What I learned about Partition

Published: July 4, 2013
SHARES
Email
The writer is a journalist in Delhi. His work has appeared in The Christian Science Monitor, The New York Times International Weekly, The Friday Times, Rediff, Hindustan Times, among other publications. He is a member of the South Asian team blog Kafila.org and tweets @DilliDurAst

The writer is a journalist in Delhi. His work has appeared in The Christian Science Monitor, The New York Times International Weekly, The Friday Times, Rediff, Hindustan Times, among other publications. He is a member of the South Asian team blog Kafila.org and tweets @DilliDurAst

Pakistani students have to read a course called Pakistan Studies; there is no such thing as “India Studies” in India. The burden of teaching Indian students about Indian identity thus falls on history, geography and civics textbooks.

I had to wait till college to satiate my curiosity about Partition because the history textbooks in school told me so little about it, such as that Jinnah was the villain of the event and so on. I was thus surprised that India’s new history textbooks for Class 12 (last year in school) that were made in 2005, spend 29 pages on Partition.

So, what is the new narrative? The chapter begins not with politics but three short oral testimonies written by an unnamed Indian historian doing research in Lahore in 1992.

In the first one, our man asks the librarian of the Punjab University library why he is so helpful to him. The librarian explains that the Indian was from Jammu, where an old Hindu woman had saved his father’s life during Partition violence. The librarian said he was repaying that debt. In the second story, a former staffer of the Pakistan High Commission in Delhi tells the Indian about asking a Sikh man in Delhi for directions. Then, the man introduced himself as Iqbal Ahmed from Lahore. At this, Sardarji exclaims, “Stop! Stop!” Mr Ahmed thought he’d be stabbed, but got a hug instead. It’s been years since I met a Punjabi Musalman, Sardarji explained.

The romance of these two stories is brought in check by the third one, in which the Indian researcher meets a Pakistani who goes cold and stops being cordial upon discovering he was talking to an Indian. Do your work and go back soon, he says, “You can never be ours. Your people wiped out my entire village in 1947.”

I’m startled to see that a government textbook has progressed so much that it begins talking about Partition with oral narratives, that too from 1992 and not 1947. In one go, it has told 17-year-olds the importance of oral history, introduced them to the idea of Partition as a continuing event and showed them how their own family narratives about Partition have a mirror image across the border. The chapter’s last four pages discuss oral history and its limitations in understanding the past.

Now, the chapter moves to a discussion on whether Partition can be compared with the Holocaust, and its impact on Hindu-Muslim and India-Pakistan relations. This is followed by questions, exploring the reasons behind Partition. This begins with a mild rebuttal of the two-nation theory and talks about Britain’s divide-and-rule policy, hardening of communal identities, prominently mentions the role played by the Arya Samaj and the Hindu Mahasabha, goes through the history of electoral politics between the Muslim League and the Congress, tells about the Lucknow Pact, the Pakistan Resolution, the growth of the RSS and so on. Most importantly, it avoids certitude and mentions what “some scholars” say and what “others argue”. This is not how I was taught history in school. It gives due space to describing how Jinnah saw something or how some event was taken by the Muslim League. The not-so-curious gap is the actual Partition negotiations, about which Pakistani nationalists and Indian right-wingers agree that the Congress’s obstinacy is to be blamed for Partition. It instead presents Partition as a fait accompli to the violence of the Muslim League’s Direct Action Day on August 16, 1946. It quotes Gandhi as “a voice in the wilderness” in opposing Partition. I wonder if students that young will question that if Gandhi’s was a lone voice against Partition, what were Nehru and Patel doing? Did they acquiesce to Partition and why?

It spends more space talking about what women went through during Partition; showing again how Gandhi’s was a lone effort in trying to stop the bloodbath, discusses how Partition was felt by north Indian Muslims as compared with those in Punjab and Bengal, and urges students to read Saadat Hasan Manto. Even if another government changes this text around one of these days, a whole generation of Indians will have learnt about Partition in the most progressive way possible in an Indian government textbook. You can read the chapter online.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 5th, 2013.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

Facebook Conversations

Reader Comments (146)

  • Babloo
    Jul 4, 2013 - 11:31PM

    History of partition, in government approved books, as taught in India is cherry picked, sugar coated and misleading at best. Let me ask a very fundamental question. Hindus and Sikhs made 22% of the population of W Pakistan and 30% in East Pakistan, before partition. Today they are 1.6% and 9% respectively. If that’s not genocide and religious cleansing , then what is ? Who and which ideology did that ? Population of Muslims in india in contrast has grown from 12% to 16%. Unless history books teach that they are only teaching lies.

    Recommend

  • Naveen
    Jul 4, 2013 - 11:38PM

    And the link is ->

    http://ncert.nic.in/NCERTS/textbook/textbook.htm?lehs3=5-6

    For the lazy hawks who keep posting brash things about others, I’ll just quote one of the paras that I found quite enlightening==>

    “India-haters in Pakistan and Pakistan-haters in India are both products of Partition. At times, some people mistakenly believe that the loyalties of Indian Muslims lie with Pakistan. The stereotype of extra-territorial, pan-Islamic loyalties comes fused with other highly objectionable ideas: Muslims are cruel, bigoted, unclean, descendants of invaders, while Hindus are kind, liberal, pure, children of the invaded. The journalist R.M. Murphy has shown that similar stereotypes proliferate in Pakistan. According to him, some Pakistanis feel that Muslims are fair, brave, monotheists and meat-eaters, while Hindus are dark, cowardly, polytheists and vegetarian. doubt that they were immensely strengthened
    because of 1947. Some of these stereotypes pre-date Partition but there is nodoubt that they were immensely strengthened because of 1947. Every myth in these constructions has been systematically critiqued by historians. But in both countries voices of hatred do not mellow”

    Recommend

  • Vakil
    Jul 4, 2013 - 11:38PM

    The sane sentiments apart (which are okay and well appreciated), I don’t really see the point of this article… yet another inane one from some stuff from the hoary past that does not serve to further anything practical for the times now and ahead…

    Recommend

  • someone
    Jul 4, 2013 - 11:42PM

    To author
    Could you please let me know which history books did you read where they said Jinnah was the villain? Which year that book was published? Was it an official syllabus book from NCERT?

    Recommend

  • BlackJack
    Jul 5, 2013 - 12:37AM

    Partition is not something that will be reversed, and with 20/20 hindsight, must be celebrated – however, this should not be at the cost of those Indian muslims who have no desire to be part of Pakistan or whatever it stands for. It is for that reason that I think it is commendable that young minds are not seeded with hatred and allowed to arrive at the truth themselves over time – this unvarnished truth is not present even in those textbooks that the author is gushing over or in the Pakistan studies curriculum which apparently inspires him (while the rest of the world learns history from, yep, history text books). It is also not a stand-alone piece that is separate from the rest of the sub-continent’s history, which leftists always love to ignore.

    Recommend

  • Arzoo
    Jul 5, 2013 - 12:44AM

    @Babloo: I have read the same statistics from you on several boards, repeating the same nonsense. Don’t you get tired repeating the same non-facts or are you trying to convince yourself of these figures? Partition involved transfers of populations from one part of India to another whereby a new entity called Pakistan came into being. Obviously quoting pre-partition population figures and then claiming genocide is an exercise in false logic. The Muslim population of East Punjab and West Bengal from India reduced in the same proportions. However, what is unfortunate is that the Hindus and Sikhs did not want the partition and had to move unwillingly from their ancestral land and that disturbs me. The Muslims wanted partition and moved willingly, at least most of them. The resulting mayhem and murder on both sides is something all the parties involved should be ashamed about in the same way as those who subjected the innocent Sikh community to murder and killings should be ashamed when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated because of a few bad apples. What we on both sides of the border need to learn is that before we are Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, or whatever, we are Humans and Neighbors and we should develop respect and tolerance of each other at least, if not love and brotherhood.

    Recommend

  • Yes
    Jul 5, 2013 - 12:49AM

    Indian history text books never manipulated anything . When I compare those things with Wikipedia or historian’s voice , I found that everything was true . But I also found that Indian text books explained it in a liberal manner , sometimes didn’t expose too much , just by overlooking things . This might be because at the age of 16 /17 , it’s not good to inject negative things in mind . Let him know once he grows old and mature.

    Recommend

  • Umm
    Jul 5, 2013 - 1:06AM

    @Naveen
    Why do you pitch your head against wall , by providing the link ? I want them to remain them in dark , which is somehow good for us and bad for them. We know our gov has tried to teach us the right history and even sometimes hides truth to not to inject venom into us at the age of 14 or 15.Now we all know what happened , why happened and how happened ? We should take pride in our society and history where people like Mr.Gandhi and Gautama Buddha who preached non-violence through out their life and Kings like Asoka became Buddhist .

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jul 5, 2013 - 2:23AM

    Some of the writers at Tribune are very well read. Some are just ignorant. If Shivam Vij’s knowledge of partition is any guide, he belongs to the latter group.

    Recommend

  • Rangacharya Kulkarni
    Jul 5, 2013 - 3:18AM

    @someone
    I agree with you. I never studied any text book which says Jinnah is a villain. I believe that the author is making the same point if you read carefully.

    Recommend

  • mahakaalchakra
    Jul 5, 2013 - 5:52AM

    @Babloo:

    Also, almost 99% Muslims living in the area now India voted for partition led by Jinnah while none of the Hindu & Sikhs living in the area now Pakistan ever supported the partition of their motherland where they had been living even before the advent of Islam in 7th century.

    However, only 15% of the Muslims living in the area now India, DECIDED to migrate to the area now callled Pakistan whereas almost all Hindu-Sikhs who had been living in now-Pakistan had NO CHOICE but to leave the their motherland and migrate to the area now India. The mere 1% population of Hindu-Sikhs in Pakistan today is the testimony of their fate in Pakistan (or even Bangladesh).

    Musilms living in the area now India were offered a choice by majority Hindus to continue to live in India while there was no such choice or support of Muslim majority to the Hindu-Sikhs then living in area now Pakistan.

    Recommend

  • Naveen
    Jul 5, 2013 - 10:44AM

    @mahakaalchakra:
    That’s another factual lie. Franchise was restricted, barely 10-12% people were allowed to vote and moreover people were never asked to explicitly vote for or against Pakistan formation. It was a leadership decision.

    Recommend

  • Ijaaz
    Jul 5, 2013 - 11:09AM

    @mahakaalchakra
    You say “almost 99% Muslims living in the area now India voted for partition led by Jinnah while none of the Hindu & Sikhs living in the area now Pakistan ever supported the partition of their motherland where they had been living even before the advent of Islam in 7th century”. So you mean to say that ALL Muslims voted? Or was there a nationwide vote that took place? Stop repeating the same oft spoken lies again and again. Stop making the RSS monologues as the only source of your information. My old father does NOT remember any such plebiscite taking place anywhere (outside North India, I am not sure about North India as we are Karnatak Muslims and we do not know what may happened in the north). And he traveled extensively in south central and western India to sell his wares. And when you say “Hindu & Sikhs living in the area now Pakistan ever supported the partition of their motherland where they had been living even before the advent of Islam in 7th century” do you mean that we “came from outside??”. We have been living in the coastal communities in Karnataka even before the mughals came to India. And remember the partition was mostly a phenomenon of the North-West and the East. I recently traveled to the Punjab region and there I was stunned to see hardly any Muslims in the society. Punjab, Haryana has less than 2% Muslims. Where did they all go? Punjab is not a poor state like UP/Bihar so dont tell me they may have relocated to Mumbai/Delhi/Bangalore/Pune. They have been all but moved to present day Pakistan whether they liked it or not. Nobody asked them if felt good leaving their memories and in many cases their belongings, their lands, their wealth behind. And many perished, many were raped and sold as slaves. Just as it was happening on the other side of the (present day) border. So it went both ways.

    ET: Please publish my comment. I am trying to create a broader understanding of this thing here. You have no qualms publishing borderline rude and sarcastic comments yet you have not published many of my sensible comments. That is strange.

    Recommend

  • Sinclair
    Jul 5, 2013 - 11:15AM

    “a whole generation of Indians will have learnt about Partition in the most progressive way possible in an Indian government textbook”

    History, if taught correctly, will be presented in an ambivalent, equivocating voice. Which is what makes it such a boring thing to study – there are no true endings! Progressive history is no history – even if it is a re-telling of the most recent events. Its just another form of bias. Let me say that the textbook itself is not biased (progressive or any such), just incomplete.

    Also, when I pick up my old text books and read them 20 years later, I actually learn a lot than I ever had then. Says a lot about the quality of teachers. When students are at an age when they cannot teach themselves, what use is a textbook going to be – if there is a teacher who does not know how to communicate it? Something that our progressive friends need to think about. Focus more on technology than NCERT. Private enterprise instead of public planning.

    Recommend

  • Lala Gee
    Jul 5, 2013 - 11:26AM

    @Babloo:

    “Hindus and Sikhs made 22% of the population of W Pakistan and 30% in East Pakistan, before partition. Today they are 1.6% and 9% respectively. If that’s not genocide and religious cleansing , then what is ?”

    I’ve never come across such a closed minded personality so blinded with hate. Despite being corrected on numerous occasions by many of the readers about the correct figures and the real reasons for the decline of Hindu’s and Sikh’s population percentage in the current Pakistan, you always come up with the same old lies. I have repeatedly challenged you to provide any reference of their genocide ever occurred in Pakistan in any of the human rights watchdog’s report, but you never responded. While the reality is there was never a single incident of genocide ever occurred in Pakistan, which is the reason for the non-existence of any such report, however, there are dozens of reports published by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International on the pogroms and massacres committed by Indian Hindu majority against their minorities, e.g. Sikh’s massacre of 1984, and Muslim’s pogroms of Ayodhya, Bombay, Gujarat, and Indian Occupied Kashmir.

    Remember Buddhists used to be 40% of India’s population during their peak and are now only 0.2%. Similarly Jains were 10%-15%, who are now only 0.3%. Unlike the mass genocides committed by Hindus in the medieval times which reduced the population of Buddhists and Jains near to zero, nothing of the sort ever happened in Pakistan. Hindu’s and Sikh’s population in the current Pakistan was only around 10%, that is roughly 3.7 million, not 22% which you quote. Most of them, around 2.5–3 million, migrated to India at the time of Partition, as did the 10 million Muslims who migrated from India to Pakistan. After this population swap their percentage came down to merely 2.7%. ((3.7-2.5)/37+10-2.5). Now the population of Muslim have jumped from 44 million to 180 million since 1947, and after adjusting for the differences of population growth rates of Muslims (2.15%) and Hindus+Sikhs (1.6%), their percentage population seems to be marginally reduced despite their actual population tripled during these years.

