No partition of India

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,330
India
#31
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
The Pahadis and Madhesis of Nepal themselves have failed in the process of nation building despite sharing a very close sounding languages, identical writing system (Devanagari) and a common religion.

Ever Sri Lanka became independent, their main focus was to bring Sri Lanka under complete Sinhala dominance.
 
Feb 2015
2,038
UK
#32
I know there are reasons why Nepal, Sri Lanka or even Bangladesh are separate entities. What I was asking is I often hear that Islam ruptured Pakistan from India.

Well clearly other things have prevented dharmic dominated Hindu Nepal from being part of India. The only artificial thing here is the British colony. Therefore when it was wound down in 1947 things were bound to revert. They did. Anybody who keeps questioing 1947 is in fact legitimizing the British colony because it had defined the boundaries.

Fact is even without the Islamic factor Nepal and Sri Lanka are separate yet both are almost 90% Hindu/Buddhist countries. And you guy's know that Sri Lanka has 13% Indian Tamil's.

What this shows that South Asia would have had lot more countries had the British not come along. It also shows that even the Hindu region would have had separate countries as shown by Sri Lanka.

Finding reasons for this is besides the point. There are always reasons for any place on earth.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2016
1,637
India
#33
Well clearly other things have prevented dharmic dominated Hindu Nepal from being part of India. The only artificial thing here is the British colony. Therefore when it was wound down in 1947 things were bound to revert. They did. Anybody who keeps questioing 1947 is in fact legitimizing the British colony because it had defined the boundaries
.
OK so you are arguing that partition reverted the things to how they were in pre-British times. Well, I'm sorry to burst your bubble but there was no Pakistan back then, and no confederacy of Panjabis, Baluchis and Sindis. And most of Pakistan was ruled by Sikhs who were either killed or kicked out during the partition. I don't see how things reverted back.
Fact is even without the Islamic factor Nepal and Sri Lanka are separate yet both are almost 90% Hindu/Buddhist countries. And you guy's know that Sri Lanka has 13% Indian Tamil's.
They were not part of the British Indian Empire. Nepal was independent and Sri Lanka was a separate province. Republic of India did not inherit them. If they were a part of India, you and I both know they would not have caused anything like Partition.
What this shows that South Asia would have had lot more countries had the British not come along. It also shows that even the Hindu region would have had separate countries as shown by Sri Lanka.
Yes, there would probably have been more than one countries in South Asia
if the British had not come along. But I'm 100% sure Pakistan would not have been one of them. Even if ROI is artificial, you still can not deny the fact that Indian nationalism (based on Dharmic culture) is existent.
Yes Republic of India is artificial, but it is as much artificial as Pakistan and both of them are as much artificial as British India. Repeating again and again that it was British who united India does not disprove the fact that it was Islam which caused the partition, and it is Islam which is the sole reason for Pakistan's existence, not some Sindhi or Panjabi cultural pride.
 

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,609
USA
#34
I know there are reasons why Nepal, Sri Lanka or even Bangladesh are separate entities. What I was asking is I often hear that Islam ruptured Pakistan from India.

------
No other argument, other than Islam, makes any rational sense as to why Pakistan ruptured from India. The event occurred rather in very recent times, and the reasons for the partition are very well known, and published in several books. The actual partition line itself followed Muslim/Non-Muslim majority divide geographically. So why would one persist with other irrational arguments?
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,330
India
#35
I know there are reasons why Nepal, Sri Lanka or even Bangladesh are separate entities. What I was asking is I often hear that Islam ruptured Pakistan from India.

Well clearly other things have prevented dharmic dominated Hindu Nepal from being part of India. The only artificial thing here is the British colony. Therefore when it was wound down in 1947 things were bound to revert. They did. Anybody who keeps questioing 1947 is in fact legitimizing the British colony because it had defined the boundaries.

Fact is even without the Islamic factor Nepal and Sri Lanka are separate yet both are almost 90% Hindu/Buddhist countries. And you guy's know that Sri Lanka has 13% Indian Tamil's.

What this shows that South Asia would have had lot more countries had the British not come along. It also shows that even the Hindu region would have had separate countries as shown by Sri Lanka.

Finding reasons for this is besides the point. There are always reasons for any place on earth.
If Bangladesh is a separate entity, then it has more to do with a common religion failed to keep the country united, what Indians or British rule has to do with it when entire fault is with Pakistanis themselves. :lol::)

Sri Lanka has a Sinhala majority who are more into Sinhala Buddhist nationalism. Nepal was a kingdom who always wanted to stay as a kingdom until 10 years back.

Pakistan was created only and only on the basis of religion. Any other logic (like so called separate Indus identity) is not true.
 
Feb 2015
2,038
UK
#36
If Bangladesh is a separate entity, then it has more to do with a common religion failed to keep the country united, what Indians or British rule has to do with it when entire fault is with Pakistanis themselves. :lol::)
No idea what is so funny. Bangladesh existance confirms two thing. (i) That the concept of united India does not exist because Bangladesh did NOT coalesce into India after 1971. (2) That the idea of Muslim unity also does NOT exist by the fact that 1971 occurred.

So the idea of India has been shattered twice. In 1947 when the British colony cracked into two and post 1971 when it's original form has three splinters.

