Sikhs And Muslims ,big Losers Of Partition

[kdsingh80]

But India escaped somewhat. As ‘small Pakistan’ was created on the basis of the Rajaji formula and the Lahore resolution, India lost only west Punjab, Sind and East Bengal. Baluchistan and North-West Frontier Province were never parts of India. It was towards the end of the nineteenth century that Britain amalgamated them with British India. So Hindus lost very little. But Muslims lost the most. Sikhs also lost much. They were driven away from west Punjab. The British never showed genuine interest about the welfare of the Sikhs in the event of partition. That is why the barbarous riots and killings took place during partition. In 1857, the British used the same Sikhs to quell the Indian rebellion, but now they were abandoned.

http://jbpmore.com/Reviews.html

[chatanga1]

But Muslims lost the most.

the muslims at 52% of Panjabs population took 61% of Panjabs land, and not only land, but the best land. the land we have in panjab is pisspoor compared to the land in pakistani panjab. panjab was divided into communities, but this was a wrong way of doing it. the muslims ended up with more land than they should have had. the british divided it on the basis of population alone.

[kdsingh80]

the muslims at 52% of Panjabs population took 61% of Panjabs land, and not only land, but the best land. the land we have in panjab is pisspoor compared to the land in pakistani panjab. panjab was divided into communities, but this was a wrong way of doing it. the muslims ended up with more land than they should have had. the british divided it on the basis of population alone.

Yes Punjabi muslims gained a lot from Pakistan ,but Punjabi's are not only muslims in Indian sub continent

When we Talk about the welfare of a Religion then we have to take all the people of that Religion.Br creating Pakistan and then Bangladesh ,muslims divided themselves into 3.Imagine 500 millions united muslims of India today would have been the strongest muslim power in entire world.On the other hand Hindu's who were facing threat of North south divide remained united and today their power is of 800 million

[tonyhp32]

Chatanga is right. The Muslims were the main winners of the partition. They managed to gain 24% of the land area of India whilst they only had 25% of the population in 1941. With only 70% of the Muslims population of united India they got land equivalent to what 100% of the Muslim population should have got. They have ethnically cleansed the non-Muslims out of Pakistan and Bangladesh whilst living as equal citizens in India. They have about 13% of the Indian population so at any stage they could become a third column in the event of war.

[dalsingh101]

KDS

Your point is weak. You should see it as they've got both their own piece of land as well as a strong representation in India. Watch how their power will grow in future in a democratic setup where numbers and mobilisation mean everything.

[kdsingh80]

In longer run they don't seem to that they are winners

-- ---------------------------------------------------

http://jbpmore.com/Reviews.html

What is the situation of the Muslims in the sub-continent today?

I don’t think that Jinnah has achieved anything worthwhile. Jinnah did not get his ‘full Pakistan’. At that time, the population of Muslims of India was about 25%. Today there may be about 450 million Muslims in the sub-continent. What is their strength and power in south Asia? When Jinnah asked for Pakistan, it was with the objective of saving the interests of all Indian Muslims including religious. But Jinnah’s achievement was nothing more than splitting the Muslims between India and Pakistan. Naturally, in India, Muslims have become subordinated and dependent. Later, Bangla Desh split away from Pakistan. Bangla Desh is an economic disaster. In what remains of Pakistan, Baluchistan is asking for independence. Then there are the never-ending problems with the Pathans, Talibans and the Al Qaida, not to speak of the problems with the Mohajirs and Sindhis. Are these problems not part of Jinnah’s achievements and legacy? Wanting to save the Muslims from the Hindus, why all this happened? It is because of the inexperience of the Muslim Leaguers in geo-politics. Neither they nor Jinnah understood the changing geo-political and strategic interests of Britain and America.

But India escaped somewhat. As ‘small Pakistan’ was created on the basis of the Rajaji formula and the Lahore resolution, India lost only west Punjab, Sind and East Bengal. Baluchistan and North-West Frontier Province were never parts of India. It was towards the end of the nineteenth century that Britain amalgamated them with British India. So Hindus lost very little. But Muslims lost the most. Sikhs also lost much. They were driven away from west Punjab. The British never showed genuine interest about the welfare of the Sikhs in the event of partition. That is why the barbarous riots and killings took place during partition. In 1857, the British used the same Sikhs to quell the Indian rebellion, but now they were abandoned.

------------------------------------------------------

Also One cannot Judge Only on the basis of area as almost half of today's pakistan is Baluchistan Which are just mountains

Edited January 31, 2011 by kdsingh80

[kdsingh80]

KDS

Your point is weak. You should see it as they've got both their own piece of land as well as a strong representation in India. Watch how their power will grow in future in a democratic setup where numbers and mobilisation mean everything.