    N.B.: Some historians claim their population around 15% in the West Pakistan at the time of Partition, but then they also claim 4.5 to 6 million migrated to India after Partition.

    Recommend

  • Jul 5, 2013 - 12:02PM

    The thing which is never said, which is true, to a certain extent is how true Two Nation Theory is. It is good that young people are not exposed to such divisive theories in India. But, Pakistan has no such hesitation, for obvious reasons, and it has given rise to a whole generation of people who associate themselves to being a Muslim and claim Arab heritage, than associate themselves to India, where their Grandparents grew up.

    This generation names their missiles on invaders who invaded and looted India!

    Now, back to my point – TNT is the popular reason for the Partition, another was the fear of the Muslim Feudals and Landowners that Nehru will implement his Land Reforms, the first wave of which was implemented as early as in 1950! Pakistanis never learn about this. They never learn how the 2 most powerful people after Jinnah were of the Feudal class!!! How Jinnah merged his party with well-known Land Reform opposing party, filled with, surprise surprise – Feudals!

    India doesn’t own up TNT for the right reasons, Pakistan does for some really disastrous reasons.

    You don’t create nations based on theories which divide man, or you will end up with nations like Pakistan.

    Recommend

  • Ace
    Jul 5, 2013 - 12:51PM

    @Babloo:
    Get your facts straight.

    Just because the population of non-Muslims in Pakistan (only counting West Pakistan) has gone down from 22% to 4%, that doesn’t mean there’s been a concerted effort ‘cleansing’ the minorities.

    After partition in 1947 many Muslims left India and came to Pakistan, the same way many Sikhs and Hindus left Pakistan and moved to India, in fact more Muslims left India, than non-Muslims left Pakistan.

    West Pakistan has always historically been predominantly Muslim.

    Since the 1980s many non-Muslims have immigrated outside Pakistan just like many Muslims have, for economic reasons.

    Parsis have remained in Pakistan, because they are the most successful minority here, they run many businesses and schools, the main reason why most Pakistani Christians live in poverty is because most of them descend from lower caste hindu converts, so they were poor to begin with, it’s hard for anybody in Pakistan(Muslim or non-Muslim) to go from rags to riches because we aren’t a developed country.

    Most of the high caste Hindus in Pakistan do well, unfortunately the low caste are poor because of the economy, and because is not a welfare state that pulls out it’s people from poverty.

    Recommend

  • mind control
    Jul 5, 2013 - 2:37PM

    @Lala Gee:
    I have repeatedly challenged you to provide any reference of their genocide ever occurred in Pakistan in any of the human rights watchdog’s report, but you never responded.

    If you have the time and the inclination please refer to The Punjab Bloodied, Partitioned and Cleansed by Ishtiaq Ahmed (of Pakistani origin), to understand the nature and the extent of the genocide.

    Coming to specifics Lahore City had 28% Hindus and 5% Sikhs as per the 1941 census, Lahore District as a whole had 17% Hindus and 18% Sikhs. (Chapter 6-Page 161 ibid).

    Multan City had 39.41% Hindus (page 198 ibid) , and Rawalpindi had 33.72% Hindus and 17.32% Sikhs (page 211 ibid).

    Can you give me the current population statistics please, adjusted for lower rate of growth, of course.

    Unlike the mass genocides committed by Hindus in the medieval times which reduced the population of Buddhists and Jains near to zero,

    Now that you have more reference than you perhaps care for, can you give me some reference to Budhist ‘Genocide in the medieval times’, please.

    Recommend

  • omz
    Jul 5, 2013 - 3:22PM

    partition was a mistake. look where India is today, and then look where we are. we traded in some Muslims being mistreated by hindus, to Muslims massacring other Muslims (which happens in our country today). Jinnah is probably rolling in his grave looking at all of this.

    Recommend

  • Addressed to Babloo
    Jul 5, 2013 - 3:28PM

    Express Tribune: Please publish my comment! It is derived from much hard work and research

    Babloo, your facts are ” ALL WRONG

    For some time now the idea has been floated that Pakistan’s minorities have seen a dramatic and large scale cleansing post partition, that has seen numbers fall drastically to the pitiful level they stand at today. Some commentators have latched onto this idea to promote a comparison with our large neighbour to the east, which has shown an increase in its minority population, to suggest that Pakistan embarked on a religious genocide.
    This is totally false.

    While I will be the first to condemn the ill treatment of our Hindu, Christian and Sikh bretheren, the facts simply don’t affirm the “21% to 3%” theory. In 1941 the areas that now compose modern day Pakistan had a population that was 20.9% Non-Muslim. This population was largely found in Punjab (West) and Sindh, which were 24.6link text and 28.6link text percent Hindu/Non-Muslim respectively. At partition, it was mutually agreed by Pakistan and India in the interests of peace, to carry out a facilitated population exchange in Punjab, which was being divided and wracked by violence. This led to the removal of nearly all Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan Punjab, and Muslims from Indian Punjab. Therefore the number of Hindus/Sikhs in Punjab fell to nearly 0%, while the retention of Christians meant that 2.77% of the population was still Non Muslim.

    In Sindh, rioting led to a fall in the mainly Hindu Non Muslim population to about 6.5%. Indian Punjab’s Muslim population plummeted to 0.3% (later increasing to 1.2% post trifurcation), while Gandhi’s intervention led to some Meo Muslims remaining in modern day Haryana (another testament to his greatness). Some also remained in Malerkotla, a Muslim principality whose royal family migrated to Pakistan in 1947. Nevertheless Indian Punjab was just as brutally ”cleansed” as its Western counterpart.

    Now in the first census of Pakistan, held in 1951, Non Muslims formed an astonishing 15% of the population. Why? Because East Pakistan, then counted in the census, had more than half the population of the country and a Hindu minority of nearly 23%! In West Pakistan, the population was a solid 97% Muslim as early as 1951.The oft repeated statement that Pakistan has been perpetually reducing its minority population since partition is wholly untrue. The percentage of Non Muslims has remained steady since Pakistan’s creation (at least in the erstwhile Western wing).

    After Bangladesh’s separation, subsequent censuses have shown the minority Hindu population at 1.6% and Christians at 1.6% respectively. This is very much in line with statistics from 1951. In fact, in terms of numbers alone, the Hindu population has exploded – from 700,000 in 1947 to around 2.4 million, an increase of nearly 4 times. However, unlike India, where the Muslims have a higher fertility rate leading to an increase in the Muslim share to almost 13% today, Hindus in Pakistan have a fertility rate roughly equal to others in their region (rural Sindh).

    The fact is that ”Pakistan” was never 21% Non Muslim. The bulk of its Non Muslimpopulation was lost in a religious cleansing that encompassed both sides of the Punjab region, in August 1947, Punjab being home to roughly half of Pakistan’s population even today. Sindh has remained 6.5% Hindu.link text In fact, if anyone is guilty of a ”cleansing”, it is Bangladesh. From its days as East Pakistan to today, it has seen a huge fall in its Hindu population. At separation from Pakistan, its Hindu minority stood at 15%, which is down to 9% today. link text All statistics can be affirmed by Indian census of 1941, Pakistan census 1951 and Pakistan census 1998.

    Recommend

  • amit
    Jul 5, 2013 - 4:02PM

    @Lala Gee:
    first read from history book who are responsible for end of buddhism in india than comment here

    Evidence in literature suggests that in 1193, the Nalanda University was sacked by[11] Bakhtiyar Khilji, a Turk.[12] Muslim conquest in India is seen by scholars as one of the reasons of the decline of Buddhism in India. The Persian historian Minhaj-i-Siraj, in his chronicle the Tabaqat-I-Nasiri, reported that thousands of monks were burned alive and thousands beheaded as Khilji tried his best to uproot Buddhism[13] the burning of the library continued for several months and “smoke from the burning manuscripts hung for days like a dark pall over the low hills.”
    Ahir considers the destruction of the temples, monasteries, centres of learning at Nalanda and northern India to be responsible for the demise of ancient Indian scientific thought in mathematics, astronomy, alchemy, and anatomy.

    desline of buddhism in india

    Recommend

  • Dr Kadar Khan FRCS
    Jul 5, 2013 - 4:11PM

    What a breath of fresh air…Fact based historical narrative based on real life experiences.
    No wonder future generation of Indians would be enlightened, savvy, tolerant and understanding of the issues around Partition as compared to their pakistani counterpart. This also raises doubts about the Two Nation Theory violently propagated by Muslim League.

    What a shame, we pakistanis have murdered the history and poisoned our minds with the vitriolic hatred taught in our text books against our neighbour.

    This is for Free Download, MURDER OF HISTORY BY K K AZIZ

    http://www.worldoffiles.net/link-f-m/murder-of-history-by-k-k-aziz‎

    Many thanks

    Dr Kadar Khan FRCS

    Recommend

  • jun
    Jul 5, 2013 - 4:21PM

    partition of India one of the biggest blunder in the history of mankind

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jul 5, 2013 - 4:56PM

    For people who doubt my numbers regarding methodical and sustained action against HIndus and Sikhs, I suggest study the 1941 census reports of all districts of Pakistan, from Punjab to Sindh. If what you say , about equal rioting in Pakistan and India is true, then how come Muslim population in India , in 1951 census, did not fall like the non-muslim population in Pakistan, as compared to 1941 census ? The statistical point I am making is that Pakistan did a complete expulsion and cleaning of Hindu/Sikhs while statistically rioting in India, except for Punjab, was small and insignificant. That’s the truth. Regarding genocide of HIndus and Sikhs in Pkaistan, you can read first hand eye-witness account by a cabinet minister in Mr JInnah’s cabinet, Mr Joginder Nath Mondal, who resigned from the cabinet and fled for his life to India in 1950 after witnessing and testifying to the genocide. To compare millions killed to a 2-day of rioting in India, in which 1 or 2 thousand people died , is an act of deceit.

    Recommend

  • Lala Gee
    Jul 5, 2013 - 5:32PM

    @mahakaalchakra:

    “Also, almost 99% Muslims living in the area now India voted for partition led by Jinnah”

    Only if lies could replace and blind hatred could take over true history.

    “while none of the Hindu & Sikhs living in the area now Pakistan ever supported the partition of their motherland where they had been living even before the advent of Islam in 7th century.”

    I can tell you with great confidence that the ancestors of more than 95% of the current population of Pakistan, including myself, were among those who used to live on this land before the birth of Islam. Only they accepted Islam later, and that act does not make them foreigner at once, and a reason for expulsion from their mother/home land. Not every Muslim in the sub-continent came from Arabia, Iran, or Turkey.

    Musilms living in the area now India were offered a choice by majority Hindus to continue to live in India while there was no such choice or support of Muslim majority to the Hindu-Sikhs then living in area now Pakistan.

    Then how 5.5 — 6 million Hindus are still living in Pakistan?

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jul 5, 2013 - 5:36PM

    @Addressed to Babloo,
    You are comparing 1951 census figures to today’s , while I am comparing 1941 census figures to today. Even by your 1951 census figures, which show 15% of population of Hindus in East and West Pakistan, its now 5 % of the population of Pakistan and Bangladesh. So from 1951, 15% to 5% today, is testimony to the sustained repression, expulsions, discrimination leading to conversion. The state legally and constitutionally discriminates against its non-muslim population. Regarding what happened , at a state sponsored level , between 1947 and 1951, you may like to read the resignation letter of Pakistan cabinet minister, Mr Joginder Nath Mondal. Here is the link.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/35444787/joginder-nath-mandal-pdf.
    You will cry if you read this letter.

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jul 5, 2013 - 6:09PM

    @Mr Lala Gee,
    You want me to compare what happened in Indian punjab , which makes at best 5% of Indian territory and population, to what happened in 100% of Pakistan. That would be deceitful and dishonest. My numbers compare changes in demographics by religion, all over India to all over Pakistan, following 1947 partition.
    In fact both 1941 census figures and 1951 census figures, if compared to census figures from Bangladesh and Pakistan today, clearly support what I have said.

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jul 5, 2013 - 6:19PM

    I am indebted to Tribune, for listing the link to the resignation letter of Mr Joginder Nath Mondal, labor minister ( 1947-50) in the Liaqat-Jinnah cabinet. Let facts speak for itself. It must be read by all who want some first hand account of what really transpired in 1947-50 period and how the religious demographics so stunningly changed in Pakistan as compared to India , where overwhelming majority of muslims continued to live.

    Recommend

  • Gp65
    Jul 5, 2013 - 6:24PM

    @Naveen, @mahakaalchakra

    Both of you are partially correct. Indeed elections prior to 1947 were not on the basis of universal suffrage as @Naveen says. But unlike what he says there was indeed a plebiscite o n the Pakistan question. This plebiscite was however restricted to Muslim majority areas and hence most of present day. India did not have such a plebiscite.

    @LalaGee

    Now that @mind control has provided references to what Hindu and Sikh genocide from a Pakistani source, please provide a reference to your repeated assertion that Buddhism went down due to genocide by Hindus. Which Hindu kings did this according to you?

    The fact is that part from a military assault on Biddhism by khilji there was a large Bhakti movement which made Hinduism accessible to the masses and finally the debates between Shakaracharya and the Buddhist monks are all considered as factors that led to decline of Buddhism.

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jul 5, 2013 - 6:32PM

    Many people commenting here, don’t understand how majority of Hindus view Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism. For over-whelming majority of Hindus, these Indic religions, are branches of Hinduism. So Gautama Buddha ( or Siddharth ) is our lord. Mahavira ( of Jains ) is our lord too. So are the Sikh Gurus , hailing from families of Hindu punjabis, our gurus too. There is mutual respect and tolerance.

    Recommend

  • 1984
    Jul 5, 2013 - 7:28PM

    @Lala Gee:
    Lala Gee’s strikes again…..I’m still waiting for the links or the book references from you which authenticates your theory of Buddhist genocide….

    I dont know how long will you keep parroting the same text again and again and then try to divert the topic by taking personal potshots at me……In fact,you are just copy pasting the same stuffs,which leads to asking a question “ARE YOU TROLLING US?”

