4 ms·

>We fought together to gain freedom and just drifted apart. A movement propped up on the idea of a "separate nation for muslims", fought hard for and achieved

>We fought together to gain freedom and just drifted apart. A movement propped up on the idea of a "separate nation for muslims", fought hard for and achieved with much violence and bloodshed is "just drifted apart" Wow !

anaganisk 3y ago
I don't know what you are trying to say here, but it didn't have to be violent and persist after too, that's exactly what I was saying by "drifting apart". If they felt safer as a separate nation to have their interests protected that shouldn't be the cause of bitterness. Jinnah and Nehru had both been adamant on their stances, former was proponent of federal governance while later a central. India had several bifurcation of states, it helped in better representation. Recent AP, Telangana state bifurcation was done after much violence, did they drift apart? Does an avg person of the 2 states have anything against each other now? That was exactly my point, for avg people they're just other people, we are constantly washed by propaganda to believe they're enemies.
- devsda 3y ago
  > Recent AP, Telangana state bifurcation was done after much violence, did they drift apart? Don't think it is right to equate the violence during the partition of India to the Telangana movement. The 1947 partition had violence where communities fought and attacked each other. The Telangana movement except for few minor instances in the very early stages post independence, was not directly against people from Andhra region. A major part of the casualties were during protests as a direct result of government action and self harm. There may have been general dislike for people from other region but I don't think it ever turned into enemity and hatred towards each other.
- kumarvvr 3y ago
  You are equating bifurcation of states for political & administrative reasons, within the same country, to splitting a country into two ! When a country is split, crimes committed against those who are migrating to another country will not be prosecuted by the home country, and will not be possible to be prosecuted by the split country. Land, Houses and other immovable assets will be stolen from those who are forced to leave respective countries. Rapes, looting and arson are rampant, on both sides. In the case of India and Pakistan, the division was on explicit religious lines. Islam has an outdated theology of being the only true religion and all other religions are false (as is Christianity). This theology forms the basis (whether that basis evolved later or is advocated by islam is a secondary issue) of the idea than non-believers can be treated inhumanely and are essentially no different from animals. In essence, Partition of India was not "drifting apart". It was a violent tearing apart of countries and communities. The origin was from the muslim community, whose political leaders realized that for them to seize power, a democratic setup with majority Hindu population will be impossible. So, to preserve their power and egos, they split the country, aided by pacifists like Gandhi and Nehru. To note, Pakistan has one of the most fertile lands on earth. Abundance of natural resources and a strategically important location. Also to note, the plan was to destroy Hindu civilization as a whole (a historical dream of Islam. Search google for Gazwa-e-Hind). Jinnah proposed a 10 mile wide corridor, cutting across the heart of India to allow road access to east pakistan (now Bangladesh) Partition of India is the manifestation of the idea of Gazwa-e-Hind. A strike at the Hindu India.
  - selimthegrim 3y ago
    Jinnah wasn’t religious and didn’t envision a theocratic Pakistan. He thought it would end up like England and Scotland with open borders.
  - EricHolden12 3y ago
    >The origin was from the muslim community, whose political leaders realized that for them to seize power, a democratic setup with majority Hindu population will be impossible. Or put in other words, muslims being a minority in India didn’t want to now have new rulers as India got independence from the British.
  - anaganisk 3y ago
    neither Gazwa-e-Hind nor Islam as one true religion was not cause or even ideas behind partition. And speaking about Gazwa-e-Hind, while conveniently ignoring Akhand Bharat, is pure propaganda. If you read about Jinnah in old school history books which unfortunately are being edited out by NCERT in India, he was never was religiously motivated. His idea was Muslim population would be a minority in Hindu controlled state, which wasn't far fetched, look at Indian politics right now, which runs on the basis of Muslim hatred. Also claiming things like Gazwa-e-hind(Ignoring Akhand Bharat) and Muslims believing in one true religion and then saying India is tolerant or Muslims and secular becomes an Irony. You can't run both ways. Also the violence during partition were on both sides, not just one side.
    - selimthegrim 3y ago
      He (Jinnah) also basically predicted exactly what would happen during Shah Bano case

