By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
I keep hearing people on TV and radio, who were there before partition, saying that the Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims all used to live happily together with no problems. So how come they started murdering each other? Any Rs with family history who can explain why it all kicked off?
0
India / Pakistan Partition 1947 on 01:46 - Aug 17 with 2639 views
India / Pakistan Partition 1947 on 01:05 - Aug 17 by stowmarketrange
After viewing the BBC programs over the last couple of weeks it seems to have mainly caused by the rush for us to leave India.We brought forward the deadline by several months which meant that the various religious groups had less time to travel to safer areas. Add in the fact of a tit for tat mentality over numerous atrocities on all sides and it was a powder keg waiting for the right sparks. Our soldiers didn't exactly rush to stop the killings either.
Sorry for the pedantry, stowmarket agree with your post really BUT programmes - english programs - american
Did any army rush into stop the non oil reserve holding Rwandan tutsi and hutu genocidal conflagration when that was occurring ?
'I'm 18 with a bullet.Got my finger on the trigger,I'm gonna pull it.."
Love,Peace and Fook Chelski!
More like 20StoneOfHoop now.
Let's face it I'm not getting any thinner.
Pass the cake and pies please.
2
India / Pakistan Partition 1947 on 02:02 - Aug 17 with 2633 views
India / Pakistan Partition 1947 on 00:58 - Aug 17 by kensalriser
Because there's nothing bad about invading a country, colonising it, subjugating its people and appropriating its resources to enrich yourself. They were lucky to have us!
Overall most Indians would say so. Sorry if that doesn't fit your limp wristed, left wing, kumbayah chanting rhetoric.
1
India / Pakistan Partition 1947 on 04:13 - Aug 17 with 2601 views
India / Pakistan Partition 1947 on 03:23 - Aug 17 by Benny_the_Ball
Overall most Indians would say so. Sorry if that doesn't fit your limp wristed, left wing, kumbayah chanting rhetoric.
Sorry peeps not supporting Benny_the_Balls views. I pressed the wrong arrow. Fat fingers.
"Overall most Indians.." Source? An allegation with zero,not even anecdotal evidence. But it fits your macho firm hand-shaking ignorant Horst Wessel Song singing prejudice.
[Post edited 17 Aug 2017 5:22]
'I'm 18 with a bullet.Got my finger on the trigger,I'm gonna pull it.."
Love,Peace and Fook Chelski!
More like 20StoneOfHoop now.
Let's face it I'm not getting any thinner.
Pass the cake and pies please.
1
India / Pakistan Partition 1947 on 11:10 - Aug 17 with 2542 views
I am not going to say too much as I know more about East Asian history than South Asian history.
I heard the author, Shashi Tharoor, speak about the book on Start the Week in May. His opening remarks were:
'The British came to one of the richest countries in the world. In fact the richest in 1700 when it accounted for 27% of GDP, which is more than the US does of today's GDP...and reduced it to one of the poorest countries in the world with less than 3% of GDP by 1947.'
One thing I do not believe is widely known is that the opium that Britain forced upon the Chinese in the Opium Wars was exported from India (Orwell's father worked in the Opium Department of the Indian Civil Service).
This is from ex-City economist Tony Norfield, who is a specialist on contemporary (financial) imperialism:
'The partition of India took place seventy years ago today. British media coverage of the event focuses on the bloodshed that followed and, not surprisingly, ignores the role of the British in fomenting divisions between Muslims and Hindus. Narendra Singh Sarila's book, The Shadow of the Great Game: the Untold Story of India’s Partition (Harper Collin, 2005 and 2009), fills this gap.
This is the only book I have found that explains what was in it for the British when India was partitioned in 1947. It shows how the British backed Muhammad Ali Jinnah in his opposition to the Indian National Congress, and how they encouraged the formation of Pakistan as a dependent state that they could better rely upon to be anti-Russian than an independent India. Historians usually avoid this and instead explain partition by claiming that there were deep-rooted ethnic/religious differences that demanded a Muslim Pakistan separate from a Hindu India.
A highly recommended book that highlights another crime of British imperialism, and one that has had repercussions long after the formal end of colonial power.'
I am also no expert, but making people leave their family homes, where they may have lived for decades, at the behest of a third party is never going to end well is it? (Ireland, Palestine, Cyprus etc.)
4
India / Pakistan Partition 1947 on 15:11 - Aug 17 with 2414 views
India / Pakistan Partition 1947 on 01:05 - Aug 17 by stowmarketrange
After viewing the BBC programs over the last couple of weeks it seems to have mainly caused by the rush for us to leave India.We brought forward the deadline by several months which meant that the various religious groups had less time to travel to safer areas. Add in the fact of a tit for tat mentality over numerous atrocities on all sides and it was a powder keg waiting for the right sparks. Our soldiers didn't exactly rush to stop the killings either.