    Recommend

  • Ali Tanoli
    Jul 5, 2013 - 7:28PM

    @Babloo sahib,
    We know and believed at least I believe that Jainism,sikhism,budhism,hiduism, are one reliegen different names and its cleard many times any way what I am trying to say if u like it u can come and live in Hazara Pakistan we don’t mind we still have some hindu brothers living in hazara.

    Recommend

  • ashok
    Jul 5, 2013 - 7:31PM

    @Lala Gee:

    Fact of the matter is not more than 15% Muslims living in the area now India CHOSE to migrate to the area declared Pakistan (West and East) while they overwhelmingly (say more than 90% in north and eastern part of undivided India which had BULK of Muslim population) supported partition of India in 1946.

    On the other hand, Hindus and Sikhs living in the area now Pakistan in 1946 had no hand in the creation of Pakistan and almost none supported the partition while almost 85% of them were FORCED to migrate.

    Mahakaalchakra did not question why your ancesters converted to Hinduism under the unrelenting plunder and pillage of invaders from Afghanistan and Arab areas. All he claimed that those HINDUS and SIKHS who were living in the area now Pakistan in 1946 had been living in the same areas since advent of Islam.

    By your argument you have supported what Mahakalcharka had claimed in her post. It was the very act of supporting the creation of Pakistan based on Islam with movements like DIRECT ACTION OF AUGUST 1946 followed by massive violence, made Hindus and Sikhs living in the area now Pakistan highly fearful, insecured and foreigners in thier own land and thus forced expulsion from thier own motherland.

    ET please publish my post in response to LalaGee’s false agruments.

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jul 5, 2013 - 7:33PM

    For Pakistanis to understand, why Hindu/Sikh demographics of Pakistan changed so dramatically and not so for Muslims in India, at and after partition, one of the examples to compare is Delhi and Karachi. Neither was part of Punjab or Bengal and both were seats of power.
    In just Delhi and its suburbs today, the number of Muslims is comparable or more than the enitire population of Hindus in Pakistan. Dramatic. Isn’t it ? But how so ?
    Indian Congress leaders, Gandhi , Nehru and others , put there lives and politics at stake to protect the Muslims. That’s how overwhelming majority of Muslims in and around Delhi ( and India ) survived while the Hindus of Karachi perished in a most brutal way. What happened in Indian punjab and all of Pakistan, did not happen in 90-95% of India.
    Instead of spending time trying to contradict me , it would be more useful to study the politics of Congress and Muslim League, on the question of religion and see what the consequences were.

    Recommend

  • Moon Rashid
    Jul 5, 2013 - 7:47PM

    One of the key factors that is being missed either by deliberate ignorance or a lack of knowledge on macro political strategies implemented across various colonies of the British empire; is the notion of divide and conquer briefly touched upon by the author of the article.

    The point being, the sanction and implementation of the partition was solely conducted by the British. Now let me ask everyone, who gave British the right to conduct this process in the first place? Can anyone provide an example of where the British empire’s exit strategy did NOT involve a long term conflict in the colonies they left behind? Why would the British spend such a concerted effort in this process when all they had to do was handover either democratically or via a dictatorship?

    I guess one argument is the British did not want to see progression in their departing colonies as they represent an economic threat. Another answer could be the defence capabilities that both India and Pakistan now boast against one another could have potentially been diverted to their historic oppressors as time went on i.e. The British….

    Whichever the case, Jinnah and Nehru were pawns to the British that could be utilised to create a hero and distribute power to the loyalty of their subservient agents albeit they belonged to well respected backgrounds. Just like any modern day politician seen in majority of so called democratic nations we see in the world today.

    I wish all subcontinent could wake up and put behind this silly and hugely costly partition debate and focus their energies on creating prosperity as a whole region rather than individuals because this is exactly what the British wanted from day 1 and they are still just sat back laughing at our misfortunes…

    Recommend

  • ashok
    Jul 5, 2013 - 7:53PM

    @Ijaaz:

    An overwhelming majority of Muslim resided (and still reside) in 1946 in the northern and eastern areas of undivicded India such as UP (then united province), Bihar, East and West Bengal, Undivided Punjab, Delhi, Hydrabad of Nijam (MIM is still a force in Hydrabad).

    Muslims living in south India were not in a significant numbers compared to north India and were very far off from the high concerntration of Muslim population in the north and east India. Culturally also they were different from URDU speaking Muslims of UP, Punjab and Bihar.

    One can safely say that an overwhelming majority of Muslims living in the area now India supported Jinnah’s call for the creation of sepate state for Muslims in 1947 and at the same time an overwhelming majority of Muslims who supported the creation of Pakistan decided to stay in the area now India.

    Recommend

  • Addressed to Babloo
    Jul 5, 2013 - 7:55PM

    Sir, did you take the time to read my comment? You are very rigid in your hatred – I believe in facts and love.

    Punjab composes 56% of the Pak population. The vast majority of the non Muslim population was concentrated there. You are already aware that there was a facilitated population exchange in Indian and Pakistani Punjab. Pakistan Punjab was left 2.7% Non Muslim. Indian Punjab was left 0.3% Muslim.

    Pakistan is composed of Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan and Pakhtunkwa. Balochistan and Pakhtunkwa had tiny non Muslim populations. After the mutual population exchange, Pakistan had no source of Hindus or Sikhs to replenish its non Muslim population.

    India had UP, as well as the entire South, which was not affected by partition violence. India is around 6 times larger in population than Pakistan. The complete removal of all Muslims was impossible. Have you ever considered this?

    Had you actually taken the time to read my statistics, you would have seen that that 15% population was because of East Bengal. West Pakistan has always been 97% Muslim.

    The question you should be asking is why Bangladesh, that secular paradise your nation freed in 1971, has seen its Hindu population fall from 15% to 9%.

    **You Sir, are making factually incorrect posts. I hope you see the error of your ways and pose these important questions to those responsible for the the prolonged reduction of minority population – Bangaldesh. Not Pakistan. This is the wrong country and forum to be asking these absurd questions.**

    Jai Hind, Pakistan Zindabad, Joy Bangla. May we all live in friendship and harmony soon, and Bury forever the vitriol of 67 years.Recommend

  • Jul 5, 2013 - 8:09PM

    @Moon Rashid:

    “Whichever the case, Jinnah and Nehru were pawns to the British..”

    Nehru? The same guy who fought the British non-violently, who was in British jails for 9 years of his life?

    Nehru did no wrong. He would not compromise of his vision of India, if someone wanted to break it, they were allowed to do so.

    Nehru did what was right for India, what was needed. No regrets.

    Jinnah was too not acting on British wishes, I think. He wanted Pakistan, he was ambitious, used the opportunity when it presented itself. He used the communal card beautifully. His descendants have surpassed him,in his Pakistan, I am afraid.

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jul 5, 2013 - 8:09PM

    @Naveen,
    The division of India was fully supported by Muslims of India. Overwhelmingly so. Why deny that ? The crucial 1945-46 provincial elections, which were throughly communalized by Indian Muslim League of Jinnah and fought on the demand for Pakistan ,saw for the first time, Muslim League candidates win against Muslim Congress candidates in Muslim seats.
    Before 1946, Congress used to do very well in seats reserved for Muslims, as Muslim congress candidates would defeat muslim muslim-league candidates.

    Here I quote the numbers from Blogspot.

    http://shahzaibku.blogspot.com/2012/12/1946-elections-british-india.html

    Communal Strategy:

    The 1945-46 election campaign was also conducted by Muslim League with a patently communal strategy to which was added skillfully the question of class oppression. In the Muslim majority provinces trade and commerce were dominated by Hindus while most Muslims were agriculturalists, many of whom were debt-ridden. On the other hand, most of the big landlords were also Muslims. The indebted landowners and peasantry of sindh were convinced by the Muslim League that the debt burden incurred to Hindu money-lenders would be cancelled if they supported the PAKISTAN idea.

    Congress:

    The Congress on the other hand stood on two exactly opposed slogans:
    1. The congress represented all Indians
    2. India would remain one undivided country.

    ..
    General Elections:

    Muslim League:

    The hard work of the League Members showed a great result and the Muslim League swept polls in India. The results clearly showed the division of the assembly between the Congress and the Muslim League. The Muslim League won every single Muslim seat, the “Nationalist Muslims forfeiting their deposits in many instances”.6 The Muslim League won 86.6 percent of the total Muslims. Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah congratulated the Muslims of India for the tremendous victory and termed it as the biggest achievement in the way of Pakistan.

    Congress:

    Congress had spectacular victory in the non Muslim constituencies. Congress got 91.3 percent of the total general votes. The central Election Board of the Congress issued a bulletin on 6 January 1946, in which it claimed that the election results has vindicated the Congress as “The biggest, strongest and the most representative organization in the country”.7
    The final figures for the central Assembly were:
    Congress: 57
    Muslim League 30
    Independents 5
    Akali Sikhs 2
    Europeans 8
    [ Total: 102]

    So 86.6% of Indian Muslims voted for Jinnah’s Pakistan demand in 1946 ( even if say 25% of the electorate voted, in statistical terms , its a very large sampling size , good enough for 99.9% accuracy, if you understand statistics )

    Recommend

  • MSS
    Jul 5, 2013 - 8:10PM

    @author, Sixty five years have passed since partition. This kind of article should be only for academic discussion if at all, and not for ET.
    People of both countries should live the present and plan for a amicable future. Pakistan’s lies will be unmasked only by enlightened Pakistanis and the digital age will help them as they progress. India’s lies (in real short supply) will also be brought out the same way. The long winded discussions above only spoil the atmosphere.

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jul 5, 2013 - 8:14PM

    @Ali Tanoli,
    I respect your sentiments. If majority of Muslim league politicians and people who voted for them believed what you say, history would have been very different and better for all people of south asia.

    Recommend

  • Ali Tanoli
    Jul 5, 2013 - 8:21PM

    @Babloo
    Its easy to understand Punjab, Bengal devided so all the tragedies happened there unlike other part of india or present Pakistan so why u comparing or wanna kills innocent peoples living in those area they had nothing to do with this partition whether Hindus or Musalman.
    and can we forget or atleast ignored it for sake of our children future.

    Recommend

  • Addressed to Babloo
    Jul 5, 2013 - 8:22PM

    Babloo, this is the third comment addressed to you.

    Hindus of Karachi perished in the most brutal way? Does Shakespeare write for the RSS website now? Where do you get this information?!

    Karachi is in Sindh. Sindh underwent communal riots but Karachi is still home to 100,000 Hindus.

    Before writing such heart wrenching albeit ridiculous comments, ask yourself who and where Danish Kaneria is from. Also ask yourself why Juhi Chawla came to Karachi recently to visit her Uncle.

    I’ve told you in the second comment, which ET hasn’t published yet, Pakistan is: Sindh, Punjab, Balochistan, Pakhtunkwa. Balochistan and Pakhtunkwa had hardly any non Muslim population. Sindh and Punjab underwent communal riots. India is a big place. The South and much of UP were spared of communal riots and therefore provided a ready supply to replenish and help the Muslim population, with a higher fertility rate, to grow.

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jul 5, 2013 - 8:33PM

    History of partition, by that I mean the most common narrative, in India and Pakistan, is built on lies, in face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

    Official India lies because it does not want the non-Muslims in India to get angry at the demographic annihilation of non-muslims in muslim majority areas carved out at partition. It believes that by brushing harsh facts under the rug, will lead to communal harmony.

    Pakistan lies because it wants to absolve itself of the religious demographic consequences ( which I have termed as genocide ) of the politics of Muslim League and also to justify the politics of Muslim league before and after partition.

    True reconciliation sprouts from a bed of truth.

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jul 5, 2013 - 8:42PM

    @Addressed to Babloo,
    Its your contention that’s baseless and born out of fiction. Why should I compare only Indian and Pakistan Punjab and not all of India to all of Pakistan in terms of demographic changes as a result of partition ? Was Sindh partitioned ? What happened there ? Its you who wants selective comparisons.

    The other lie you are perpetrating is “facilated population exchange”. There was no expectation before partition, that such violent riots will break out and as such there was no official facilitation or exchange. However everyone could see that while the Congress wanted India for all religions, Jinnah was fighting for a Muslim majority state And if you are desirous of any such population exchange then that should include all of India and all of Pakistan. Lies couched in words of love are still lies. Truth , even if bitter, is still the truth.

    Recommend

  • gp65
    Jul 5, 2013 - 8:43PM

    @Addressed to Babloo: For the most part your last post on Punjab has validity. However you are excluding Karachi. Karachi had an over 50% Hindu/Sikh population and Liaqat Ali pushed them out. The plight of Hindus from Bengal before 1971 especially between 1947 and 1951 is also is something you need to consider.

    As far as secularism in Bangladesh – it is a very recent phenomenon. I any case India has never claimed that it intervened in 1971 for secularism. It intervened because it did not have economic capacity to support the unending millions that were escaping te Operation Searchlight and fleeing to India. Bangladesh continued to remain an Islamic nation for decades after it attained nationhood.

    @Naveen: It is true that elections in pre-independance India were not based on universal suffrage. At the same time there WAS a referendum on the issue of Pakistan. It wasn’t throughout India and was restricted to the Muslim majority portions of undivided India.

    @Author: Not sure which textbook you read which villified Jinnah. The history books part of my Maharashtra matric curriculum completely ignored the Pakistan movement. Since you have brought the issue up, would it not have been fair to say what was the point at which Patel and Nehru agreed to the partition? IT was when the Cripps mision recommendation mirrored the Muslim League demands which would not have given one person one vote to every Indian and given special privileges to the Muslims.

    In any event, I disagree with you that there was any need to revisit the partition in the Indian history textbooks. Halfbaked infromation (as the informaion you indicated appears to be) is worse than no information. People who have no information, can get the right information from internet if interested. Since partition is fait accompli and has no chance of getting reversed, it does not need to be included in the curriculum.Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jul 5, 2013 - 8:50PM

    @Addressed to Babloo,
    Your time would be better spent reading the resignation letter of Joginder Nath Mandal, the labor minister in the Jinnah-Liaqat cabinet of 1947-50, to which I have provided a link, to see how the genocide of Hindus unfolded in all of Pakistan, from Chittagong in the East to Sindh in the west.
    The statistics of 1941, 1951 census and today, speak for themselves.
    Regarding Karachi, you can read from the same letter how Hindu Sindhis were killed there with official complicity.

