Jump to content

Talk:Partition of India/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Inaccuracies

The following statement has several inaccuracies:

Very shortly after being awarded of dominion status by the British Empire (independence), on August 15, 1947, the colony of British India was divided into two independent nations, India and Pakistan...

Most importantly:

  1. "British India" was not a "colony". It was a separate political entity called the "British Indian Empire", with its own head of state (see Emperor of India) and has its own Wikipedia page at British Raj.
  2. The above text gives the impression that a dominion (which is a legal term for a form of nation-state) gained independence and broke up later on. That's not what happened. Two dominions gained independence at the same time; at the stroke of midnight on August 15th, 1947. Of course, the festivities in Karachi happened a day earlier and Pakistan chooses to use that date as its official date—which is most probably an effort to have a day separate from India and is a bit petty if you ask me, but then most fellow Pakistanis would not be too happy with my saying that.

More as I think of it.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 21:01, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

What's missing?

There is something missing from the end of the following par

==Division of Assets==
The assets of the legal entity that was "India" as of August 15, 1947, namely the British Indian Empire, were divided between the two dominions. The process got involved. Gandhi went on hunger strike at one point to pressure the government of the Union of India to transfer funds, an action that is reportedly

User:IFaqeer, can you complete it? Moriori 01:27, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Have added a bit. It's pretty much still a placeholder; will expand as I can—or maybe someone else can help.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 01:40, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Just asking you guys if you know of any historical debate between historians on the partition...like conflicting views and differing oppinions??

Probably there is, but I don't think any of the editors here are experts in that field of history. We've done our best to give an overview, but the academic ins and outs remain to be covered. Zora 23:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Date

BTW, Pakistan's celebrating Independence Day on the 14th is not just a simple consequence of the ceremonies being held on that day. Technically/legally, the day Pakistan gained independence was the 15th. It is a conscisous choice to celebrate on the 14th. Some put it down to a desire to be distinctive from India, others to less charitable reasons. (And I am not dissing Pakistan; I am a pretty nationalistic Pakistani myself.)

See also #Inaccuracies above.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 01:44, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Burma and Sri Lanka

The introduction speaks about Burma and Ceylon/Sri Lanka as being part of the partition, but the rest of the article focuses exclusively on India and Pakistan. How should we clarify the issue? — Mateo SA | talk 03:35, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate to discuss those two—Sri Lanka maybe—as part of this process. The process by which Burma regained indepedence was separate from the rest of the British Indian Empire. See History of Myanmar#British rule.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:24, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
Maybe it isn't, but if the article mentions Sri Lanka and Burma in the introduction, it should at least explain why they are not discussed in the rest of the article — Mateo SA | talk 01:14, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
My point is that we should change that discussion at the top to explain that the phrase applies to the India-Pakistan divide and point them to where to look for what happened to the rest of the British Indian Empire.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:07, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
Do we have any separate article on the independence process of the former British India? I realize that the term "partition" usually refers just to the India/Pakistan partition; still a paragraph or two here on the rest of it would be helpful for people to understand the context. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:28, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
Burma was gradually annexed by the British during 1826, 1834 and 1862 as part of British India. However, in 1937, Burma was established as Crown Colony separate from India. (Ref Historical Atlas of South Asia, Page 66, The University of Chicago Press, 1978). It was not part of India at the time of Partition. British possession of Ceylon was was part of Madras Presidency during 1795-1798, but was made a separate crown colony therafter (ibid, page 55) long before India was put under one Governer General after 1857. The expression "Partition of India" in has never been applied in any learned work to the separion of Burma in 1937 and Ceylon in 1798. The first section of this article was creating totally unnecesay confusion by asserting that "partion of India" also refers to separation of Burma and Ceylon from the Indian adminstrative unit(s) long before 1947. This discussion thread has gone for a while, the details here should clear the issue. Accordingly, I have edited the first section. -- User:Ravimetre| January 26, 2006 (UTC)