Sri Lanka has a Sinhala majority who are more into Sinhala Buddhist nationalism. Nepal was a kingdom who always wanted to stay as a kingdom until 10 years back.
Well, there are always reasons, like there were for Pakistan. However Nepal and Sri Lanka show that even if the countries have the so called "Indic" religions they continue to exist as separate religion.

Pakistan was created only and only on the basis of religion. Any other logic (like so called separate Indus identity) is not true.
True. However British India was created by a British trading merchants looking to make some profit. A quick summary is.

British India was created to make profit. Pakistan created because of Islamic nationalism. Sri lanka to use your words "Sinhala Buddhist nationalism and Nepal although being Indic religion to keep a king happy.

Oh at least the trading mark of the East India Company is lot nicer then Coca Cola Company. This is what created British India



If Coca Cola Company had created British India then we would have had the ignominy of being created by this

 
Last edited:
Feb 2015
2,038
UK
#37
No other argument, other than Islam, makes any rational sense as to why Pakistan ruptured from India. The event occurred rather in very recent times, and the reasons for the partition are very well known, and published in several books. The actual partition line itself followed Muslim/Non-Muslim majority divide geographically. So why would one persist with other irrational arguments?
True. But do you agree that British India was created by East India Company for profit? No profit, no rupture.

 
Dec 2014
1,491
autobahn
#38
No idea what is so funny. Bangladesh existance confirms two thing. (i) That the concept of united India does not exist because Bangladesh did NOT coalesce into India after 1971. (2) That the idea of Muslim unity also does NOT exist by the fact that 1971 occurred.

So the idea of India has been shattered twice. In 1947 when the British colony cracked into two and post 1971 when it's original form has three splinters.

Well, there are always reasons, like there were for Pakistan. However Nepal and Sri Lanka show that even if the countries have the so called "Indic" religions they continue to exist as separate religion.

True. However British India was created by a British trading merchants looking to make some profit. A quick summary is.

British India was created to make profit. Pakistan created because of Islamic nationalism. Sri lanka to use your words "Sinhala Buddhist nationalism and Nepal although being Indic religion to keep a king happy.




If Coca Cola Company had created British India then we would have had the ignominy of being created by this

Firstly, India never wanted them back. So there is no question of bangladesh dinot join India, it wasn't a question. India was diplomatically in a very isolated situation and could not stand expansion through war, which would be in this case the situation. but this won't matter to you I guess. Atleast we agree there is no Islamic nationalism. therefore pakistan is an artificial state held together by an army much like the Middle east states, only waiting to be broken.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,330
India
#39
No idea what is so funny. Bangladesh existance confirms two thing. (i) That the concept of united India does not exist because Bangladesh did NOT coalesce into India after 1971. (2) That the idea of Muslim unity also does NOT exist by the fact that 1971 occurred.

So the idea of India has been shattered twice. In 1947 when the British colony cracked into two and post 1971 when it's original form has three splinters.

Well, there are always reasons, like there were for Pakistan. However Nepal and Sri Lanka show that even if the countries have the so called "Indic" religions they continue to exist as separate religion.

True. However British India was created by a British trading merchants looking to make some profit. A quick summary is.

British India was created to make profit. Pakistan created because of Islamic nationalism. Sri lanka to use your words "Sinhala Buddhist nationalism and Nepal although being Indic religion to keep a king happy.

Oh at least the trading mark of the East India Company is lot nicer then Coca Cola Company. This is what created British India



If Coca Cola Company had created British India then we would have had the ignominy of being created by this

Again how is it India's fault or Britain's fault when Pakistan couldn't stop Bangladesh from separating. Nowhere during the course of Bangladesh's Independence war, India had even shown desire of unification of Bangladesh with India, its only delusion of Pakistan who invented these theories after the humiliation of 1971 war and Two Nation Theory getting drowned in Bay of Bengal.

As for Nepal it was independent kingdom who desired to keep its kingship intact and thus we came up with open border policy with Nepal. Infact, Nepal itself has failed to forge a strong nationalism with their two major ethnic groups- Pahadi and Madhesis.

And do tell if Coca Cola controls any territory or appoints a government general there. :lol::lol: You are also forgetting that non-British territory like Goa and Pondicherry also joined India.

Here is something extremely hilarious from the Pakistani textbooks.

A Text Book of Pakistan Studies claims that Pakistan "came to be established for the first time when the Arabs under Mohammad bin Qasim occupied Sindh and Multan'; by the thirteenth century 'Pakistan had spread to include the whole of Northern India and Bengal' and then under the Khiljis, Pakistan moved further south-ward to include a greater part of Central India and the Deccan'. [...] The spirit of Pakistan asserted itself', and under Aurangzeb the 'Pakistan spirit gathered in strength'; his death 'weakened the Pakistan spirit'." Jalal points out that even an acclaimed scholar like Jameel Jalibi questions the validity of a national history that seeks to "claim Pakistan's pre-Islamic past" in an attempt to compete with India's historic antiquity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistani_textbooks_controversy
 

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,609
USA
#40
True. But do you agree that British India was created by East India Company for profit? No profit, no rupture.
Originally strictly for profit, but as the company started to rule large tracts of India, its modus operandi changed to ruling and profit. Btw, this is not any different from the modus operandi of any ruling king of those times. Everyone was in it for the money.