    Recommend

  • np
    Jul 5, 2013 - 8:50PM

    @Addressed to Babloo: “Karachi is in Sindh. Sindh underwent communal riots but Karachi is still home to 100,000 Hindus.”

    This is a true statement. But consider the fact that over 50% of Karachi’s population was Hindu pre 1947 and then compare that to 100,000 out of 18 million. I think the numbers speak for themselves and support @Babloo’s conclusion better than they support your conclusion.

    What happened in BEngal during 1947-51 should also be part of that equation.

    Recommend

  • Rahul
    Jul 5, 2013 - 8:54PM

    @Moon Rashid:
    You have hit the bull’s eye. Infact throughout the Post-1857 British rule- To Hindus, British were projected as the ones who liberated them from Muslim Raj while for Muslims, British were projected as the bulwarks against upcoming Hindu Tyranny. But then again, We people are so self-obsessed with our little world that even after 70 years of getting rid of British, a good many of us buy this Oriental ‘Hindu V/S Muslim’ version of History (whose sole purpose was to guard the British Raj). In a sense, The Raj hangover still lives on.

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jul 5, 2013 - 8:57PM

    @Ali Tanoli,
    I appreciate your sentiments for reconciliation.
    However , the explanation of religious demographic change is not so simplistic. In West Bengal, the population of muslims , as a % of the population of W Bengal, has actually increased since 1947. In East Bengal ( now Bangladesh ) , the population of Hindus has decreased from 30% in 1947 to 9% today.
    How do you explain that ?
    I am all for reconciliation but not based on lies. You have to acknowledge that what happened to Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan, in demographic terms cannot be compared to what happened to Muslims in India. The facts , in fact , are polar opposites , perhaps because the dominant politics of India and Pakistan , were polar opposites.

    Recommend

  • Rahul
    Jul 5, 2013 - 9:00PM

    @Babloo:
    Would you please stop spamming. You are not listening to the other side. Some of the Pakistanis on this page have presented decent refuttal to your claims, while you continue to rant on. If we would have had 40% of our population coming from Punjab (as is the case with Pakistan) then surely we would have had a demographic shock as well.

    Recommend

  • Addressed to Babloo
    Jul 5, 2013 - 9:03PM

    You are really hopeless. Knowledge is your worst enemy. Give me a response to my second post addressed to you, if you can.

    Repeating one percentage over and over without looking at the context as I have gone to pains to show you proves that you are unworthy to talk about lies or overwhelming evidence.

    Go open a shrine to Godse or join the VHP or Shiv Sena. You will find a ready audience for your absurd, illogical and pitiful “evidences”

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jul 5, 2013 - 9:07PM

    @Addressed to Babloo,
    What you are saying is that religious riots happened in only those areas where Muslims were in a majority or significant minority , like all of Pakistan.
    However In places from UP to Maharashtra, from Gujrat, Rajasthan to Orissa to Delhi if Hindus were in a clear majority, large scale communal riots did not happen while they were happening against Hindus and Sikhs , all over Pakistan.

    Is that not the same point I am making ? Truth is irrepressible.

    Recommend

  • Addressed to Babloo
    Jul 5, 2013 - 9:28PM

    Communal riots against Muslims did occur all over India. Read about the brutal riots against Bantva Memons in Gujarat for instance. Huge riots occurred in Lucknow and Delhi.

    India, however, had 6 times the population of Pakistan, and many areas far away from the Hindu heartland or Pakistan. These areas provided a large pool of Muslims who had a high fertility rate. The Muslim population therefore grew.

    Pakistan did not have this benefit. Bangladesh, your Indhira Gandhi’s product, did. From 1971 to today, it’s Hindu population has fallen from 15% to 9%. So why are these comments pointed at Pakistan?

    Stop talking about truth or knowledge. Just say you dislike Muslims up front. You are trying to say riots only happen where there are Muslims – maevellous logic. I thought there were no Indian Zaid Hamids.

    Recommend

  • khan
    Jul 5, 2013 - 10:12PM

    The fact are the Hindu leader ship was using the Muslims and Sikhs just for their own goals which were to replace the British power setup with a Hindu power setup and never wanted democratic setup for India when this became clear to Mohammad ALI Jinnah he decided to protect the Muslim interest and Hindu leadership accepted the division of India in order to have absolute power which they thought was not possible with such large Muslim population. Actual date of partition was “JUNE 1948”, but the evil conspiracy hatched by the British Govt and the Hindu Congress brought it back to 14 Aug. 1947 and used the Sikh community to massacre the innocent Muslims. Till the 17th of Aug. 1947 Ferozpur and Gurdaspur districts were part of PAKISTAN but the paramour of Lady Mount Baton “Jawahar Lal Nehro” influenced her to revise the partition plan as India had no way to the Kashmir Valley except from Pathan Kot and if those districts were to be included in Pakistan, India wouldn’t have gotten control of Kashmir. Pakistani Flag flew there for three days and after that the Indians took control of the area and as per their plan they killed millions of Muslim women, children and men and raped thousands of Muslim women and killed them, many of the families who migrated in misery killed their own daughters and sisters to avoid such a treacherous and brutal act, Thousands of women committed suicide and thousands were kidnapped by Sikhs and were never recovered. Yes there were killing of Hindus and Sikhs also in the area of Pakistan and their women were also raped by Muslim men but it was after the Muslim women told them how they were raped by Hindus and Sikhs mobs and people of Pakistan received trains full of dead bodies arriving at the Lahore Railway Station. But it was in absolutely in no proportion to what was done by Hindus and Sikhs. Think about this very short story of the atrocities committed by the Hindu and Sikh Mobs.

    Recommend

  • mahakaalchakra
    Jul 5, 2013 - 10:16PM

    @Addressed to Babloo: Please correct basic of your research. Muslim population in India according to 2001 census was 13.4% and in 2011 census, no such percentage break up has been given by the government for obvious reason. Google Census India. Many Indians are of the opinion that Muslim percentage has reached almost 18% (NOT 13% AS FOUND IN YOUR RESEARCH ABOVE) of the total population of India in 2013. This makes India the country with largest Muslim population which CONgress government does not want to be publicized openly.

    I once read a paper published in USA claiming that government of India has recent years made a delibrate decision to under-report the population of Muslims in India to avoid the controversy over tens of millions of illegal Bangladeshi who have been living in India and act as a vote-Bank for NON-BJP parties.

    Recommend

  • yes
    Jul 5, 2013 - 10:33PM

    Partition had been accord . what is the truth? I agree that the governments of both side should take some positive and fair steps according the history , so that, the new generation could get good awareness about partition. but the thinkable thing is that now the governments of both side should do something so that instead creating the hater between people of both side should remain come down and cooperate with each other as good friends and neighbors. both countries are suffering many social problems . now they should ignore past and should do something good to tackle the problems which are being faced by them……………………

    Recommend

  • Naveen
    Jul 5, 2013 - 10:44PM

    @gp65:
    First of all, Haven’t you moved over to America? Atleast allow those who are left behind to live peacefully, instead of continuing to war over trivial matters such as their faith. A strange trend that I have noticed on internet forums is that while Pakistani expat Muslims settled in West, side with progressive Liberals of their country; Indian expat Hindus settled in West, side with regressive Hindu nationalists elements of their country (whose vision for future India have little to no base in India herself under normal circumstances).

    Next, There was NO All India Referendum ON Pakistan, there were isolated referendums after partition on the issue of whether a particular province or princely state should join India or Pakistan and by and large (above 99%) Indian Muslims were not part of that process as it took place in mainly in parts that now constitute Pakistan and Bangladesh (NWFP, Sylhet for example) or parts of India (Junagarh) where muslims are a tiny minority.

    PS: I am not expecting any change in your or babloo’s view here.Objective non-Communal analysis of History is not everybody’s game and is not possible at a latter stage of life. It is just that I have to clear the air for all the anonymous impressionable minds who are not posting but sitting on the fence waiting for somebody to post facts, instead of merely perpetuating the stereotypes that I’ve already quoted.

    Recommend

  • gp65
    Jul 5, 2013 - 11:01PM

    ET Mods: I am sharing facts neutrally and yet many of my posts on this subject have been filtered. Please allow.

    @Rahul: I completely understand what @Addressed to Babloo is saying but I disagree. To say that Punjab was the only province in Pakistan where Hindus and SIkhs were driven out is simply untrue. He/she ignores Karachi where according to 1941’s census, there were 51% Hindus, 43% Muslims. Rest of the 6% were Parsis, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Jains & Bahais.’ http://criticalppp.com/archives/75927 According to his own admision Hindu population is down to 100,000. When you consider the fact that these people had continued to live in Karachi despite multiple waves of Islamic attacks but vacated it in the 3 years between 47-50, then the notion of facilitated exchane falls quite flat. Another thing is East Bengal and what happened there to Hindus. FInally those that say that Hindus/Sikhs living in Sindh were not impacted just like Muslims in UP/Bihar were not impacted either do not know the facts or are deliberately lying. Here is an OpEd in Tribune by a Pakistani author about what happened to Hindus in Sindh. It is not from some RSS pamphlet as implied by those that are trying to run down @Babloo. http://tribune.com.pk/story/388663/who-orchestrated-the-exodus-of-sindhi-hindus-after-partition/.Recommend

  • gp65
    Jul 5, 2013 - 11:14PM

    ET Mods: SOmeone has attacked me personally and that too falsely. Please allow a fact based response.

    @Naveen: “@gp65:
    First of all, Haven’t you moved over to America? Atleast allow those who are left behind to live peacefully, instead of continuing to war over trivial matters such as their faith. “

    I was providing information that directly related to the content in the OpEd and rebutting some inaccurate claims you and @Addressed to Babloo made. I also provided little more context to the cherry picked facts provided by the author.

    I have not in the past warred over faith nor do I intend to do so in the future..In fact my opinion (which I had also expressed in the post that you have criticized) is that there is no need for Indian history books to discuss partition at all – how does that amount to war mongering? You would be unable to find a single post by me where I advocate war. Forget war, I do not even support death penalty because I consider life sacred.

    If you cannot defend your facts, do not make personal attacks. Where I live is irrelevant. What is relevant is the content of my posts which are factual in nature.Recommend

  • Addressed to Gp65
    Jul 5, 2013 - 11:18PM

    Firstly: Very well put, @Naveen. I’m happy, overjoyed in fact, to learn that there are progressive, leftist, non communal Indians on ET. Kudos.

    Now Gp65, what a horrendous and factually incorrect statement to suggest that there was an all India referendum on Pakistan that only Indian Muslims or Muslim regions were allowed to participate in. Where did you read this lie? Link please.

    The assemblies of Punjab and Bengal voted to join Pakistan. The Non Muslim members of the Assembly and Muslim members then held separate sessions. The Non Muslim members of both assemblies voted to partition the provinces rather than have both Punjab and Bengal enter Pakistan in their entirety. Referendums were held in NWFP and the Sylhet district of Assam that were in favour of joining Pakistan.

    Also, although this is debatable, I feel partition became inevitable after the Cabinet Mission and coalition government failed (1946). The Cripps mission was actually sent in 1943. The Cabinet Mission arranged India into a loose confederation of 3 groups of Provinces. Nehru wanted a strong centre and the rift was unbridgeable.

    Finally, are you truly suggesting that Indian children not be taught about partition? If this happens, their knowledge of history may turn out as horrendous as your own. Please, spare them!

    ET: I am offering a factually correct rebuttal to Gp65. Kindly allow

    Recommend

  • np
    Jul 5, 2013 - 11:26PM

    @Naveen:
    @gp65 said there was no universal referendum but just in areas with Muslim majority. In the post where you attacked her you also say there was no universal referendum and yet the tone of your post makes it appear as though you are contradicting her.

    I read her post multiple times but I do not see any war mongering. In fact she appears to be suggesting that there is no need to discuss this issue in text books.

    Her post seemed to be factual and directly related to points made by the people whom she addressed. You on the other hand have personally attacked her without rebutting any of her facts. So please reflect – who is the war mongerer here.

    Recommend

  • gp65
    Jul 5, 2013 - 11:37PM

    Please allow response to someone who has written to me directly and who is misrepresenting what I said.

    @Addressed to Gp65: “Now Gp65, what a horrendous and factually incorrect statement to suggest that there was an all India referendum on Pakistan that only Indian Muslims or Muslim regions were allowed to participate in. Where did you read this lie? Link please”.

    Here is what I said. “At the same time there WAS a referendum on the issue of Pakistan. It wasn’t throughout India and was restricted to the Muslim majority portions of undivided India

    Where exactly did you read that I said there was an all India referendum? The truth is I never said that. It is only @Naveen who attacked me personally who is putting words in my mouth to that effect..Recommend

  • Addressed to Gp65
    Jul 5, 2013 - 11:40PM

    Babloo does indeed have a point about Karachi.

    However, Karachi is one city. Punjab is 56% of Pakistan. The facilitated population exchange took place in Punjab, where the governments and armies of both nations helped one another exchange Muslims and Non Muslims. I know people who arrived in Pakistan on Indian Army trucks. Read Khushwant Singh’s Train to Pakistan.

    Babloo was suggesting a religious genocide and a reduction in Pakistan’s minority population that he was attempting to compare with India’s increase in Muslim population, which given India’s size both in terms of area and population, was unwarranted and wrong. He also made borderline communal and again, factually incorrect points, again and again. As did you – please respond to my earlier message directed at you.

    A question, btw, for anyone with an answer: If an Indian immigrates to the US, doesn’t he/she hand in his/her Indian passport and nationality? …. Yes Gp65, call that a potshot, but I am wondering.

    ET: Please allow a response to Gp65’s message just now.

    Recommend

  • Bewildered
    Jul 5, 2013 - 11:58PM

    @gp65:

    “I any case India has never claimed that it intervened in 1971 for secularism. It intervened because it did not have economic capacity to support the unending millions that were escaping te Operation Searchlight and fleeing to India.”

    Lady please stop lying. How many refugees from Sri Lanka flooded India before RAW started training and arming LTTE terrorists? Operation “Jackpot” started much earlier than even the civil unrest started in East Pakistan, which was again instigated by none other than but your own infamous RAW. Your are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of humans both in East Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Kashmir, and Punjab. One day you will have to pay for those crimes.