It is not my point it is what author is saying though I partially agree with him.Muslim population in undivided India could have been 35% which means India could have been partially muslim country by now and in next 20 years they could had been close to 50% if there was no partition in 2030-40 .so they had chance of ruling entire India

Now if we take the present condition then muslims need another 60-70 years to reach 30-35% and no one knows what will happen in upcoming years

[dalsingh101]

Your looking at it in contemporary eyes kds.

This war or strife wont last last forever. Eventually the sullay Panjabis and Pathan types will probably patch things up, even if that means the Pathans will have to be paid off. You can deal with them two ways it seems, the Avitibile route or paying them off. Western involvement in the region means that they can't go the 'brutal suppression' route, at least not blatantly.

The amount of money being pumped in P'stan right now is huge, some people liken it to a 'blank cheque'. Sure, the majority of it is getting pilfered but that still leaves a lot of power in some people's hands. If the nature of the Pakistani community is reflected in their diasporic communities in the Uk, I would say they have infinitely more capacity to close ranks and produce patriots (both religious and nationalistic) than Indians. Plus they do have a lot of guys who aren't afraid to fight, even for dumb shit. Their politicking too seems to be able to influence other nations through some seriously sly two-faced diplomacy, as well via the ISI. Remember these are the guys who propped up the Taliban in the first place. They also had a hand in supplying Khalistanis too apparently.

So I don't think the cards have fallen enough to read into the future with them. Here in the west they do the standard media promotion of the liberals there, but I doubt that this reflects common everyday thinking there. If Pakistan crumbles, it will be trouble for everyone given the nuclear capability. It will also effect the new developing 'golden egg laying goose' of the west - India. I think these things alone will motivate the west to do everything it can to try and prevent a destabilised situation. Last thing they need is Taliban running free in Afghani and Paki - stan even more than they do now.

That piece you posted is very interesting, this bit especially:

In September 1939, the Second World War broke out. At that time, Jinnah was still a sectarian nationalist. How such a Jinnah makes the transition to become a Muslim nationalist or a separatist is now a subject of research. The Congress ministries did not support the British in the war. Instead they resigned and gave up their offices. Such a situation became favourable to Jinnah. Jinnah did not have any power then. He made use of the mistakes made by the Congress, especially with regard to the resignation of ministries, and organised in December 1939 the ‘Deliverance Day’ in order to celebrate the deliverance of the Muslims from Congress rule, all over India.

In the celebrations conducted in south India, Periyar joined the Muslim League and spoke in favour of Jinnah. At that time, the over-riding aim of the British was to win somehow the world war. They were more worried about how to use whom and when to achieve their objectives. In those days, the Indian Army was made up of 40% Muslims, 30% Sikhs, while the remaining 30% consisted of Hindus, mainly made up of Gurkhas, Dogras and Mahrattas.

As Gandhi had declared that Congress cannot support the war, the British had no other alternative, but to turn towards the Muslims. It was then that Jinnah demanded concessions for Muslims, if the British wanted Muslims to support the war. The then British Viceroy Linlithgow gave the necessary assurances to Jinnah during 1939-40, that there will be no constitutional advance in India without Jinnah’s agreement. On account of such assurances, the Congress, in spite of being the largest party in India, could do nothing. Jinnah thought that the British had succumbed to him and that his prestige had risen dramatically. Linlithgow himself asked Jinnah to submit a plan, to prevent the Congress from having its way.

[tonyhp32]

Had India not be partitioned in 1947 then the likelihood is that the Hindu leadership like Hindu Mahasabha and RSS would have made more of an effort to continue the Shuddhi movement aimed at converting Muslims which they had started in the 20s and 30s. After 1947 as the Muslims were only 10% they overlooked the Muslims for over five decades. No sensible leadership just stays mute while it the people it claims to represent starts to become a minority. Once the Muslim population had started to go towards 30% in a non-partitioned India the Hindu leadership would have started a mass campaign to increase the Hindu birth rate to at least the level of the Muslims.

Pakistan might be half covered by mountains but it still has over 20% of it's land area (between Chenab and Ravi) which is the best agricultural land in Asia, most of which was developed by the Sikhs.