Population Exchange and Population

Added more specific population exchange data based on 1951 Census of India and 1951 Census of Pakistan that enumerated Displaced Persons. --User:Ravimetre| January 26, 2006 (UTC)
Population figures: Provided 2005 as date of recent estimate. For percentage population religions in India replaced 1991 Census percentage with 2001 Census percentages. Added 1951 Census data for total population of the three countries as per this first Census after the partition. -- User:Ravimetre| January 26, 2006 (UTC)
Ravi, thanks on behalf of all of us for your good work on this article. It is a great improvement. Zora 08:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Riots

The tensions that resulted in the Partition, mass migration, and massacre were created/inflamed/whatever by "communal riots" in the pre-independence period. So far, there's no mention of these in the article. I can't contribute yet, but I'm reading Patricia Gossman's interesting book, Riots and Victims, and will have more to say as I slog through this book. But someone else might start a section?

I'm also wondering if "millions died" is sufficient tribute to the horror of the time? I'd have to look at the Wikipedia treatment of other such catastrophes to get some sense of how such things are treated here, I suppose. Zora 05:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lady Mountbatten

Does anyone know: is it established fact that Lady Mountbatten was carrying on an affair with Jawaharlal Nehru? If so, it seems that this would seem to me of sufficient relevance to Louis Mountbatten's possible partiality that it should be mentioned. I know I'm opening a can of worms here. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:57, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Did Ghandi propose to make Jinnah head of a united state?

But why open just one can of worms. Does anyone know if there is a clear historical record that during the negotiations Ghandi proposed Jinnah as the first head (president or prime minister) of a united state, but Jinnah believed that even such a position would not change the inevitably Hindu-dominated nature of such a state and declined the proposal? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:00, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Governor general

And while I'm opening cans of worms, let's try for a trifecta: does anyone know whether the story is true that Mountbatten proposed that he could serve simultaneously as governor of both states, but was rebuffed by Jinnah who made a remark to the effect of the impossibility of the position this would leave Mountbatten in if one of the states were to declare war on the other? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:03, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

I have heard more often described as his being interested in that; not that he formally proposed it. But I might be wrong.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:27, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Godse and Sarvarkar

Ok, how 'bout this one: the implied homosexual relationship between Godse and Sawarkar mentioned in Freedom at Midnight... --Rj 21:36, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

I haven't read Freedom at Midnight, but if there is such an implication, our articles on these two certainly don't express it clearly: the word "relationship" as used in these articles is not suggestive of anything sexual. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:21, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

What does this article need

Important omissions:

  • Background information on the state of things before the partition
  • Main political players and their perspective
  • British perspective on the decolonalisation of the subcontinent
  • Plans for the decolonisation/partition
  • the story of the actual partition
  • Kashmir and other such issue that arose from the partition
  • the population movements during the partition

Less important, but need some mention

  • India (directly) after the partition
  • Pakistan (directly) after the partition
  • Some mention of the further developments in East Pakistan/Bangladesh
  • What happened with Ceylon and Burma
  • Goa? At the time of the partition this was still a Portoguese colony, wasn't it? What happened there?

Unfortunately, I only have a (sub) schoolboy's knowledge of the issues, so I cannot deal with much myself. --Martin Wisse 09:38, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here's a few comments:
  • I strongly like the list—especially the "Important" part. They will have to evolve, though. There's a lot of information collection to be done—both in terms of volume of material and points of view.
  • Burma should not be on the list.
  • I will check on Ceylon/Sri Lanka.
  • Goa, IMHO, has nothing to do with partition—it is an issue between India and the Portuguese, no?
—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:43, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
I have put in skeletal sections for the first two.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:53, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
Is there any relationship between the creation of Ceylon as an independent state and the Tamil-Sinhalese conflict given that the creation of Ceylon would have separated Tamils on Ceylon from Tamils in the Indian province of Tamil Nadu?
As for Goa, nothing happened there. The Portuguese didn't give it up until much later. AndyL 20:48, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
By 1961 Nehru had the army to take Goa and the enclaves of Daman and Diu by force but not enough to fend off China the following year. --Rj 22:23, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
Were there serious attempts to prevent a partition from happening? What about the partition, specifically, of the states of Bengal and Punjab? --Confuzion 03:09, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's not as simple as that. I would rather look at it as what led to the League demanding, and then not giving into anything less than, separate states.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 03:20, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Map

I think it strongly needs a map!--Martewa 01:09, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Took the liberty of making this a separate heading.
The "External links" section has a link to a very good map. Can someone check if we can "acquire" it. We should havve "before" and "After" maps and so on.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:10, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
How's this? Made it myself from a freeware clipart map. The red is the pre-1947 boundary of India, and the modern nations are shown in color. Any suggestions for improvements/changes/corrections?
--McMullen 01:44, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Bangladesh" as the name of a particular piece of territory seems anachronistic to me. Similarly, I don't think the map should use the names "Myanmar" or "Sri Lanka", and present-day Pakistan should be labelled as "West Pakistan".

We also might (that's might) want to make clear the most disputed provinces, especially Kashmir. Anyway, if this finally turns into a solid article, I'm sure that more detailed maps of some of the border alternatives discussed will certainly be in order. See, for example [1], I'm sure there is a lot else out there, but we're going to have to work out a copyright-compatible solution. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:45, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

OK, made the corrections requested (you may have to refresh the image to see them). Names are now as of 1948, colors have been adjusted, and Kashmir is shown as "disputed". I'm not sure if I got the boundary of Kashmir 100% correct, but it should be reasonably close. McMullen 04:15, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Actually, being imprecise might be a good thing in this case. As I understand, there is no boundary of Kashmir that's agreed upon 100%. Also, I would suggest moving the label "East Pakistan" off the map, with an arrow pointing to E. Pakistan, since the existing label almost covers up the area. — Mateo SA | talk 05:50, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
I like it.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 06:35, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
Though, come to think of it, that map is only accurate as of the 50s or so, after most of the semi-indpendent states had been convinced to join (or otherwise joined) one or the other.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 06:37, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of adding the map to the article, although I agree that the label for East Pakistan (and probably Ceylon too) ought to be moved off the country (to avoid obscuring it) and arrows added instead. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:23, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The text is easy to move - I'll take care of it when I get home tonight. McMullen 20:01, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Seeds

Here's my problem with the following:

===Seeds of partition===
The seeds of the partition were sown long before independence, with the formation of the All India Muslim League (AIML), in 1906, in response to the Hindu domination of the Indian National Congress. Although a number of different scenarios were considered, by 1940 the formation of two separate states had become inevitable. That year at an All India Muslim League conference in Lahore, Muslim League leader Mohammad Ali Jinnah, said, “The Hindus and the Muslims belong to two different religions, philosophies, social customs and literature... To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state.”

It gives the impression that Jinnah was part of the League since it's founding and that the separation was something that was inevitable or a demand of the League from then: Jinnah didn't join the League till a little later and was more active in the Congress at first. And the League didn't demand a separate homeland till at least 1935—definitely not formally till 1940. (1930 if you count Iqbal's "Presidential Address" in Allahbabad, which at that point was just his opinion.)

And I might say that "...by 1940, it was a formal demand of the League".—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:37, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with everything you are saying; feel very free to rewrite this to make that clearer. I did the last rewrite, and it seemed important to get both Jinnah's name and that quotation into this. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that Jinnah founded the AIML. I'd have no objection to this all becoming a lot longer, which it inevitably will if we want to get into the details of AIML founded 1906; Jinnah joins AIML (1913, I think, easily checked) and pretty rapidly ends up its leader; Jinnah quits Congress (1920, I think, easily checked); AIML move gradually toward two-state demand; by 1940 it is AIML policy, expressed by Jinnah as currently mentioned. I suspect you may know the details better than I, I'm clueful but not expert on South Asia. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:18, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
Also probably worth making clear that Jinnah's departure from Congress was a direct result of Gandhi's rise, and that Jinnah saw Gandhi as bringing stronger elements of Hindu religiosity into what had been a secular movement. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:47, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, good picture. But two holes in it. Jinnah's departure from the Congress was not related Hindu religiosity, but any religiosity; he took a stand against the Khilafat Movement, a Muslim effort (saying, in effect that "this can't end well because it is based on emotion") while Gandhi backed it. Secondly, there was a discontinuity in Jinnah's interaction with the League. Till the late 20s, he worked to bring the League and Congress together and when he gave up on that, he gave up on South Asian politics as a whole, moved to England and practised law. In the next five years, as you say, the League moved (or drifted, was nudged, or what have you) towards the 2-state demand. And it took years of correspondence between Jinnah and Iqbal to convince Jinnah to return and lead the struggle.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 06:34, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Two-nation theory

Doesn't there need to be a mention of Iqbal's two-nation theory? I can't find any article created on Wikipedia that specifically deals with it, though it is mentioned here in a subsection of the article on the Muslim League

Ah, the mother lode! This is usually the most interesting discussion within a topic like this. :D
Yes, what about it? Though this is the first time I have heard it described as "Iqbal's Two Nation Theory" :D.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 17:33, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
Only reason it's stated as "Iqbal's two-nation theory" is because of the following lines in the Muslim League article:

"The leadership of the League was taken over by Sir Muhammad Iqbal, who in 1930 first put forward the demand for a separate Muslim state in India, to be known as Pakistan (the "land of the pure"). The "two-nation theory," the belief that Hindus and Muslims were two different nations who could not live in one country, gained popularity among Muslims, particularly as Hindu nationalism became more strident."

anybody wanna share and clarify what the contentious bits are or are we just gonna be smug and keep all this info to ourselves??

I am low on bandwidth. Textbooks in Pakistan provide a litany of instances where the idea came up before Iqbal put it forth from an official Muslim League form. BTW, isn't this COTW being a wee neglected, I seem to be the only one adding stuff...I'll get back to it when my bandwidth logjam clears.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 06:21, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
BTW, see Sayed Ahmad Khan—and he died even before the Muslim League was founded.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 06:23, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
Okay, here's an explanation of the parts you had in bold. Iqbal was the first to formally state it from a position of authority in the League (in his Presidential Address to the League's 1930 annual meeting) and this led to that "theory", which already existed on the periphery of the political discussion, moving to center state. That make sense?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 00:45, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Secularism

Mention of Iqbal reminds me that given later history it is important to point out that Jinnah and Iqbal, despite wanting a separate country for Muslims, were essentially secular people, and that their project did not resemble the moves toward sharia-based states that were to occur a generation later in Pakistan and elsewhere. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:24, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Depends on how you define secular. Gandhi, for example had no qualms mixing faith and politics. And he was the icon of the Congress, the champion of secularism.
The advocates of sharia-based states were against the foundation of Pakistan.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 06:25, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Changed the wording of some sentences

No content will changed, just went through the page try to make it "sound" better. Just a heads up if someone's section gets edited and they can't seem to find what changed. GregNorc 23:52, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Query: What is India?

Here and below are several references to "India" instead of India. What do these quotes signify? Something ethnic, religious, political, cultural?

I think I put that there. I did it because plain India might have implied the modern nation-state of India, while in those places, I felt that something larger was intended. And I didn't feel like opening a can of worms about what to call that larger something.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 06:46, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Expedited controversial process

under The process of division I have made the above controversy a separate sub-head. It is a POV. I agree with a lot of it, but it is a POV. I have not edited it. Maybe later.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:06, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Added more films

I added two more high-profile films about the Partition. There's a lot more to add. Perhaps this should be moved to a separate page? Zora 21:01, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think eventually we should do that, but let's keep it here for now while so much activity is focused on this page. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:23, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

1935

I know that (undivided) India got a certain amount of self-government in 1935; is there anywhere in Wikipedia we talk about this? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:37, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Belongs under British India. I also created a link to Government of India Act which I was thinking would either be a disambiguation to the two or three acts of that name (I think 1935 and 1937). Someone changed that to Government of India Act 1935, which is fine by me, too. We can still have the disamb pointing to the specific pages.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:58, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

The "Jinnah Did it for the Glory" `discussion

Under Seeds of partition, someone added a strong POV item. I have not even removed the "widely held belief" verbiage—though IMHO, it is only believed in India and in the face of contrary facts. I have added what I think is balancing text. But I still think the whole discussion is petty; both what is there and what I have myself added.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 09:37, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

I rewrote and ended up deep-sixing that argument. Strangely enough, I'd always subscribed to the broader version of it, which is that the Muslim upper classes were unwilling to submit to what they feared would be Hindu rule after independence. But a little dipping into sources convinced me that the Hindu extremists (who are often left out of these discussions) were scary folks. Personally, I don't think the Muslims took the right course -- they just mirrored the tactics of the Hindus -- but it's *understandable*, and not to be explained simply by pride and greed. I've got a Hindu quote with the "two nations" theme even earlier than the Jinnah one that was in the article.