    Recommend

  • Addressed to Gp65
    Jul 6, 2013 - 12:08AM

    Even your statement that there was a referendum on Pakistan in Muslim majority parts of India is factually incorrect. It is a lie. Elections occurred in 1946 under a restricted franchise that only 10% of Muslims were allowed to vote under. Naveen made a factual rebuttal to a communal comment which you responded to with a (still) uncorroborated remark about some “referendum” that never happened.

    If this referendum happened, please provide a link. Proof. Anything, actually. Can’t? Then kindly stick to facts and logic.

    I hope some day both the right wing in Pakistan (and especially Pakistan) and India will stop inventing lies to bolster anti Muslim and anti Hindu arguments. Maybe this a pipe dream.

    Recommend

  • Addressed to Bewildered
    Jul 6, 2013 - 12:16AM

    Gp65 is not mother India and as a human being has nothing to be ashamed of. Ok? Peace and love, for God’s sake why can’t we get along.

    P.S she is a US national and not an Indian, so forget this “us” “them” and “you” business. She is not an Indian national. Jeez.

    Recommend

  • mind control
    Jul 6, 2013 - 12:23AM

    @Lala Gee:

    Then how 5.5 — 6 million Hindus are still living in Pakistan?

    6 million out of 190 million is more than 3%.

    But then other sources do not support this claim.

    Wikipedia puts the Hindu Population at 1.84%.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HinduisminPakistan

    As to how do they live? Here is a report.

    http://www.minorityrights.org/?lid=5630&tmpl=printpage

    The Hindu population of Pakistan makes up a small minority of about 1.96 million, or 1.2 per cent, of the total population. The Hindus of Pakistan – residing in the interior of Sindh or Baluchistan – belong principally to the so-called untouchable class, the Scheduled Caste Hindus. Many of them are landless bonded labourers, working on the lands of big Sindhi landlords (known as Jagirdars). Those who live in towns and cities also have a menial standing and are generally employed as sweepers or Jamadars.

    Moderator ET- Why is it that Lala Gee gets away with the most outlandish posts, but a factual rebuttal does not?

    Recommend

  • Addressed to Gp65
    Jul 6, 2013 - 12:35AM

    Again, ET seems to have censored or deleted my comment.

    I was simply informing you that there was no referendum on making Pakistan in any part of India, including the Muslim majority regions you have mentioned twice now.

    There were elections in 1946 under a restricted franchise consisting of 10% of the Muslim population, mainly the landed feudals, as Naveen correctly pointed out before you attempted to rubbish his apt observation with a non fact.

    In reality you did make an uncorroborated and factually incorrect post about a non existent referendum.

    Pakistan was formed on the basis of the voting in Punjab and Bengal’s assemblies, the NWFP referendum, Sylhet referendum and Sindh Assembly vote. Note that the NWFP and district of Sylhet referendums were hard fought, close, and both regions made up a miniscule fraction of Pakistan’s population.

    I feel you should research before you make facts that will naturally be disproved. I also abhor your suggestion that Indian children not be taught such an important part of their country’s history simply because it is a fait accompli.

    ET: You cannot seriously allow Gp65 to make a factually incorrect post without correction. Your newspaper has helped me to learn – let me share some of my knowledge too. It is best for humanity.

    Recommend

  • gp65
    Jul 6, 2013 - 12:35AM

    p>@Bewildered:

    Here is a link that supports what I said about India’s involvement in Bangladesh liberation war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BangladeshLiberationWar . I was contradicting the notion that the war was fought to implement secularism in Bangladesh. The url refers to the key points I was making i.e. mass migration and operation searchlight.

    I did not say anything about Sri Lanka or Kashmir in my post – so I will ignore your comments on those subjects.Recommend

  • Texas Indi
    Jul 6, 2013 - 12:36AM

    @Naveen: Regarding gp65, she may have moved to Amreeka but she is a bleedin’ Indian. Why do you chose to attack people personally? She is refuting comments based on facts, not on sentiments like you!

    Recommend

  • gp65
    Jul 6, 2013 - 1:10AM

    ET Mods: You allow people to cal me a liar and take pot shots at me (by their own admission) – yet you filter out many of my responses. This is unfair.

    @Addressed to Gp65: “If an Indian immigrates to the US, doesn’t he/she hand in his/her Indian passport and nationality? …. Yes Gp65, call that a potshot, but I am wondering.”

    Since you are wondering – if an Indian immigrates to US, it means they got a green card. Thsi does not require them to give up their citizenship because US greencard is not the same as US citizenship. If they however do choose American citizensip, they can be an OCI (Overseas Citizen of India) but with reduced rights in India which include no right to vote and no right to buy agricultural land. It however does not change the love tha one feels towards the land where one was born and raised. WOmen who marry may take up the last name of their husband but that does not mean they stop loving their own parents. Same concept.

    As for the fact that there was no universal suffrage – I actually agreed with @Naveen. As per Mountbatten Plan a decision on partition was to taken in the following manner

    Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims in Punjab and Bengal legislative assemblies would meet and vote for partition. If a simple majority of either group wanted partition, then these provinces would be divided.
    Sindh was to take its own decision.
    The fate of North West Frontier Province and Sylhet district of Bengal was to be decided by a referendum

    As you can see the only states whose opinions were taken into account on the issue of partition were the Muslim majority states. I did not once state that only Muslims in these states could vote. While NWFP clearly had a referendum the electioneering in the other 3 provinces had a single point agenda akin to a referendum.

    FInally apart from Punjab, Hindu and SIkh populations were forced to leave from Karachi, Sindh and BEngal. There were hardly any Hindus in NWFP and Balochistan – so please explain which parts of Pakistan with a large pre-partition Hindu/Sikh population did not force them out?Recommend

  • Naveen
    Jul 6, 2013 - 1:20AM

    @gp65:
    You have said that there was a referendum on Pakistan (i.e. whether to have Partition or not) in muslim majority provinces . What I’ve said that there was none, except that there were small scale regional referendums AFTER Pakistan was already formed on the issue of whether to join newly formed India or Pakistan. Now go and check some credible source of history to see who’s correct. There’s a world lot of difference b/w my claim and your claim and their implications (since once the sectarian rioting started after partition announcement, there was no way any of leftover Muslim majority regions would have voted for staying with India).

    As I said I can’t change your view now, It is too late for that. Please don’t tell me that faith doesn’t matter to you – I don’t recall a single post in the past by you where you took a secular line instead of those peddled by Hindutva guys. Even on this page, In just another post you’re heckling over how Hindus were kicked out of Karachi and Bangladesh as if no Muslims were kicked out of Gujarat or even Delhi for that matter (Infact If there had there been no Gandhi & no Army members from South India, perhaps Delhi and surrounding region would have also looked like Punjab). You are trying to refute the historical fact that there was bloodshed and forcible migration on both sides, to conveniently put in place a hypothesis that fits your prejudices (that the entire affair was one-sided). The fact is offcourse different, My own family was kicked out of Pakistan and guess where they settled?-> In a Muslim family’s house, who in turn had been kicked out of India.

    As for not teaching kids about Partition, Why don’t you try that in your US of A who still teach each and every single event related to their country’s foundation not just to Americans but to the entire world and the high ideals that its founding fathers designed it for. It is equally important for young kids of India to know what was India designed for and what & why modern History’s worst holocaust accompanied the birth of my country and and what needs to be done to make sure that such tragedy never happens again.

    @np:
    Please look back again, you’ll get an insight on the difference. Btw not all wars are fought by States armed with modern weaponry; Partition wasn’t one but it killed & displaced more people than all the wars fought by India till date.

    Recommend

  • Parvez
    Jul 6, 2013 - 1:49AM

    WOW ! ….. I read this a bit late but thought the article was good and if the chapter in the Indian text books are as described then it’s a good thing. It’s time some effort is made from both sides to heal the wounds and play down the jingoistic rhetoric and childish venom filled arguments to justify positions that may or most probably may not be true.
    When others have shown maturity and put the past behind them for a better tomorrow, why not us ?

    Recommend

  • Naveen
    Jul 6, 2013 - 2:08AM

    @Bewildered:
    Sri Lanka’s game would have been long over if there would have been no India to restrain Tamil Nadu (which is much bigger than Sri Lanka and has a history of colonising Lanka). And Let’s not get into who’s responsible for what in Punjab , Kashmir and East Pakistan. Indians and Pakistanis have already paid a lot for their past misdeeds, time we moved on.

    Recommend

  • Naveen
    Jul 6, 2013 - 2:47AM

    @gp65:
    It seems that you are trying to take advantage of the fact that I used ‘All India’ instead of ‘Muslim majority regions’.

    Anyway, Let it me 100% clear ->Nowhere was there any referendum ON the issue of Pakistan (i.e. whether to partition the ‘British’ India or not), neither at All India nor in Muslim Majority regions.

    Referendums (or to be accurate Plebiscite) in NWFP, Sylhet district, Junagarh were done AFTER Partition was already agreed upon (and Pakistan had already formed) and the question was which of the two newborn countries these small regions were supposed to join. And the way they voted was perfectly in line with their geography, demography and the communally charged atmosphere in which Muslims were being made to run away from Hindu Majority areas and Hindus being made to run away from Muslim majority areas.

    Recommend

  • Insaan
    Jul 6, 2013 - 4:53AM

    @Ijaaz: Nobody asked them if felt good leaving their memories and in many cases their belongings, their lands, their wealth behind. And many perished, many were raped and sold as slaves. Just as it was happening on the other side of the (present day) border. So it went both ways.

    Yes it went both ways but non-Muslims make up only 3% of Pakistan (compared to 30% before partition) while percentage of Muslims has increased in India.

    When Pakistanis sent a train full of slaughtered Indians, Indians did the same. Go read the history of slaughter by Muslims who saw everything on the Internet. Read about “Direct Action Day” call by Jinnah.

    Recommend

  • JMS
    Jul 6, 2013 - 6:02AM

    One man’s partition is another’s independence. All India refers to this event as partition of India & we call it independence in Pakistan. And till such time we both learn to mutually respect this factual sentiment & the realities of the borders on ground, we cannot get along. It’s time to move on folks. Good neighbors don’t squabble in the past only. Tolerance & an end to shallow bigotry is the way people can clear their heads.

    Recommend

  • Fukre
    Jul 6, 2013 - 7:00AM

    @ everyone plz read ishtiaq ahmad’s book on partition before spilling vitriol here. And for people giving population stats the flaw is that u r comparing entire indian muslim population to pak punjab’s hindu sikh population. It was a partition of punjab and bengal so z compare these two provinces. In my district in indian punjab (jalandhar) the entire muslim population was decimated and it holds true for the rest of east punjab as well with malerkotla being the only exception.

    Recommend

  • Manju
    Jul 6, 2013 - 8:33AM

    @Lala Gee:
    Then how 5.5 — 6 million Hindus are still living in Pakistan?
    You see neither do these poor people have the money and nor does the Govt of Pakistan allow them to make the journey to India. Those few lucky people who do make their way to India come on the pretext of pilgrimage and refuse to go back to Pakistan. They end up making a life by selling Vegetables on carts or becoming a laborer in Agra and New Delhi areas…
    there was never a single incident of genocide ever occurred in Pakistan
    How can this be reported when it is not a single incident… This is an ongoing process which is tacitly approved by the Constitution of the “Islamic Republic of Pakistan” and anyone who counters this process will end up against “Blasphemy laws”…
    Sikh’s massacre of 1984, and Muslim’s pogroms of Ayodhya, Bombay, Gujarat, and Indian Occupied Kashmir
    Sikh massacre happened as a result of Indira Gandhi’s assassination. Bindranwalla’s killing by the Indian forces (commanded by a Sikh) was the reason which caused the assassination. And who trained and armed Bindranwalla????? – Our very close friend = Pakistan……..
    In Ayodhya, an old Mosque that was not used for prayers by the community was demolished by a Hindu mob.. No Muslim was killed in the incident per se but the subsequent carnage did kill people from the communities… This was indeed a black mark on Indian history…
    Unlike the mass genocides committed by Hindus in the medieval times which reduced the population of Buddhists and Jains near to zero, nothing of the sort ever happened in Pakistan.
    Reference and facts please…….. No ‘hate’ based assumptions… No quotes from ‘Pakistan Studies’..
    Bombay – Your mean after the Serial blasts of 1992 due thanks the infamous D – Company?
    Gujarat – Please do read up of the Hindu pilgrims being burnt alive on a train.. By the way the communal riots that followed was also a black mark on our History…
    Indian Kashmir – Oh!! Now brother don’t equate a political quarrel with a communal fight.. (Religion is not equal to Nation).. Kashmir is a political quarrel…
    their percentage population seems to be marginally reduced despite their actual population tripled during these years.
    The only province in Pakistan where the population of Hindus is above 1.8% is Sindh…. Its 6.5% overall but the majority of these are in rural Sindh (9.77%) bordering India…. Here, this data is from the census 2011 of Govt of Pakistan’s website… http://www.census.gov.pk/Religion.htm
    By the way why are these Hindus living in rural Sindh bordering India instead of interior Pakistan?? (Assuming Pakistan’s constitution offers them protection)…

    Recommend

  • Gp65
    Jul 6, 2013 - 9:33AM

    @Parvez: Absolutely agree that hate should be left behind. This is why i feel that the earlier
    policy of not teaching about Pakistan movement in Indian school textbooks is the right one because if true facts are taught, it would plant seeds of hatred at a young age.
    Many people may have no interest in exploring this information once they grow up and those that are interested will plenty of references on Internet. Teaching cherry picked facts and pretending that everyone sang Kumbhaya as the author seems to be advocating is unnecessary in my opinion. The author is incorrect in stating that Jinnah was vilified in earlier textbooks because when I grew up the entire Pakistan movement was simply skipped in textbooks. A coiple pf other people have also expressed the same opinion, Nor did history in Indian textbooks refer to the thousands of temples which were destroyed by invaders from Turkist, Uzbek and Arab invaders in the interest of communal harmony within India and i feel that is the righ approach to have.

    @Naveen: you have chosen to attack me personally as have a couple of others. I have not attacked you or them, so there is no question of taking advantage of anything. The fact is that the only states that had a say on whether to be part of Pakistan or not were the Muslim majority states of Sindh, Punjab, NWFP and Bengal. the elections in 1946 were entirely focused on this single issue of whether or not to become part of Pakistan with slogans like Pakistan ka matlab Kia and Muslim ho to league me aa. As such therefore these elections took a referendum like color though actual referendum was held only in NWFP. Had you pointed out this technical issue, I would have gladly agreed. But you chose to not read fully what I said and put words in my mouth and on top of that you went on to impute motives like war mongering to me without any basis whatsoever.

