You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
India-Pakistan
Count Pakistan as a blessing
2008-01-04
By Bharat Karnad

This is one of the great “what ifs” of history. But what if Partition had been avoided because the 1946 cabinet mission plan was jointly accepted by the Congress Party and the Muslim League or Mahatma Gandhi’s last minute offer of prime ministership to Mohammad Ali Jinnah had prevailed over Jawaharlal Nehru’s personal ambition? With Jinnah dead of tuberculosis by September 1948, Nehru would have soon headed the government. But would he have enjoyed the same success in rooting liberal values and democratic norms in areas now constituting Pakistan?

Recall that the British during the previous 100-odd years had a terrible time pacifying the tribal militants and, in the wake of the somewhat farcical Afghan invasion of 1919, were engaged in almost continuous fighting with the armed tribesmen in Waziristan and on the North-West Frontier right up to IndiaÂ’s independence.
Posted by:john frum

#7  Compare wid NOSI.ORG > GEOPOLITICS - RECASTING THE LONG WAR AS A SINO-US JOINT VENTURE. The Chinese = CHiComs as Amer's natural allies; + FOURTH GENER WARFARE - JOHN ROBB:KEEPING UP WITH THE TERRORISTS.

ALso, ISRAEL > THE ASYMMETRY FACING PRESIDENT BUSH.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2008-01-04 23:44  

#6  partition was the amputation of a gangrene infected limb

I'd say not "not done a very good job out of it", except "glass houses" etc...
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2008-01-04 13:32  

#5  The Nobel Literature Laureate VS Naipaul on a trip to Pakistan visited Karachi and wrote that partition was the amputation of a gangrene infected limb. Without it, all Indian cities would be Karachi.
Posted by: john frum   2008-01-04 07:43  

#4  True.

Also unlike the westernized elites in some Arab countries (like Algeria and Lebanon), who oppose the Islamists, the Indian Muslim elite would have a vested interest in encouraging radical Islamism in the masses so that they could be used as a tool in a struggle for power with the other groups in Indian society.

Indian Islam is unique in this sense. It is the only variant of Islam that developed in a society where Muslims were not a majority. It has developed mechanisms to survive surrounded by kufr.
Posted by: john frum   2008-01-04 07:39  

#3  Without the state/elites support for the radical Islamists (as today exists in Pakistan and Bangladesh), it is interesting to speculate how radical the Muslim population would be...

One word petrodollars
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2008-01-04 07:13  

#2  The population of an undivided India would be 1.3 billion (larger than China) with 450 million Muslims. Without the state/elites support for the radical Islamists (as today exists in Pakistan and Bangladesh), it is interesting to speculate how radical the Muslim population would be...

Posted by: john frum   2008-01-04 06:34  

#1  Demographics trump this dhimmi surrender rot. After Partition, Hindus have been reduced from 20% to 1% of Pakistan's population. Meanwhile, in India, the Muslim percentile increased from 8 to 15%. Even where Muslims are a tiny minority, they demand special privileges, that they oppose for their homeland minorities.

Islam is an evil, aggressive, and genocidal ideology. Indulgence of the cult does not advance human rights. Muslims are the enemy of liberty.
Posted by: McZoid   2008-01-04 00:14  

00:00