anaganisk 3y ago

I don't know what you are trying to say here, but it didn't have to be violent and persist after too, that's exactly what I was saying by "drifting apart". If they felt safer as a separate nation to have their interests protected that shouldn't be the cause of bitterness. Jinnah and Nehru had both been adamant on their stances, former was proponent of federal governance while later a central. India had several bifurcation of states, it helped in better representation. Recent AP, Telangana state bifurcation was done after much violence, did they drift apart? Does an avg person of the 2 states have anything against each other now? That was exactly my point, for avg people they're just other people, we are constantly washed by propaganda to believe they're enemies.

devsda 3y ago
> Recent AP, Telangana state bifurcation was done after much violence, did they drift apart? Don't think it is right to equate the violence during the partition of India to the Telangana movement. The 1947 partition had violence where communities fought and attacked each other. The Telangana movement except for few minor instances in the very early stages post independence, was not directly against people from Andhra region. A major part of the casualties were during protests as a direct result of government action and self harm. There may have been general dislike for people from other region but I don't think it ever turned into enemity and hatred towards each other.
kumarvvr 3y ago
You are equating bifurcation of states for political & administrative reasons, within the same country, to splitting a country into two ! When a country is split, crimes committed against those who are migrating to another country will not be prosecuted by the home country, and will not be possible to be prosecuted by the split country. Land, Houses and other immovable assets will be stolen from those who are forced to leave respective countries. Rapes, looting and arson are rampant, on both sides. In the case of India and Pakistan, the division was on explicit religious lines. Islam has an outdated theology of being the only true religion and all other religions are false (as is Christianity). This theology forms the basis (whether that basis evolved later or is advocated by islam is a secondary issue) of the idea than non-believers can be treated inhumanely and are essentially no different from animals. In essence, Partition of India was not "drifting apart". It was a violent tearing apart of countries and communities. The origin was from the muslim community, whose political leaders realized that for them to seize power, a democratic setup with majority Hindu population will be impossible. So, to preserve their power and egos, they split the country, aided by pacifists like Gandhi and Nehru. To note, Pakistan has one of the most fertile lands on earth. Abundance of natural resources and a strategically important location. Also to note, the plan was to destroy Hindu civilization as a whole (a historical dream of Islam. Search google for Gazwa-e-Hind). Jinnah proposed a 10 mile wide corridor, cutting across the heart of India to allow road access to east pakistan (now Bangladesh) Partition of India is the manifestation of the idea of Gazwa-e-Hind. A strike at the Hindu India.
- selimthegrim 3y ago
  Jinnah wasn’t religious and didn’t envision a theocratic Pakistan. He thought it would end up like England and Scotland with open borders.
- EricHolden12 3y ago
  >The origin was from the muslim community, whose political leaders realized that for them to seize power, a democratic setup with majority Hindu population will be impossible. Or put in other words, muslims being a minority in India didn’t want to now have new rulers as India got independence from the British.
- anaganisk 3y ago
  neither Gazwa-e-Hind nor Islam as one true religion was not cause or even ideas behind partition. And speaking about Gazwa-e-Hind, while conveniently ignoring Akhand Bharat, is pure propaganda. If you read about Jinnah in old school history books which unfortunately are being edited out by NCERT in India, he was never was religiously motivated. His idea was Muslim population would be a minority in Hindu controlled state, which wasn't far fetched, look at Indian politics right now, which runs on the basis of Muslim hatred. Also claiming things like Gazwa-e-hind(Ignoring Akhand Bharat) and Muslims believing in one true religion and then saying India is tolerant or Muslims and secular becomes an Irony. You can't run both ways. Also the violence during partition were on both sides, not just one side.
  - selimthegrim 3y ago
    He (Jinnah) also basically predicted exactly what would happen during Shah Bano case