    Your potshots about my residence and citizenship are also in poor taste. I love India because I was born and raised there. I do not need your permission to opine about issues that concern India.Recommend

  • Rahul
    Jul 6, 2013 - 9:40AM

    @Naveen

    Thanks for the excellent link you provided. That will give anybody who is intersted, an idea about how history is being taught in India.

    Recommend

  • Chetan
    Jul 6, 2013 - 9:58AM

    Great article(including the textbook link) and great discussion by pakistanis and indians on the page. I definately think this has given more enlightenment on both the sides. Thanks ET for providing this platform.

    Recommend

  • gp65
    Jul 6, 2013 - 10:34AM

    @JMS:
    You were not ruled by Hindus but by British as were we. As such all of us got independence from British at the exact same time though it is celebrated a day apart in our two countries. The separation of the two countries was indeed a partition. But regardless of how you choose to call it, I do not believe there is any large constituency in India either that wants to reverse partition. If we could live as good neighbors that would suit India very well indeed.

    Parvez,
    I agree there is no need for planting seeds of hate in young kids which is what would happen if the true history of partition was taught. This is why I support the earlier policy of simply skipping the issue of Pakistan movement from history textbooks. There is adequate information available on Internet that people can access when they are older, if they are interested. I do not support the policy of providing cherry picked facts and pretending everyone sang Kumbaya as the author seems to suggest. I also challenge the author to provide links to school textbooks in India hat vilified Jinnah as he claims they did in the past.

    ET mods, it is extremely disappointing that you have chosen to pulish the response of people who personally attacked me and filter out my response even though my responses were factual and did not indulge in personal attacks.Recommend

  • Addressed to Insaan
    Jul 6, 2013 - 12:00PM

    Your selective reading of history is very ignorant and disappointing. Read my posts addressed to Babloo if you have any interest in knowing the facts behind the percentage fall (it was 22 and not 30% btw) and stop quoting this percentage again and again in a disingenuous fashion.
    After you have read both posts by me, I will be glad to engage you in debate. Mind boggling how you skimmed the comments so selectively and ignored the half a dozen factual rebuttals to that absurd non fact.

    Recommend

  • Addressed to Insaan
    Jul 6, 2013 - 12:08PM

    Your selective reading of history is very ignorant and disappointing. Read my posts addressed to Babloo if you have any interest in knowing the facts behind the percentage fall (it was 20.9* /and not 30% btw) and stop quoting this percentage again and again in a disingenuous fashion.
    After you have read both posts by me, I will be glad to engage you in debate. Mind boggling how you skimmed the comments so selectively and ignored the half a dozen factual rebuttals to that absurd non fact.

    Recommend

  • thor
    Jul 6, 2013 - 2:32PM

    @JMS:
    Indians refer it as partition of British India & subsequent independence of India & Pakistan & as pointed by author Indians curriculum till 2012 discussed Partition on a very little scale.

    Recommend

  • S
    Jul 6, 2013 - 2:46PM

    I say, just get on with it. There is no point in this article. Indian needs to move on (no offence intended)

    Recommend

  • Prabhjyot Singh Madan
    Jul 6, 2013 - 2:55PM

    @Ijaaz:
    Paaji you are an Indian and me too. Please ignore certain comments, ram and rahim are the same thing. India belongs to everybody. Rab rakha , salam bhai

    Recommend

  • Naveen
    Jul 6, 2013 - 3:08PM

    @JMS:
    @thor:
    Both of you are wrong. Partition was of ‘British’ India from which two new nation states- India and Pakistan emerged while Independence was for both India & Pakistan FROM British colonial rule (not from ordinary Hindus or Muslims) . These are two distinct events, just because they happened on the same day does not mean you mix them up.

    Also I am told that some Pakistanis have this misconception that they won freedom from India, which is factually inaccurate as present India came into being a day after Pakistan came into being. Similarly some Indians have this misconception that Pakistan seceded from India, which is again incorrect since as I said Pakistan was not part of India to start with.

    Let’s not confuse ‘British Colonial India’ with ‘Republic of India’- the two are quite different things in terms of territory and Time period in which they existed .

    Recommend

  • Naveen
    Jul 6, 2013 - 3:45PM

    @Gp65:
    No, 1946 Provincial elections were not like a referendum on Partition (they were anyway based on restricted electorate) as even at the time of Cabinet Mission Plan (that is about 3 months after the elections), League vouched for the idea of forming a Confederation of India with a high degree of autonomy to the 3 sections. Full fledged Partition of British India became a demand for League only after it came to blows with Congress over the exact interpretation of Cabinet Mission Plan.

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jul 6, 2013 - 4:45PM

    Was Sindh Partitioned ? No.
    The fate of Hindus in Sindh was no different from fate of Hindus in Punjab.Go and compare % of Hindus in Sindh in 1947 to Today. almost 50% of Karachi population was Hindus. Today its barely 1%.

    Bengal too was partitioned, but large scale displacement of minorities happened only in Pakistan Bengal and not Indian Bengal, which has more Muslims as % of its population today than in 1947. Read again. Bengal was partitioned but Muslims were not expelled from Indian Bengal while HIndus in Pakistan Bengal were subject to the worst atrocities and that’s how Hindus who were 30% of the population of E pakistan, were just 15% in 1971 and 9% today.

    Similarly was North West FP partitioned ? No. However Hindus and Sikhs in Peshawar and elsewhere too were killed and displaced.
    Its clear, minorities in Pakistan, irrespective of which province was partitioned , were subject to religious cleansing. in contrast , in India, except in eastern Punjab, no major shift in population took place. That’s a HImalayan difference and the truth must be acknowledged.

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jul 6, 2013 - 5:14PM

    in 1946 provincial elections, JInnah’s Muslim league, that fought the elections on the main demand of a separate state of Pakistan, got 86% of Muslim vote. Congress muslim stalwarts, who used to win from seats reserved for muslims , all lost. In fact JInnah’s muslim league won 100 % of the seats reserved for muslims, when in previous elections it lost heavily to congress in muslim areas. Every voter , who voted for Muslim League knew what was the difference and the predominant issue in 1946 elections between Congress and Muslim League. To now say that the muslims who voted for JInnah, were not voting for partition of India in 1946 elections, is utterly misleading and dishonest.

    Recommend

  • thor
    Jul 6, 2013 - 5:30PM

    @Naveen:
    I could not understand where exactly you found my statement wrong.
    Of course India/Pakistan got Independence From British colonial rule (not from ordinary Hindus or Muslims),& it is a distinct event then partition.

    Regarding Pakistan seceding from India,you provide the judgement that Pakistan was not part of India to start with, but the seed of Pakistan had been conceived long back & TNT had already been propagated.

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jul 6, 2013 - 5:44PM

    Before Pakistan, in 1947, 25% of the population of Sindh was Hindus and 22% of population of Baluchistan was Hindus.
    Link for Baluchistan
    http://baithak.blogspot.com/2005/11/plight-of-hindus-in-sindh-and.html

    Link for Sindh
    http://www.pakistanhinducouncil.org/hindupopulation.asp

    Today, they are 1,6% in Baluchistan and about 5% in Sindh.
    HIndus in Pakistan were subject to violence and expulsions all over Pakistan, that’s why Hindu population of Pakistan has declined so dramatically and for all political purposes , extionct, while muslims were protected in India, except in eastern Punjab.

    Tribune, please publish this as I provide the links.

    Recommend

  • Singh
    Jul 6, 2013 - 6:47PM

    Hi every one,
    please can any one suggest if any human was killed in partition. What I read so for they were either Hindu,Sikh or Muslim Killed each other.
    In my opinion humanity massacred for few people’s ambition who want to be god of one sect or other. Is Muslim DNA different than Hindu or Sikh?
    Keep fighting like cat & let monkey take bite.

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jul 6, 2013 - 7:51PM

    Now do you want me to provide links for how minority populations changed in Indian Bengal and Pakistan Bengal ?
    Look at the table from this study , only 0.5 million who moved from India to East Pakistan as compared to almost 3 million Hindus who moved to India. That was just in the period 1947-51.
    It only got worse after that.

    http://iussp2005.princeton.edu/papers/52236

    Today, Muslims make about 24-25% of Indian Bengal, up from 20-22% at partition.
    Hindus make 9% of East Bengal/East Pakistan/Bangladesh population, down from 30% in 1947.

    The truth is straight forward. Minorities declined precipitously all over Pakistan, from Sindh, Baluchistan, NWFP to Bengal. No place was safe. In India, except in Easetrn Punjab, no demographically significant forced displacement of minorities took place.

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jul 6, 2013 - 7:58PM

    @Singh,
    This discussion is not about theology or DNA but comparative treatment of minorities in Pakistan and India , since 1947 and how the Hindu/Sikhs of Pakistan suffered an holocaust as the numbers bear out as compared to Muslims in India, where large scale killings were limited to Easetrn Punjab that makes 5% of Indian territory and population That’s an irrefutable truth that some are looking for ways to deny it.

    Recommend

  • Another North Indian
    Jul 6, 2013 - 8:00PM

    Naveen, are you a Naveen interactor or merely a Naveen nickname for an old interactor here?

    May you request you to stop attacking the people you do not agree with.

    Recommend

  • Addressed to Babloo
    Jul 6, 2013 - 8:24PM

    You are so blinded by hate that I am truly amazed. Your one sided analysis of partition is mind boggling, and your links to blogs of all things to shore up your shoddy position is astounding. Let me tell you a few real facts.

    You are quoting percentages off of random sites on the internet to ”prove” your non facts. Here is the census of 1941 as provided by the Indian census website:

    http://www.censusindia.gov.in/CensusAndYou/oldreport/Census1941_tebles.html (ET Please publish)

    Now tell me where it says Balochistan was 22% Hindu?

    Have you any proper evidence to back that up, at all?

    Now, let’s come to what you said here:

    in contrast , in India, except in eastern Punjab, no major shift in population took place. That’s a HImalayan difference and the truth must be acknowledged.

    1:- I am, since you seem to be too full of vitriol to do so yourself, linking the testament of a Gujarati Muslim pushed out of his home district in Gujarat: http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/dmag/archive/040321/dmag13.htm

    2:- What about Delhi? * Nearly 10,000 Muslims had been killed in the violence and over 130 mosques had been damaged or destroyed. Over 44,000 Muslim houses had been evacuated and nearly two-thirds of Delhi’s Muslims had migrated out of Delhi to Pakistan. Delhi’s Muslim population was reduced from 33% to 5.7%.*
    http://www.deccanherald.com/content/294171/fall-rise-city.html

    While you shrug the religious cleansing of East Punjab under the rug, you continuously ignore the fact that Pakistan Punjab forms 56% of the Pak population, and since both sides of the Punjab region suffered a religious cleansing in 1947, Pakistan lost most of its minority population. Sindh is still 6.5% Hindu but has only a 15% share in the overall population. Indian Muslims were spread from Kerela to Andhra Pradesh, sometimes thousands of miles from Pakistan, and migration was neither possible nor feasible. Pakistan had its minority population in Sindh and Punjab, which border India, and despite this, Sindh retained a great many Hindus.

    And stop telling us about Bangladesh’s fall in Hindu population. It is none of our concern as Pakistanis. This is a Pakistani forum, albeit with many foreign commenters. Since 1971, the Hindu population has fallen from 15% to 9% according to Bangladesh’s own census. So why are you attacking Pakistan for Bangladesh’s crimes? Because we are both Muslim countries? Your communal rage will destroy Gandhi’s India. Truly shocking.

    Partition was terrible event. Let us now live in peace, and study history free of prejudice and religious hate.

    Express Tribune: You simply can’t let disinformation spreaders have a free reign on this site. This comment took me a good half hour of reading and research, and I have supplemented it with links from reputed newspapers. Please allow me to post it.

    Recommend

  • Naveen
    Jul 6, 2013 - 8:36PM

    @Another North Indian:
    I am the only Naveen on this page. All post are mine. And Your request has been rejected as I derive freedom of speech from the Constitution of my country, not from you. Also Disagreement is not of opinions but of facts. If you have facts to refute me, come with them, else stay out of this discussion.

    Recommend

  • Ali Tanoli
    Jul 6, 2013 - 10:26PM

    @Babloo
    Good night man that’s enugh now and next time get the figures of muslims killed in jalandhe
    Ludhiana, amrathsar, ambala. gurdhaspur, hoshiarpur, around delhi????

    Recommend

  • @ali tanoli
    Jul 6, 2013 - 11:06PM

    @Mr Ali Tanoli,
    No one is denying muslims killed in East Punjab from Amritsar to Ludhiana to Jlandhar to Gurudaspur just as mass killings of Hindus and Sikhs happened in Pakistan punjab from Lahore to Sialkot to MIanwali. You can read Mr Istiaq Ahmed’s book on partition and you will also know who started it and where.
    What I have said and proved with facts is that while large scale killings of minorities in India happened mainly in eastern punjab , it happened to Hindus and Sikhs all over Pakistan. It did not stop there. The state of Pakistan then went on to frame laws reducing HIndus and Sikhs to 2nd class citizens.

    That’s why , while minority composition changed all over Pakistan, from NWFP to Chittagong, in India , it was largely confined to eastern Punjab. I don’t know what your motivations to continue to deny the truth. The statistical holocaust of minorities in Pakistan is testimony to the truth while the minorities in India have not changed statistically , except in eastern punjab.

    Recommend

  • Adil Uddin
    Jul 6, 2013 - 11:13PM

    @Ijaaz:

    My grandparents were from the princely state of Hyderabad (Deccan), and you are presenting accurate figures when it comes to Muslim population in East/Indian Punjab (including areas of Haryana and Himachal Pradesh too) before and after partition.
    Partition and fate of Muslim population of the Subcontinent are mostly associated with Muslims living in U.P., Bihar, Bengal and Punjab. Muslims of U.P.,C.P. and Deccan etc….did witness massive bloodshed and left their loved ones and properties but still there’s a huge population of Muslims living in these areas, and perhaps the total Muslim population of just few cities of U.P. will easily outnumber the total population of Karachi and Hyderabad or those of Muhajirs/Urdu Speakings in present day Pakistan. However scenario in Punjab was not similar and a drastic change of demographics occurred on both sides of the border. Not to forget that many innocent Hindus and Sikhs also fell victim to post partition riots, and as a human being we must condemn the losses faced by millions of people that time.