[kdsingh80]

Had India not be partitioned in 1947 then the likelihood is that the Hindu leadership like Hindu Mahasabha and RSS would have made more of an effort to continue the Shuddhi movement aimed at converting Muslims which they had started in the 20s and 30s. After 1947 as the Muslims were only 10% they overlooked the Muslims for over five decades. No sensible leadership just stays mute while it the people it claims to represent starts to become a minority. Once the Muslim population had started to go towards 30% in a non-partitioned India the Hindu leadership would have started a mass campaign to increase the Hindu birth rate to at least the level of the Muslims.

Oh come on chances of conversions of Dalits,schedule tribes and Dravidians to Islam was much more possibility than RSS or Hindu mahasabha converting Muslims.Whenever There is Hindu vs Muslim conflict and muslims are even 25% ,even then there is good chance of Muslims defeating hindu's rather Hindu's defeating muslims.We should Remember that Hindu organisations always have very limited support ,mainly from upper caste's ,while muslim organisations have full support from a half starving muslim to Nawabs ,when there is any conflict with non muslims

Pakistan might be half covered by mountains but it still has over 20% of it's land area (between Chenab and Ravi) which is the best agricultural land in Asia, most of which was developed by the Sikhs.

Totally agree with it ,that's why I said that Punjabi

Muslims gained a lot but idea of Pakistan was to serve the entire Muslims of undivided India Rather than serving only Punjabi muslims

[dalsingh101]

Don't forget, those mountainous areas are frequently well loved by western travelers/holiday makers. I've met a few nostalgic goray talking about their visits to Peshawar over the years.

[kdsingh80]

Don't forget, those mountainous areas are frequently well loved by western travelers/holiday makers. I've met a few nostalgic goray talking about their visits to Peshawar over the years.

Nepal has much better mountains and tourism industry yet it has one of the worse economy of south asia.GDP is 1100$ with population of 30 million and area of around 1.5 lakh sq km while Bangladesh has almost same area with 160 million population and 1500$ per capita GDP

[dalsingh101]

Is that really reflective of the quality of life differences between Bangladesh and Nepal?

[tonyhp32]

Oh come on chances of conversions of Dalits,schedule tribes and Dravidians to Islam was much more possibility than RSS or Hindu mahasabha converting Muslims.Whenever There is Hindu vs Muslim conflict and muslims are even 25% ,even then there is good chance of Muslims defeating hindu's rather Hindu's defeating muslims.We should Remember that Hindu organisations always have very limited support ,mainly from upper caste's ,while muslim organisations have full support from a half starving muslim to Nawabs ,when there is any conflict with non muslims

Totally agree with it ,that's why I said that Punjabi

Muslims gained a lot but idea of Pakistan was to serve the entire Muslims of undivided India Rather than serving only Punjabi muslims

The Shuddhi movement was very successful in the 1920 especially amongst tribes which still had residual Hindu customs even though they had been Muslims from some generations. The Mehrat Rajputs of UP underwent Shuddhi as did other Muslim tribes. This was one of the reasons that the Muslims started the Jamaat-i-islami. You need to realise that one of the main benefits that Muslims gained through partition was that they had a state of their own with which they could enact laws and use the resources of the state to entrench Muslims into Islam. We see this now that the Muslims in Pakistan are the most fanatical about Islam, whereas prior to 1947 a majority still had many Hindu customs. The Hindus never carried on with the Shuddhi movement after 1847 and have only recently revived it to bring in Hindu tribals who had converted to Christianity through inducements from the missionaries.

[kdsingh80]

The Shuddhi movement was very successful in the 1920 especially amongst tribes which still had residual Hindu customs even though they had been Muslims from some generations. The Mehrat Rajputs of UP underwent Shuddhi as did other Muslim tribes. This was one of the reasons that the Muslims started the Jamaat-i-islami.

I have heard about shudhi movement,but did it really changed demographic in percentage in favour of Hindu's.

I don't think so

You need to realise that one of the main benefits that Muslims gained through partition was that they had a state of their own with which they could enact laws and use the resources of the state to entrench Muslims into Islam.

We have only 1 muslim dominated state in India and that is Kashmir where recently omar abdullah kicked out BJP leaders ,when they went to hoist tri color on 26 th Jan.Kashmir despite being in India successfully maintained to keep muslims in islam and kicked Hindu's out.Also Muslim league was demanding Federal system and more power to states and weak centre.Undivided India could have been much more like USA where different states have different laws.Muslim majority states would have surely enacted laws to keep muslims in islam

[chatanga1]

Also Muslim league was demanding Federal system and more power to states and weak centre.Undivided India could have been much more like USA where different states have different laws.

this was the stance of the congress initially, because primarily, it was what the british had said would be best for india, which is why jinnah was originally with congress, but over time jinnah became convinced that nehru was only paying lip-service to this federal system, and became disillusioned with nehru and congress, upto the point where he was adamant that pakistan-hindustan was the only solution.

nehru had no intention of committing india to a federal system, basically because he was powerhungry, who beleived that only he had the right answers. if nehru had not driven away jinnah, india's and the sikh's future would have been different.

