It is not correct. More than 95% of Hindu population was either killed or fled from Pakistan. Where as mr. Nehru did not support similar action for the Muslim population in India.
Re: Nehru was to blame as Jinnaha
by jignesh narayan parmar on Aug 14, 2015 09:04 PM
AFTER INDEPENDANCE -- Jinnah knew that even hindus cant live unitedly -- and will keep on discriminating each other on the basis of language / caste etc - / also the Mughal rulers in the past haven't done any good deeds -- for hindus except looting and killing them and destroying their temples and religious places to a great extent -- Definitely there would be anger about the past -- which was wiped out after british ruls . Due to which india decided to go secular . ONLY FOR FEAR OF DISCRIMINATION he supported formation of 2 nation theory - He was right to certain extent -- As Kashmir ruler decided to merge with india - it was too late for him to decide and reply - till that time PAK troops had already occupied parts of Kashmir . We cant say that Nehru was wrong - BECAUSE HE COULD NOT TAKE ACTION UNLESS THERE WAS OFFICIAL PERMISSION AND DECLARATION FROM KASHMIR KING . The only solution to Kashmir issue is to FOLLOW the LOC sincerely to ensure peace for the people in the valley . Which pak is disturbing -- knowing they will never succeed . there by putting their own economy at a loss .
Re: Re: Nehru was to blame as Jinnaha
by a m on Aug 15, 2015 01:31 PM
Knowledge of such historical processes as well as data of actual events is too limited to permit scientific projection of alternatives. However going by empirical evidence the creation of Pakistan has been a very good thing for India, especially as the Pakistanis have chosen to follow a horrible murderous policy towards India. Religious bigots of the other community came under a pressure that kept them low while India created its new character of a practicing secular and modern democratic society. Though it is only an appearance and far from reality, it has kept Indians from the extreme backwardness of attitudes that Pakistan has consciously promoted in itself. This might not have happened without the pressure of Partition weighing heavily on the Constituent Assembly and the administrations of India.
In all probability the law of unpartitioned India would have had provisions like "any one found practicing or promoting equality between castes, religions, genders, and socioeconomic classes, or socialism, or egalitarianism in any form shall be liable to be executed for high treason".
In the long term what makes the difference is modernity versus backwardness of attitudes, not the supremacy of this or that community or religion.
Partition took place because both the leaders were crazy of becoming head of state. As is known for that "English plans 100 years ahead", English were certainly behind suggesting the partition. They prompted Mr Jinah on religion lines. All Indian communities fought for independence of united India regardless of religion/caste.Had there been united India, we would have lived unitedly. It is the partition which sew the seeds of communal difference by telling that we are different. The English had declared that this is the "Pakistan" & "Delhi is India" and there were 587 (or so) other states and each state was free to join either Pakistan or India or might remain independent countries.Most of the states joined Indian union willingly others followed.Without our knowledgde, English had already separated Burmah & Afganistan from India.They knew such division will create friction amongst communities and we will remain weak as they knew Indians (united) were hard working & intelligent and might grew into a strong nation very soon. Further, West Punjab (now west Pakistan) area was furtile and we had been exporting grains,sugar and cotton to the world and East Bengal (then East Pakistan and Bangla Desh) was producer and exporter of textile etc. By this division they wanted India to be economically weaker and helpless. Thus with one stone (division) they broke our backbone both politically and economically.
There is no pint in digging history as many unpleasant or non-contextual brilliance may appear. Can anybody unite and show that the division was really a black blow to the history?
Do not agree that only Nehru is responsible, two equation can anyone solve: 1. If we had got freedom in 1857 in revolt, India would have been in at least 10 independent parts. 2. If Britishers wanted to dis-integrate India into 5-10 parts, who was stopping them. As such in the given circumstances, a decision was taken which was best during this time. Ok one more - If division of India was not made, today total India would have been an Islamic country-no secular India anywhere.
We can keep blaming Gandhi n Nehru etc.. They have done the best at the given time n situation..and Jinnah unlike others was only his religion oriented . Though he was not hardcore religious he was more for his community to be separated.. But really how it worked is a wonder today, as the Moslems in India are more than Pak??the purpose of Pakistan formation from India for Moslem nation has not in reality happened!!