    Recommend

  • Addressed to Babloo and @Tanoli
    Jul 6, 2013 - 11:23PM

    Express Tribune: I took a good chunk of my time to provide sources from respectable papers for this comment. Please allow me to respond to Babloo and others in pursuit of knowledge. Please do not censor my comment.

    You are so blinded by hate that I am truly amazed. Your one sided analysis of partition is mind boggling, and your links to blogs of all things to shore up your shoddy position is astounding. Let me tell you a few real facts.

    You are quoting percentages off of random sites on the internet to ”prove” your non facts. Here is the census of 1941 as provided by the Indian census website:

    http://www.censusindia.gov.in/CensusAndYou/oldreport/Census1941_tebles.html (ET Please publish)

    Now tell me where it says Balochistan was 22% Hindu?

    Have you any proper evidence to back that up, at all?

    Now, let’s come to what you said here:

    in contrast , in India, except in eastern Punjab, no major shift in population took place. That’s a HImalayan difference and the truth must be acknowledged.

    1:- I am, since you seem to be too full of vitriol to do so yourself, linking the testament of a Gujarati Muslim pushed out of his home district in Gujarat: http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/dmag/archive/040321/dmag13.htm

    2:- What about Delhi? * Nearly 10,000 Muslims had been killed in the violence and over 130 mosques had been damaged or destroyed. Over 44,000 Muslim houses had been evacuated and nearly two-thirds of Delhi’s Muslims had migrated out of Delhi to Pakistan. Delhi’s Muslim population was reduced from 33% to 5.7%.*
    http://www.deccanherald.com/content/294171/fall-rise-city.html

    While you shrug the religious cleansing of East Punjab under the rug, you continuously ignore the fact that Pakistan Punjab forms 56% of the Pak population, and since both sides of the Punjab region suffered a religious cleansing in 1947, Pakistan lost most of its minority population. Sindh is still 6.5% Hindu but has only a 15% share in the overall population. Indian Muslims were spread from Kerela to Andhra Pradesh, sometimes thousands of miles from Pakistan, and migration was neither possible nor feasible. Pakistan had its minority population in Sindh and Punjab, which border India, and despite this, Sindh retained a great many Hindus.

    And stop telling us about Bangladesh’s fall in Hindu population. It is none of our concern as Pakistanis. This is a Pakistani forum, albeit with many foreign commenters. Since 1971, the Hindu population has fallen from 15% to 9% according to Bangladesh’s own census. So why are you attacking Pakistan for Bangladesh’s crimes? Because we are both Muslim countries? Your communal rage will destroy Gandhi’s India. Truly shocking.

    Partition was terrible event. Let us now live in peace, and study history free of prejudice and religious hate.

    Recommend

  • Ali tanoli
    Jul 6, 2013 - 11:24PM

    @ali tanoli
    who ever u are who don’t wanna give a name using my name instead what I was asking to babloo sahib that he is crying of percentages of hindu population in west Pakistan but don’t wanna give muslims % in east pounjab and u.p upward???

    Recommend

  • thor
    Jul 6, 2013 - 11:28PM

    @Adil Uddin:
    Its all because of Jinnah & his TNT.
    The orphans oh Jinnah now stays in Bangladesh now, the Biharis, No one claims them.

    Recommend

  • thor
    Jul 6, 2013 - 11:32PM

    @Addressed to Babloo and @Tanoli:
    OK, lets accept this fact of yours too.
    But…Please spare a thought for Jinnah’s orphans, the biharis stranded in Bangladesh.

    Recommend

  • thor
    Jul 6, 2013 - 11:41PM

    All of you guys fighting hard here,
    Spare a thought for the Jinnah’s orphans, the Biharis stranded in Bangladesh.

    Recommend

  • Addressed to Thor
    Jul 7, 2013 - 12:03AM

    Humanity should always prevail. I feel deeply for the stranded Pakistanis. However, I am not fighting, only trying to prove to Babloo and others the fallacy of their RSS and VHP derived communal nonsense with facts.

    Your comment is appreciated though. Kudos.

    Recommend

  • Parvez
    Jul 7, 2013 - 1:19AM

    @gp65: The seeds of hate were planted by both sides a long long time ago and today it has matured into a strong tree as is evident from the comments. The idea of cutting this tree down is unrealistic and wishful thinking, but planting another by its side that gives off a pleasant fragrance to neutralise the first, is possibly what the author has in mind, even this to may be wishful thinking but worth a try.
    What is distressing is that intelligent people like yourselves get drawn into mindless petty disputes losing sight of the actual problem at hand and in the process allow your own biases to show through.
    Going of on a tangent……………Who is this new female gladiator @Naveen ?

    Recommend

  • gp65
    Jul 7, 2013 - 1:22AM

    @Naveen: “Full fledged Partition of British India became a demand for League only after it came to blows with Congress over the exact interpretation of Cabinet Mission Plan.”*

    IT is true that India would not have been partitioned if Cabnet Mission Plan had been ccepted by Congress. I am sure you are quite aware that Cabinet Mission Plan did not support one person one vote concept of universal suffrage? You also must be aware that Pakistan movement was actively being pursued since March 1940 Lahore session. You could not even be unfamiliar wih Jinnah’s speech on that occasion. The Two Nation Theory was not espoused AFTER the failure of Cabinet Mission Plan.

    All these are facts. Now your opinion of whether the elections in 1946 were perceived to be a referendum on Pakistan or not may differ from mine. Such a difference of opinion cannot be resolved through discussion. I would however like to provide a url from a Pakistani source where my opinion is shared. http://www.cssforum.com.pk/css-optional-subjects/group-e-history-subjects/indo-pak-history/44389-1945-46-elections-pakistan-punjab-s-pivotal-role.html

    The specific part that is relevant is

    “General elections, thus, came to be announced on 21 August 1945, and were scheduled for winter 945-46.Not inexplicably though, the two critical issues at stake were:
    (i) whether the AIML was Muslim India’s sole authoritative spokesman,
    (ii) whether Muslims favoured Pakistan or not”.

    The two main slogans of Pakistan ka matlab kia and Muslim ho to league mein aa were directly related to these 2 issues. Given that you are a fairly well read man, you could not be unaware of the vote share that Muslim got in elections prior to this one.

    You can keep your opinion and I will keep mine. We are both looking at the same set of facts and interpreting them differently. Therefore the difference is indeed of opinions not of facts.Recommend

  • Logical
    Jul 7, 2013 - 1:56AM

    @Addressed to Babloo and @Tanoli: “Now tell me where it says Balochistan was 22% Hindu?”

    No dear, Balochistan was 100% Hindu at one point in history, then 80% Hindu , then 50% Hindu, then 25% Hindu, then 10% Hindu, then 1% Hindu and towards extinction…

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jul 7, 2013 - 7:00AM

    Its a lie to say pakistan punjab formed 56% of Pakistan population in 1947. a big, big lie. in 1947 , Pakistan Punjab formed only 25% of the population of Pakistan. The East Pakistan itself formed 51% of the population of Pakistan in 1947. more over it takes some audacity to say that Pakistan is not responsible for decimation of HIndus in East pakistan in 1947-71. in fact the worst atrocities happened when East Pakistan was part of Pakistan. Regarding Baluchistan I have given a link to renowned Pakistani scholar Ishtiaq Ahmed’s writings. You have also conveniently forgotten Sindh. it’s also a lie to say 2/3rd of Delhi muslims ledt India. muslims around Delhi are more in number than all of Hindus in Pakistan.

    Recommend

  • MG
    Jul 7, 2013 - 9:22AM

    Reconciliation, communal peace, and acceptance of each other’s rights comes only on acceptance of facts. Politics in the subcontinent is controlled by criminals, corrupt, and communalists. The debate on this site is emotive but also contains some analysis. Information on status of minorities in Pakistan is sketchy, and more often than is anecdotal and episodical – laws on blasphemy, misuse of those laws against minorties, forcible conversions, is what one hears about in the media. However, I am intrigued by lack of information on famous minority leaders- in academia, politics, government, judiciary, sports, entertainment. I have heard of only Danish Kaneria, Justice Rana Bhagwandas and Justice Dorab Patel. Can someone please provide a few more names of prominent minority representatives in Pakistan?

    Recommend

  • thor
    Jul 7, 2013 - 10:29AM

    @Addressed to Thor:
    Most of the subcontinent problems can be traced back to Jinnah & TNT.In fact present condition of Pakistan can be attributed to the same.
    The land that is Pakistan today could have been a different place altogether had there been no partition of British India.It would have been a mix culture with population from all religious groups under secular democratic India.Its a sacred Hindu place, Vedas & Upanishads were born here.
    Whatever happened since 1937-1947 was terrible nonsense & it gave prominence to many extreme groups. Each one had a story to tell & organisation like VHP & RSS exists in every corner of the world who thrive on these kind of fallacy.

    Recommend

  • Lala Gee
    Jul 7, 2013 - 11:26AM

    @amit:

    “@Lala Gee: first read from history book who are responsible for end of buddhism in india …… Evidence in literature suggests that in 1193, the Nalanda University was sacked …..”

    Your shouldn’t have disclosed this top secret information on a public forum. Now LeT knows how easy it is to wipe out Hindus as well from India. Just bomb the largest university of India, and boom, all the Hindus would vanish instantly, like their “dharmic compatriots” did in the past. Wouldn’t they?

    Recommend

  • Lala Gee
    Jul 7, 2013 - 11:49AM

    @mind control:

    “If you have the time and the inclination please refer to The Punjab Bloodied, Partitioned and Cleansed by Ishtiaq Ahmed (of Pakistani origin)”

    Why you people are so shy to provide any reference from any human rights watchdog’s report. Who is this gentleman Ishtiaq Ahmed, perhaps no body, or at least I don’t know what are his credentials or how authentic is his writing. The Google search against “Ishtiaq Ahmed, Pakistani writer” fetched this result on the top, “Ishtiaq Ahmad (fiction writer) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia”, and “Ishtiaq Ahmed (Greatest Urdu Fiction Writer) – About | Facebook”. What are his sources of information? Certainly he did not gather each and every piece of information by himself, as compared to the very resourceful human rights organizations. There is a big question mark on the credibility of this quoted writer.

    The remaining part of your comment has already been answered in the most precise and concise way by someone using the moniker @Addressed to Babloo:. Here is an authentic reference taken from the “Pakistan Hindu Council” website claiming that the current Hindu population in Pakistan is around 5.5%, i.e. 7 million.

    Recommend

  • Rit Chandra
    Jul 7, 2013 - 2:04PM

    Those who are interested in reading the chapter that Shivam Vij has mentioned can download it from http://ncert.nic.in/NCERTS/textbook/textbook.htm?lehs3=5-6

    Recommend

  • thor
    Jul 7, 2013 - 2:26PM

    @Lala Gee:
    Your shouldn’t have disclosed this top secret information on a public forum. Now LeT knows how easy it is to wipe out Hindus as well from India. Just bomb the largest university of India, and boom, all the Hindus would vanish instantly, like their “dharmic compatriots” did in the past. Wouldn’t they?

    What was the reason behind mass killing of intellectuals by West Pakistan Army during operation searchlight in 1971?

    Recommend

  • thor
    Jul 7, 2013 - 2:29PM

    @Lala Gee:
    People like you would not even agree to the shia/ahmedi cleansing in current day Pakistan.

    Recommend

  • Addressed to Logical
    Jul 7, 2013 - 2:56PM

    Hmm, I find that somewhat implausible. Pakistan has two “Indian” provinces namely Sindh and Punjab, and two that were only added to British India by British expansion and therefore are not technically, say, Desi.

    Balochistan probably had many Hindus in ancient times due to its geographical proximity to Sindh, but was more often than not part of successive Iranian empires, therefore was more likely to be Zoroastrian.

    Also, bear in mind that the majority of Sindh and Punjab were not Hindu at the time of Muhammad bin Qasim’s 712 AD invasion. They were in fact, majority Buddhist, as northwest India was a bastion of Buddhism. In fact, the religious divide was manipulated (I may be wrong) by Muhammad bin Qasim to win over the loyalty of Sindhis after he deposed Raja Dahir of the Hindu minority. Further back in time, though, both provinces were certainly Hindu, or proto-Hindu.

    Pakhtunkwa was also not considered part of the Indian subcontinent till recently. Again, there are Hindu dynasties that have ruled the area, but the Pakhtuns themselves sometimes claim Jewish origin. There is some evidence for this, as there are ancient Hebrew graves in Afghanistan (google if you like) – but this is very implausible, and they too were most likely Buddhist with a significant Hindu minority before their en masse conversion in the 9th century AD.

    Recommend

  • Parvez
    Jul 7, 2013 - 3:52PM

    @Naveen: Just in case you take it amiss, I wish to apologise for asking ‘ who is this female gladiator ? ‘ in my reply to GP65…………..because now after reading your many comment I realised you’re a male gladiator.

    Recommend

  • thor
    Jul 7, 2013 - 5:25PM

    @Addressed to Logical:
    That was insightful..Thanks.
    I think we could consider the Indian subcontinent as one geographical entity en mass, from Himalayas till the great oceans, & this entity has people of different culture, faith & separate history.
    In its 5000 years of civilization, it has been the influenced by every major religion of the world.
    Unlike many major civilization which got decimated by Islamic conquest by Arabs, it survived.
    It is for this very reason i consider the partition with some kind of detestation.
    TNT ensured that blood brothers remain pitted against each other.

    Recommend

  • Ali Tanoli
    Jul 7, 2013 - 5:38PM

    @thor,
    okay we believe u whole Pakistan was hindu/budhist so the Europe was pegans, south America was hindus even now after forced conversion of crusaders they still carry some idle
    with them even do pooja of both white jesus and there jesus and crusaders tried very hard to converts Turkish peoples one can see graves in Istanbul city its feel like a city of graves
    so what was my point culture changes with invasion or with time look it Hinduism now they don’t follow the old one either I will say can killed your sister if her husband dies I think no
    and what about language can every hindu person speak Sanskrit or follow the old casts system same way the Hinduism explains????

