Would Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims have been less radicalized right now had British India remained united?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,916
SoCal
Would Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims have been less radicalized right now had British India remained united in 1947?

I know that Pakistan and Bangladesh (but especially Pakistan) currently have a lot of problems with Islamic fundamentalism--with terrorist attacks happening frequently in Pakistan and with atheists being killed in Bangladesh and possibly Pakistan as well. Thus, I'm wondering if Pakistan and Bangladesh would have been better off right now in a scenario where they would have remained part of India after independence.

Any thoughts on this?
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,881
India
Would Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims have been less radicalized right now had British India remained united in 1947?

I know that Pakistan and Bangladesh (but especially Pakistan) currently have a lot of problems with Islamic fundamentalism--with terrorist attacks happening frequently in Pakistan and with atheists being killed in Bangladesh and possibly Pakistan as well. Thus, I'm wondering if Pakistan and Bangladesh would have been better off right now in a scenario where they would have remained part of India after independence.

Any thoughts on this?
Bangladeshis are considerably less radicalized than Pakistanis, it is shown in their writing system and patronage to Hindu poets and writers of Bengali literature. Even during British time, East Bengal/Bangladesh had more influence of socialism while West Pakistan was pro-feudal which continue to this day. But the Direct Action day against Hindus was initiated by Bengali Muslims.

Radicalization of Pakistan was started during the time of Ziaul Haq, who with the help of foreign funding started radicalizing Pakistan Sunni leading to more Shia-Sunni clashes and increased attacks against Sunni Muslims who follow Sufism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,916
SoCal
Bangladeshis are considerably less radicalized than Pakistanis, it is shown in their writing system and patronage to Hindu poets and writers of Bengali literature. Even during British time, East Bengal/Bangladesh had more influence of socialism while West Pakistan was pro-feudal which continue to this day. But the Direct Action day against Hindus was initiated by Bengali Muslims.
Why'd Bengalis start Direct Action Day in 1946?

Radicalization of Pakistan was started during the time of Ziaul Haq, who with the help of foreign funding started radicalizing Pakistan Sunni leading to more Shia-Sunni clashes and increased attacks against Sunni Muslims who follow Sufism.
What was his incentive in doing this, though?
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,881
India
Why'd Bengalis start Direct Action Day in 1946?
Before power transfer, election happened all over India in 1946, Congress had a landslide victory but Muslim League won in all Muslim majority provinces except NWFP. Congress was not agreeing for Pakistan, so Muslim League called for Direct Action Day on 16th August 1946 in Calcutta, public holiday was called by British governor of Bengal. Muslim League party workers assembled in Calcutta and after the inflammatory speech, the party workers started attacking Hindu neighbourhood of Calcutta, however Calcutta had a Hindu majority, so Muslims started the attack on Hindus but ended up being a victim in revenge attacks by Hindus. This incident is called Great Calcutta Killing leading to 5000 deaths in 3 days of rioting. This incident triggered the Pan-India Hindu/Sikh vs Muslim riots.

What was his incentive in doing this, though?
General Ziaul Haq was religiously leaning, he wanted to impose Sharia law. There was Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and Pakistan was ready to use Jihadi groups against Soviets with the help of West and Arab countries. The Shia Islamic revolution in Iran also alarmed the Sunni majority Pakistan about its spillover in Pakistan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist