Were there any territories in British India in 1947 that would have preferred to become independent states as opposed to a part of India or Pakistan?

Aug 2014
1,273
pakistan
Not a part of Afghanistan?
I gave a reply in accordance with your question. But if the option of joining Afghanistan was given, then yes they would have opted for Afghanistan. Afghanistan itself did not put forward any such demand (i think they were bounded by Durand treaty which they had affirmed several times). They supported an independent Pashtunistan state.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,784
SoCal
I gave a reply in accordance with your question. But if the option of joining Afghanistan was given, then yes they would have opted for Afghanistan. Afghanistan itself did not put forward any such demand (i think they were bounded by Durand treaty which they had affirmed several times). They supported an independent Pashtunistan state.
I wonder if a federation between Afghanistan and Pashtunistan could have been achieved in 1947 had Pashtunistan been allowed to form an independent state.

I know that Pakistani Pashtuns later became very well-integrated into Pakistani life, but I don't know if this was already the case back in 1947.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Azad67
Aug 2014
1,273
pakistan
I wonder if a federation between Afghanistan and Pashtunistan could have been achieved in 1947 had Pashtunistan been allowed to form an independent state.

I know that Pakistani Pashtuns later became very well-integrated into Pakistani life, but I don't know if this was already the case back in 1947.
Some thing like that might have happened.

Some Indianization of Pakhtunkhwa did happen under British raj. British promoted the use of Urdu in NWFP as opposed to Pashto and Farsi. And under them, Pashtuns heavily assimilated with India and participated in Indian politics. Moreover Deobandi Islam from U.P gained dominance in Pashtun belt of British India in early 20th century (which promoted Urdu and discouraged Pashto) and this set them apart from Afghanistan (Afghanistan had little or no Deobandi influence before 1980s-1990s). This facilitated their integration into Pakistan (which is basically Muslim India).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,784
SoCal
Some thing like that might have happened.

Some Indianization of Pakhtunkhwa did happen under British raj. British promoted the use of Urdu in NWFP as opposed to Pashto and Farsi. And under them, Pashtuns got integrated with mainland India and got involved in Indian politics. Moreover Deobandi Islam from U.P gained dominance in Pashtun belt of British India in early 20th century (which promoted Urdu and discouraged Pashto) and this set them apart from Afghanistan (Afghanistan had little or no Deobandi influence before 1980s-1990s). This facilitated their integration into Pakistan (which is basically Muslim India).
Makes sense.

BTW, did the interaction with Pakistani Pashtuns during the Afghanistan War in the 1980s cause Deobandi Islam to spread to Afghanistan?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Azad67
Oct 2015
1,138
India
@Azad67 : Can you please write a couple of paras on Deobandi school? Lots of material is available on it on the net. But your writing would better explain what it means in practice.

Thanks

Rajeev

PS: Idea is not to discuss here, but just a cursory understanding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Azad67 and Futurist
Aug 2014
1,273
pakistan
@Azad67 : Can you please write a couple of paras on Deobandi school? Lots of material is available on it on the net. But your writing would better explain what it means in practice.

Thanks

Rajeev

PS: Idea is not to discuss here, but just a cursory understanding.
I am not good at it but i will give it a try. As you know Dar-ul-Uloom Deoband is a madrassa founded in 1867 by Rashid Ahmad Gangohi and Qasim Nanautvi. But they also count Shah Waliullah (the one who is said to have invited Ahmad Shah Abdali to India), Shah Abdul Aziz (son of Shah Waliullah) and Shah Ismail (the one who waged Jihad against Sikhs in Peshawar along with Syed Ahmad Bareilwi ) as their ideological predecessors, so they share their early history with Wahabis of India (who are known as Ahal-i-Hadith in India). While Deobandis are Hanafis and refer to Hanafi school of Jurisprudence, Wahabis reject conformity to either of the four madhabs. The former adheres to sufism while the latter rejects it.

Inspired from Wahabism, Deobandis are against the innovations in Islam and this set them apart from other traditional Hanafis of South Asia who call themselves Bareilwis. While Bareiliws give semi-divine like status to the Prophet and say that his nature and composition was of "noor" i.e light ( divine light) and he is present every where, Deobandis say the Prophet was merely a human and he is dead. Deobandis say that Sufism is only for "khawas" (nobility of religion) while Bareilwis say its for khawas as well as awam (public).

The Jihadi movement of Syed Ahmad Bareilwi and Shah Ismail has great significance in the literature of Deobandis and Deobanids have produced all the major Jihadi activities in British times as well as in post-British times. All the Pakistani Jihadi organizations for Kashmir (except Lashkar-i-Taiba) were Deobandi. And the entire Taliban movement is Deobandi.
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,739
New Delhi, India
So, they are the source of trouble. But in India, I think, they align with the government. It is the Barelwis who differ. But yes, Muslim personal law (as defined by Indian Constitution) would see many changes in the next five years (starting with a bill on 'triple talaq' in the June session of the parliament).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Oct 2015
1,138
India
Which of the ruling dynasties have Pashtuns / Pathans have been associated in India subcontinent?

I can remember Sur dynasty and the Rohillas.

Thanks

Rajeev
 
Dec 2015
510
Middle East
I am not good at it but i will give it a try. As you know Dar-ul-Uloom Deoband is a madrassa founded in 1867 by Rashid Ahmad Gangohi and Qasim Nanautvi. But they also count Shah Waliullah (the one who is said to have invited Ahmad Shah Abdali to India), Shah Abdul Aziz (son of Shah Waliullah) and Shah Ismail (the one who waged Jihad against Sikhs in Peshawar along with Syed Ahmad Bareilwi ) as their ideological predecessors, so they share their early history with Wahabis of India (who are known as Ahal-i-Hadith in India). While Deobandis are Hanafis and refer to Hanafi school of Jurisprudence, Wahabis reject conformity to either of the four madhabs. The former adheres to sufism while the latter rejects it.

Inspired from Wahabism, Deobandis are against the innovations in Islam and this set them apart from other traditional Hanafis of South Asia who call themselves Bareilwis. While Bareiliws give semi-divine like status to the Prophet and say that his nature and composition was of "noor" i.e light ( divine light) and he is present every where, Deobandis say the Prophet was merely a human and he is dead. Deobandis say that Sufism is only for "khawas" (nobility of religion) while Bareilwis say its for khawas as well as awam (public).

The Jihadi movement of Syed Ahmad Bareilwi and Shah Ismail has great significance in the literature of Deobandis and Deobanids have produced all the major Jihadi activities in British times as well as in post-British times. All the Pakistani Jihadi organizations for Kashmir (except Lashkar-i-Taiba) were Deobandi. And the entire Taliban movement is Deobandi.
So now its official that Wahabism, which has been raping the middle east for the past century, is an Indian cult? This means that it is not india that should rid itself from middle eastern influence but instead the middle east should rid itself from indian influence. That is interesting.
 
Last edited: