ~ 79.8% Hindu
Nepal - ~ 81% Hindu 9% Buddhist 5% Muslim
Sri Lanka ~70 Buddhist 13% Hindu

Source > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India
Source > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepal
Source > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka#Demographics

Why may I ask is Nepal not united with India considering it is more of Hindu country then India with 81% Hindu? Even most of the rest is made up of what you guy's call Dharmic cultures and religions? In fact Nepal and Sri Lanka appaer to be more Dharmic then India with Sri Lanka having 13% of it's ethnic group made up of Indian origin Tamils. Nepal is contigous with India.

So I ask why are these two countries not part of the "Greater India"? Instead why you guy's wail on about the partition (Punjab, Pashtuns, Baloch and Sindh going their separate way) which in fact was undoing of what Britain had artifically made. Surely if your argument carries any weight Nepal or Sri Lanka should have been subsumed into the Dharmic realm long time ago? Why not focus on them first?

The reason is simple. This is not about Dharma. It is not about India as there never was India before Britain came along. This is about the lust to inherit that jewel that Britain built. This is confirmed by the fact that you guy's seem to be only infatuated about the north westerly Indus region that broke away from the centralised British rule. Specifically Pakistan because most of the historical jewels went with it. Most of IVC, Gandhara Greek Kingdoms, Taxila, Sirkap, Harappa, Mohenjo Daro, Mehrgarh, Indus River etc. Minus the Indus region India does not have much history left. This is a sobering fact. Thus the crying about the 1947 "partition" which even today you guy's struggle to accept as fact. Most of ancient history is in fact Indus basin history.

This is where using terms like "Arabs", or that Pakistan will fall apart anytime hangs in the air. Non of these things is true. I would suggest you put where your mouth is and go after the Dharmic (Hindu/Buddhist) countries and integrate them first with Greater India begining with the No 1 Hindu country in the world - Nepal and then move onto Sri Lanka then Bangladesh as it is more culturally similar to India. Pakistan has huge numbers of Pashtuns who would sooner merge with Afghanistan then India. However nobody ever mentions Nepal or Sri Lanka because Britain chose to keep them out of their British India.

Anyway may I suggest the order of Integration based on Dharmic connections and culture be as below.

1. Nepal
2. Sri Lanka
3. Bangladesh.

After that your claims might just carry some currency as regards Pakistan.
The anti indian sentiments of nepal is pretty much a sentiment manufactured by the monarch of Nepal inorder to prevent nepal to go the way of sikkim,this anti Indianism is kept alive in Nepal for exact the same reason. Due to the dharmic Influence of India the nepal would integrate with India - Nepal Enjoys pretty much an open border with India for exact same reason - It was generally the nepalese of sikkim who were instrumental in integration of sikkim into India.

Sri Lanka was always distinct from India - It was never a part of pan Indian Kingdom - Including British India. India enjoys more afinity with bangladesh than Sri Lanka