As I've previously said in earlier posts, I'm sure the Raj was far from perfect and Colonialism has a lot to answer for I just don't see it as right or fair in any way to blame the Brits for everything bad that happened. The Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims have to take the vast majority of the blame for what occurred. It wasn't us that raped, burned and slaughtered.
Tharoor's book is a useful counter-point to some of the more misty-eyed (and frankly patronising) views of the Raj from the likes of Niall Ferguson.
But since China has been brought up it is worth noting that China was also much more advanced than Britain before the colonial era, indeed was probably level pegging as late as 1800-ish (that being the British ambassador's assessment about that date) yet by 1900 was left behind and has only recently caught up. Notwithstanding the opium trade, China was not largely colonised yet still failed to keep pace with the European and North American countries during the industrial revolution, so that acts to some extent as a "control" in terms of assessing the impact of British rule - i.e. just because India and China were more advanced than Britain in 1600 does not guarantee that they would stay that way irrespective of whether or not they were colonised.
2
India / Pakistan Partition 1947 on 19:44 - Aug 17 with 2348 views
India / Pakistan Partition 1947 on 00:58 - Aug 17 by kensalriser
Because there's nothing bad about invading a country, colonising it, subjugating its people and appropriating its resources to enrich yourself. They were lucky to have us!
Hey,let's drag the Romans back and make them pay. Bastards. Then we can have a pop at William The Conqueror...and the Danes. Slags.
India / Pakistan Partition 1947 on 15:11 - Aug 17 by BromleyHoop
As I've previously said in earlier posts, I'm sure the Raj was far from perfect and Colonialism has a lot to answer for I just don't see it as right or fair in any way to blame the Brits for everything bad that happened. The Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims have to take the vast majority of the blame for what occurred. It wasn't us that raped, burned and slaughtered.
[Post edited 17 Aug 2017 15:30]
Well said.....I visited Khajuraho in 1992. The city used to have 85 Hindu Temples, built over a thousand years ago. Today there are only 25 surviving. They were destroyed by invading Muslim armies in the 11th century. That was in the name of colonialism some 800 years before Britannia got her hands on India.
Should I blame British rule for that or Lee Hoos ??
[Post edited 17 Aug 2017 20:17]
0
India / Pakistan Partition 1947 on 22:58 - Aug 17 with 2273 views
India / Pakistan Partition 1947 on 15:11 - Aug 17 by BromleyHoop
As I've previously said in earlier posts, I'm sure the Raj was far from perfect and Colonialism has a lot to answer for I just don't see it as right or fair in any way to blame the Brits for everything bad that happened. The Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims have to take the vast majority of the blame for what occurred. It wasn't us that raped, burned and slaughtered.
[Post edited 17 Aug 2017 15:30]
My partner is a Sikh from the Punjab. She actually knows what's she's talking about - as opposed to some of the crap that's been posted in this thread. This is what she told me about partition, from the perspective of her family who actually experienced it:
The Brits wanted out - fast - they didn't give a sh1t about what they left behind. If you take a land where Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims had lived together peacefully - which they were certainly doing in the Punjab (which had a very strong cultural identity for ALL the people who lived there, over and above their religious affiliation)- and then create a power struggle - acceding to the demands of the muslim leader Jinnah who wanted a separate state - when Nehru and Gandhi wanted it to remain as one state - instead of taking the time to figure out how to create a peaceful withdrawal, you create a volatile climate of fear. People had no idea what was going to happen - and in this febrile climate the actual act of partition - drawing a bloody great line across people's lands, dividing ancient boundaries, villages, tribes, families, at a stroke - was the match that lit the tinderbox. The people who did this - the Brits - bear the responsibility for the bloodbath. They fuelled the fire, then lit the match. Two million people died. It really needn't have happened that way. Yet you say the British should take little blame - you even say it wasn't 'us' as if this is somehow personally related to you. This was a decision taken out of pure expediency, of self preservation with no thought for the consequences - by the British rulers who had the huge costs of the Second World War to bear and didn't want to hang around sorting out the small problem of how to manage withdrawal from the vast multi-faith nation of India. I call that irresponsible, and that's an understatement.
India / Pakistan Partition 1947 on 22:58 - Aug 17 by hubble
My partner is a Sikh from the Punjab. She actually knows what's she's talking about - as opposed to some of the crap that's been posted in this thread. This is what she told me about partition, from the perspective of her family who actually experienced it:
The Brits wanted out - fast - they didn't give a sh1t about what they left behind. If you take a land where Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims had lived together peacefully - which they were certainly doing in the Punjab (which had a very strong cultural identity for ALL the people who lived there, over and above their religious affiliation)- and then create a power struggle - acceding to the demands of the muslim leader Jinnah who wanted a separate state - when Nehru and Gandhi wanted it to remain as one state - instead of taking the time to figure out how to create a peaceful withdrawal, you create a volatile climate of fear. People had no idea what was going to happen - and in this febrile climate the actual act of partition - drawing a bloody great line across people's lands, dividing ancient boundaries, villages, tribes, families, at a stroke - was the match that lit the tinderbox. The people who did this - the Brits - bear the responsibility for the bloodbath. They fuelled the fire, then lit the match. Two million people died. It really needn't have happened that way. Yet you say the British should take little blame - you even say it wasn't 'us' as if this is somehow personally related to you. This was a decision taken out of pure expediency, of self preservation with no thought for the consequences - by the British rulers who had the huge costs of the Second World War to bear and didn't want to hang around sorting out the small problem of how to manage withdrawal from the vast multi-faith nation of India. I call that irresponsible, and that's an understatement.