    Recommend

  • Anand
    Jul 7, 2013 - 5:41PM

    @Naveen

    If India is secular; well largely so, it’s because of its Hindus. After partition, Indian Hindus had both the anger (arising out of the frustration of not being able to resist partition) and the requisite number to give vent to that anger on the streets and alleys in 90% of India that remained. That would have been crude, but they didn’t take that route. They could have been subtle too, by simply tweaking the constitution to turn the whole Muslim population into 2nd class citizenry…..blocking even a right to protest against any discrimination, imaginary or real, that they might face. They didn’t do it either. Credit must be given to the founding fathers of the nation, who again were mostly Hindus. As an Indian I am mighty happy and a little proud too, that it didn’t happen otherwise. At the same time I remain curious to know about the contribution of Indian Muslims since 1946-47 to date, first in making and then keeping India a secular nation.
    P.S. I know about Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, M A Ansari, Asaf Ali etc. and I am aware of how much influence these great sons of India (not because they tried any less) had on the Indian Muslims.

    Recommend

  • Anand
    Jul 7, 2013 - 5:43PM

    If India is secular; well largely so, it’s because of its Hindus. After partition, Indian Hindus had both the anger (arising out of the frustration of not being able to resist partition) and the requisite number to give vent to that anger on the streets and alleys in 90% of India that remained. That would have been crude, but they didn’t take that route. They could have been subtle too, by simply tweaking the constitution to turn the whole Muslim population into 2nd class citizenry…..blocking even a right to protest against any discrimination, imaginary or real, that they might face. They didn’t do it either. Credit must be given to the founding fathers of the nation, who again were mostly Hindus. As an Indian I am mighty happy and a little proud too, that it didn’t happen otherwise. At the same time I remain curious to know about the contribution of Indian Muslims since 1946-47 to date, first in making and then keeping India a secular nation.
    P.S. I know about Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, M A Ansari, Asaf Ali etc. and I am aware of how much influence these great sons of India (not because they tried any less) had on the Indian Muslims.

    Recommend

  • Ali Tanoli
    Jul 7, 2013 - 5:57PM

    Partition from greater india caused two mindset in Pakistan first who saying we got more wealth and improvments by getting seprate and second thought of peoples are like us middle and lower middle class who are just as it is like before 47s Pakistan is for arm forces
    afficers and there families, thieves bussnismen, govt owns companies chore officers who are getting salaries in hundred thousand rupees a month and homes in one of the most expensive colonies and poor just getting killed by fanatic ethanic and reliegouse politicians
    for us united india was better indeed.

    Recommend

  • Cynical
    Jul 7, 2013 - 6:08PM

    There are quite a few things that one can learn from the collective experience of the partition, its makers and its victims. And the most important of them all would be found in a quote credited to the American Noble laureate (1979), Steven Weinberg that goes like;
    “With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.”
    It is as true today, as it was then.

    Recommend

  • Bharat
    Jul 7, 2013 - 6:12PM

    @jun:

    Most Indians believe the opposite, partition was the best things to happen to India and we thank the British for it.

    Recommend

  • Addressed to Parvez
    Jul 7, 2013 - 6:14PM

    What a pointless and banal comment. You did not like Naveen attacking Gp65 using personal potshots but proceeded to do exactly the same. Congratulations on winning the “irony” award.

    I must say this, though. This whole discussion has been very fruitful, a learning experience for both sides, and we owe this to Express Tribune.

    Recommend

  • Lala Gee
    Jul 7, 2013 - 6:38PM

    @Gp65:

    “@LalaGee …. please provide a reference to your repeated assertion that Buddhism went down due to genocide by Hindus. Which Hindu kings did this according to you?”

    “The fact is that part from a military assault on Biddhism by khilji there was a large Bhakti movement which made Hinduism accessible to the masses and finally the debates between Shakaracharya and the Buddhist monks are all considered as factors that led to decline of Buddhism.”

    The problem with you is you don’t even remember what have you said yourself only a few days ago, let alone what others say. Here is a snippet from the past, of your conversation on the very same issue, which took place on June 15, 2013.
    …………………………………………………………
    “Ejaaz
    Jun 15, 2013 – 2:58PM
    @Gaurav.
    very convenient to lay the blame on a single person. When nalanada was raised buddhism in India was already in decline. Historian SR Goyal attests this partly to the hostility of the hindu priestly class of brahmans.
    In addition, the kings Gauda and Sunga were already burning down stupas as well as killing monks well before the Islamic conquest of India. By 8th century CE, buddhism was already on the down foot (the time of Adi Shankara)”
    …………………………………………………………
    “Gp65
    Jun 15, 2013 – 9:38PM
    Ejaaz: you are not wrong that some Hindu kings were intolerant. But they are not our heroes unlike Bin Qasim and Ghaznavi who are yours.”
    …………………………………………………………

    What kind of “Bhakti”, or Shudhi, was that which reduced Buddhists population from 40% to near 0.2%. OK. Lets assume for a moment that what you’re saying is absolute truth, then what happened to Jains whose population was also reduced from 15% to 0.3%. By the way, what was the point, or benefit, of doing this ‘Bhakti’ among your own self, if you espouse them as your ‘Dharmic’ brethren? Why didn’t you do this “Bhakti” with Muslims and Christians? Or, did you? Then why didn’t you succeed as much as you succeeded with Buddhists and Jains? Or, were you? Last question, are there any more plans of doing ‘Bhakti’ in the near future? And, if not, then why not?

    @mind control

    “Now that you have more reference than you perhaps care for, can you give me some reference to Budhist ‘Genocide in the medieval times’, please.”

    Read above, particularly reply of @gp65:, you will get your answer.

    Recommend

  • thor
    Jul 7, 2013 - 7:48PM

    @Ali Tanoli:
    Of course with time everyone goes through some transformation, nothing needs to be made too sacred for follow human beings to make it a rule book to be followed to the core.
    Hinduism did undergo through transformation & most Hindus does not give much importance to scriptures written thousands of years ago, as they were written in a different time & at a different context.
    Now since one sect of people have been living according to a particular order or way, its difficult for them to accept the other sect of people as that particular person may not understand the values/ethics of the sect they follow.But that does not mean each sect go on cleansing the other sect.
    Regarding Sanskrit, well, i feel sad it is loosing its relevance,but i think its OK.
    Youngster in India are at ease with numerous software language instead & i can say…not bad.

    Recommend

  • mind control
    Jul 7, 2013 - 8:21PM

    @Lala Gee:

    Who is this gentleman Ishtiaq Ahmed, perhaps no body, or at least I don’t know what are his credentials or how authentic is his writing.

    Here is a reference to Dr Ishtiaq Ahmad

    The writer is a PhD (Stockholm University); Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Stockholm University; and Honorary Senior Fellow, Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore. Latest publications: Pakistan: The Garrison State, Origins, Evolution, Consequences (1947-2011), Karachi: Oxford Unversity Press, 2013; The Punjab Bloodied, Partitioned and Cleansed: Unravelling the 1947 Tragedy through Secret British Reports and First-Person Accounts (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2012; New Delhi: Rupa Books, 2011). He can be reached at [email protected]

    And here is a link.
    http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=201377\story7-7-2013pg3_3

    PS. Can I have some reference to the ‘Budhist Genocide by Hindus in the Medieval period’ as claimed by you?

    Recommend

  • Buddhist
    Jul 7, 2013 - 8:25PM

    @Lala Gee

    I have always admired your single minded devotion to the cause of Delhi Sikhs of 1984. Coming as it is from a devotee of Badshah Alamgir Aurangzeb, who so piously took care of Guru Tegh Bahadur’s head (besides many others) and hereafter, it’s a moving gesture of unparallel compassion. I was curious to know the Sikh story in Pakistan (1947-2013) too, but I will leave that for another day.
    At the moment I would like to commend your growing concern for Buddhists as seen recently on various pages of ET. You have (almost) convinced me that the Hindus have almost decimated Buddhist from India today. Since you know so much about the history of Buddhists on Indian side, I am sure you can tell us about how they have fared in the areas that comprise present day Pakistan. When the great saint Bin Qasim set his foot in the sub-continent, the whole of Pakistan was inhabited by large number of Buddhists, Hindus and Zoroastrian. In fact in the NW province adjoining Afghanistan, Sindh and in parts of west Punjab the Buddhists were in massive majority. What happened to them? You can also tell us how we were decimated in Afghanistan where we were at great numbers once.
    P.S. I know that the Bamiyan statues were actually destroyed by Christian Nato forces, but they blamed people of some other faith who are universally known for their peace related activities.

    Recommend

  • Lala Gee
    Jul 7, 2013 - 8:41PM

    @mind control:

    “@Lala Gee:
    Then how 5.5 — 6 million Hindus are still living in Pakistan?”

    Here is a part of the page taken from “Pakistan Hindu Council” website, and I guess their numbers must be the closest to the actual population of Hindus in Pakistan. They have also tabulated district wise Hindus population precise up to the last digit which sums-up to their claimed population of 7 million.

    “According to an estimation by Pakistan Hindu Council there are more than 7000000 Hindus are currently living in the different states of Pakistan, but majority of Hindus is settled in the province of Sindh.”

    “The Hindus of Pakistan are a religious minority in an overwhelmingly Muslim society. They constitute about 5.5% of the population of 170 million.”

    Recommend

  • Lala Gee
    Jul 7, 2013 - 9:03PM

    @mind control:

    “PS. Can I have some reference to the ‘Budhist Genocide by Hindus in the Medieval period’ as claimed by you?”

    Read my reply to @gp65:, and you will get your answer, though I have already responded to you as well in the same comment, perhaps you didn’t see it. For the rest about Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed and his book, we will talk in some other OpEd. for the better good of bigger audience, as this OpEd is almost dead now for many readers. Just to give you a hint, he and I both were born and raised in the same neighborhood on the same street of Lahore.

    Recommend

  • Lala Gee
    Jul 7, 2013 - 9:42PM

    @Buddhist:

    “Since you know so much about the history of Buddhists on Indian side, I am sure you can tell us about how they have fared in the areas that comprise present day Pakistan.”

    The same way they fared on Indian side. Only if sarcasm could make a person intelligent and knowledgeable, you would have known that Pakistan came into being only 66 years ago, and we have nothing to do what happened with Buddhists during medieval times. At the time the Buddhist were being decimated, various Hindu kings were the rulers in different parts of the sub-continent. During the initial period of tolerant kings their population rose many folds, and later, during the not-so-tolerant periods of unkind kings, their numbers fell dramatically touching to zero.

    “When the great saint Bin Qasim set his foot in the sub-continent, the whole of Pakistan was inhabited by large number of Buddhists, Hindus and Zoroastrian”

    Why to start history from Bin Qasim? Sub-continent’s history does not start with his arrival. Why not to start it from few hundred years earlier when the Aryans invaded these lands – may be you’re also one of them – and wiped out the original Dravidian inhabitants, and pushed whoever was survived to the deep Southern extremities of the continent.

    Recommend

  • thor
    Jul 7, 2013 - 10:37PM

    @Lala Gee:
    Ashoka, the greatest Hindu king, is the one who put Buddhism in world map, Ashok chakra & Ashok embelem is India,s symbols.
    I rest my case.

    Recommend

  • thor
    Jul 7, 2013 - 10:39PM

    @Lala Gee:
    you have no idea of current India & Pakistan, else you would not be commenting this way in ET.

    Recommend

  • Parvez
    Jul 7, 2013 - 11:45PM

    @Addressed to Parvez: Who said the discussion was not informative ? How did you jump to the conclusion that I did not like Naveens comments ? You seem to be seeing shadows where none exist.
    As for my comment, I feel I have every right to express my views, banal or otherwise just as you sir / madam / ? have the right to speak your mind.

    Recommend

  • Lala Gee
    Jul 8, 2013 - 12:35AM

    @thor:

    “@Lala Gee:
    Ashoka, the greatest Hindu king, is the one who put Buddhism in world map, Ashok chakra & Ashok embelem is India,s symbols.
    I rest my case.”

    As I know he converted to Buddhism, and only then he started promoting his newly adopted religion. Here are a few lines from Wikipedia entry on Ashoka.

    “While the early part of Ashoka’s reign was apparently quite bloodthirsty, he became a follower of the Buddha’s teachings after his conquest of Kalinga on the east coast of India in the present-day states of Odisha and North Coastal Andhra Pradesh. Kalinga was a state that prided itself on its sovereignty and democracy. With its monarchical parliamentary democracy it was quite an exception in ancient Bharata where there existed the concept of Rajdharma. Rajdharma means the duty of the rulers, which was intrinsically entwined with the concept of bravery and dharma. The Kalinga War happened eight years after his coronation. From his 13th inscription, we come to know that the battle was a massive one and caused the deaths of more than 100,000 soldiers and many civilians who rose up in defence; over 150,000 were deported.[14] When he was walking through the grounds of Kalinga after his conquest, rejoicing in his victory, he was moved by the number of bodies strewn there and the wails of the kith and kin of the dead.”

    Recommend

  • thor
    Jul 8, 2013 - 7:11AM

    @Lala Gee:
    Of course he converted to Buddhism.
    He remains the most influential figure in India’s History till this day.He is revered in India now.
    That was my point.

    Recommend

  • thor
    Jul 8, 2013 - 7:27AM

    @Lala Gee:
    & If i may add, Ashoka’s Grandfather Chandragupta Maurya too had converted to Jainism in his later period of life.
    India i would say is incomplete without the teachings Of Gautama Buddha & Mahavira.
    Jain & Buddhist are very very peaceful people.
    India is grateful to have them, even though in few numbers.

    Recommend

  • 1984
    Jul 8, 2013 - 5:45PM

    @Lala Gee:

    Once again Lala Gee shows his brilliant skills of deception by trying to divert the topic without providing any book references or links which state of a Buddhist Holocaust by Hindus,…..

    Just how long will you defend your weed-induced theory????

    Recommend

  • Rufus Gonsalves
    Jul 23, 2013 - 4:56AM

    It is intresting the way the Author stirs the pot to discuss the partition of our country. The fundamental question is the reason why the Muslims could not agree to co-exist peacefully with Hindus and the people of other religious denomination? This is a question that only Muslims and Muslim aplogist like Shivam Vij can answer. Try to answer this question first before you proceed any further and you’ll be able to view things in their proper perspective.

    Recommend

More in Opinion