Edited February 1, 2011 by chatanga1

[Premi]

https://khalsavox.com/editorial/sikh-migrant-narrates-massacre-of-sikhs-hindus-by-muslim-goons-in-1947/

Sikh migrant narrates massacre of Sikhs, Hindus by Muslim goons in 1947

written by Rajinder Singh Taggar April 18, 2023

 

A Report From India’s Pakistani Village Wattu In Muktsar District Of Punjab

Master Darshan Singh (85), hailing from Sekham village near Lahore, Pakistan, now a resident of Village Wattu in the Muktsar district of Punjab, goes down memory lane when he witnessed the slaughter of thousands of Sikhs and Hindus by Muslim goons during partition in 1947.

“I was part of a ‘jatha’ of over 2 lakh Sikhs and Hindus moving towards Amritsar, but in Jambher village, the Muslims attacked us. The ‘jatha’ was accompanied by three ‘Gorkha’ army men on the orders of the outgoing British. They shot dead 3-looters who raided us, and the others fled,” he recollects.

....

 

Based on his visit to his ancestral village Sekham in Pakistan, the Wattu resident said that the farmers were poverty stricken, their houses were all ‘kucha’ (Houses made of mud), there was no tubewell in their fields and, hardly a tractor was seen in the village. “The Pakistani farmers are desirous of moving to India’s Punjab state. But I told them this is not possible anymore,” Darshan Singh added.

 

He said that the converted Sikhs continue to shun eating beef as a part of their traditions though Muslims relished it. They also did not consume liquor and instead used opium and its derivatives

[dalsingh101]

On 1/31/2011 at 7:27 PM, dalsingh101 said:

KDS

 

Your point is weak. You should see it as they've got both their own piece of land as well as a strong representation in India. Watch how their power will grow in future in a democratic setup where numbers and mobilisation mean everything.

Bump this point 12 years later. I's say it's coming true more for India than Pak right now.  

[dalsingh101]

I'm going to try and evaluate my previous post in light of my current understanding:

 

On 1/31/2011 at 7:58 PM, dalsingh101 said:

This war or strife wont last last forever. Eventually the sullay Panjabis and Pathan types will probably patch things up, even if that means the Pathans will have to be paid off. You can deal with them two ways it seems, the Avitibile route or paying them off. Western involvement in the region means that they can't go the 'brutal suppression' route, at least not blatantly.

 At this moment in time, it seems as if musalmaan pathaan and musalmaan punjabi relations are at an all time low. I've heard the pathaan's think their panjabi co-religionists are manipulative and greedy. But you never know with religious fervour, this could change rapidly with the emergence of a projected common 'enemy' which may well be india? If china and india go at it, opportunists (i.e. mercenaries) from afghan and paks may join the fray on china's side. 

 

Quote

The amount of money being pumped in P'stan right now is huge, some people liken it to a 'blank cheque'. Sure, the majority of it is getting pilfered but that still leaves a lot of power in some people's hands. If the nature of the Pakistani community is reflected in their diasporic communities in the Uk, I would say they have infinitely more capacity to close ranks and produce patriots (both religious and nationalistic) than Indians. Plus they do have a lot of guys who aren't afraid to fight, even for dumb shit. Their politicking too seems to be able to influence other nations through some seriously sly two-faced diplomacy, as well via the ISI. Remember these are the guys who propped up the Taliban in the first place. They also had a hand in supplying Khalistanis too apparently.

At this moment in time, it appears as if the fabric of their community is being seriously tested. They do have allies though like brits, and china, and maybe some other sullay mideast nations? 

 

Quote

So I don't think the cards have fallen enough to read into the future with them. Here in the west they do the standard media promotion of the liberals there, but I doubt that this reflects common everyday thinking there. If Pakistan crumbles, it will be trouble for everyone given the nuclear capability. It will also effect the new developing 'golden egg laying goose' of the west - India. I think these things alone will motivate the west to do everything it can to try and prevent a destabilised situation. Last thing they need is Taliban running free in Afghani and Paki - stan even more than they do now.

Right now it looks like the west have completely failed against the taliban and the taliban have also turned on paks.   

 

I was right that we couldn't predict the future, and at the time of writing the above, the rapid decline of the west wasn't so apparent.