Get rid of religion and I doubt anyone would've died.
0
India / Pakistan Partition 1947 on 23:08 - Aug 17 with 2260 views
India / Pakistan Partition 1947 on 22:58 - Aug 17 by hubble
My partner is a Sikh from the Punjab. She actually knows what's she's talking about - as opposed to some of the crap that's been posted in this thread. This is what she told me about partition, from the perspective of her family who actually experienced it:
The Brits wanted out - fast - they didn't give a sh1t about what they left behind. If you take a land where Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims had lived together peacefully - which they were certainly doing in the Punjab (which had a very strong cultural identity for ALL the people who lived there, over and above their religious affiliation)- and then create a power struggle - acceding to the demands of the muslim leader Jinnah who wanted a separate state - when Nehru and Gandhi wanted it to remain as one state - instead of taking the time to figure out how to create a peaceful withdrawal, you create a volatile climate of fear. People had no idea what was going to happen - and in this febrile climate the actual act of partition - drawing a bloody great line across people's lands, dividing ancient boundaries, villages, tribes, families, at a stroke - was the match that lit the tinderbox. The people who did this - the Brits - bear the responsibility for the bloodbath. They fuelled the fire, then lit the match. Two million people died. It really needn't have happened that way. Yet you say the British should take little blame - you even say it wasn't 'us' as if this is somehow personally related to you. This was a decision taken out of pure expediency, of self preservation with no thought for the consequences - by the British rulers who had the huge costs of the Second World War to bear and didn't want to hang around sorting out the small problem of how to manage withdrawal from the vast multi-faith nation of India. I call that irresponsible, and that's an understatement.
So that's not your girlfriend in your avatar then. Good. I don't feel so bad now.
India / Pakistan Partition 1947 on 22:58 - Aug 17 by hubble
My partner is a Sikh from the Punjab. She actually knows what's she's talking about - as opposed to some of the crap that's been posted in this thread. This is what she told me about partition, from the perspective of her family who actually experienced it:
The Brits wanted out - fast - they didn't give a sh1t about what they left behind. If you take a land where Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims had lived together peacefully - which they were certainly doing in the Punjab (which had a very strong cultural identity for ALL the people who lived there, over and above their religious affiliation)- and then create a power struggle - acceding to the demands of the muslim leader Jinnah who wanted a separate state - when Nehru and Gandhi wanted it to remain as one state - instead of taking the time to figure out how to create a peaceful withdrawal, you create a volatile climate of fear. People had no idea what was going to happen - and in this febrile climate the actual act of partition - drawing a bloody great line across people's lands, dividing ancient boundaries, villages, tribes, families, at a stroke - was the match that lit the tinderbox. The people who did this - the Brits - bear the responsibility for the bloodbath. They fuelled the fire, then lit the match. Two million people died. It really needn't have happened that way. Yet you say the British should take little blame - you even say it wasn't 'us' as if this is somehow personally related to you. This was a decision taken out of pure expediency, of self preservation with no thought for the consequences - by the British rulers who had the huge costs of the Second World War to bear and didn't want to hang around sorting out the small problem of how to manage withdrawal from the vast multi-faith nation of India. I call that irresponsible, and that's an understatement.
Is memsaab the reason you have been driven back to the drink, sahib?
India / Pakistan Partition 1947 on 04:13 - Aug 17 by 18StoneOfHoop
Sorry peeps not supporting Benny_the_Balls views. I pressed the wrong arrow. Fat fingers.
"Overall most Indians.." Source? An allegation with zero,not even anecdotal evidence. But it fits your macho firm hand-shaking ignorant Horst Wessel Song singing prejudice.
[Post edited 17 Aug 2017 5:22]
Oh here we go; on the "source" again. If you're going to offer a response at least try to conjure up something vaguely rational rather than trot out that old trump card.
I live and work with scores of Indian people every day. We've discussed this topic at length over the course of many years and not just because of recent media attention. Undoubtedly there were some negative aspects but overall the legacy of British rule is positive and there is great mutual respect between our respective nations.
I prefer to maintain this relationship and look forward to a bright future together. If you prefer to live in the past and wallow in self-loathing at Britain's history then that's entirely your prerogative but forgive me if I don't join you.
0
India / Pakistan Partition 1947 on 12:10 - Aug 18 with 2088 views
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