Of course, we may want to add a para about the Jinnah/Muslim "wanting to rule" argument and then the counterarguments. Zora 11:30, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Secularism and No Hindus in Pakistan; Muslims in India.

I have objected to the following twice and removed it once myself, so I guess other editors deserve an explanation:

While Pakistan eventually chose to be an Islamic state, India continued to exist as secular state. Almost all the Hindus in the Pakistan were driven away from Pakistan, notably from Sindh. However there is still a sizeable Muslim minority in India. In fact, there are more Muslims in India than there are in Pakistan.

This verbiage was at the end of Partition of India#Border_definition. Here are my issues:

  • That information doesn't really belong at the end of that section.
  • The first sentence, while vaguely correct, is an over-simplification. "Continued to exist as a secular state"? There was a secular state in existence before independence? And India's secular credentials are not untroubled. And a case can be made that the secularism practised by Nehru was very different from how more recent Indian and western advocates of the concept understand it. Nehru famously said (liberally paraphrasing here) that the difference between Britain and India was that the former had an official religion but an irreligious populace, while in India, the state was a-religious while the populace was very religious. This is my POV, but IMHO, a serious case can be made that while Nehru looked at a secular state giving equal importance to all religions, modern secularists say the state should not give any importance to any religion, all the while in their heart of hearts wanting the state to be aggressively adverserial to all religious belief, if not to ban it outright.
  • The next two sentences are an even more profound over-simplification. The bloodbath happened on both sides. And the problem is that Indians keep pointing to riots (which happened not just against Hindus, but Sikhs, too) while Pakistanis point both to Hindus leaving voluntarily (as happened extensively in Sindh) and the riots against Muslims in Indian parts of the subcontinent.
  • The last sentence is true. In fact, unofficially I think India has the largest single Muslim population in the world. But again, their existence in that country is not untroubled.
  • That information doesn't really belong at the end of that section.
  • The first sentence, while vaguely correct, is an over-simplification. "Continued to exist as a secular state"? There was a secular state in existence before independence? And India's secular credentials are not untroubled. And a case can be made that the secularism practised by Nehru was very different from how more recent Indian and western advocates of the concept understand it. Nehru famously said (liberally paraphrasing here) that the difference between Britain and India was that the former had an official religion but an irreligious populace, while in India, the state was a-religious while the populace was very religious. This is my POV, but IMHO, a serious case can be made that while Nehru looked at a secular state giving equal importance to all religions, modern secularists say the state should not give any importance to any religion, all the while in their heart of hearts wanting the state to be aggressively adverserial to all religious belief, if not to ban it outright.
  • The next two sentences are an even more profound over-simplification. The bloodbath happened on both sides. And the problem is that Indians keep pointing to riots (which happened not just against Hindus, but Sikhs, too) while Pakistanis point both to Hindus leaving voluntarily (as happened extensively in Sindh) and the riots against Muslims in Indian parts of the subcontinent.
  • The last sentence is true. In fact, unofficially I think India has the largest single Muslim population in the world. But again, their existence in that country is not untroubled.

—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 21:02, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • Ya, the section should move to immediate aftermath
  • How do you define 'Secularism' as somebody pointed it out. Whatever may be, people in British India had freedom to practice any religion and were given state protection, unlike Mughal jaziya
  • who did it against Hindus and Sikhs then (if sikhs are different from Hindus) and why Pakistan doesn't talk about riots of Sikhs against muslims ? And Pakistan telling about 'voluntarily' leaving their home and hearth makes little sense to those who understand 'economics'! The views are not the problem - as you rightly said, the bloodbath that followed should be impartially portrayed.
  • I think Indonasia has highest muslim population
  • In India, muslims existance is 'troubled'- though their number has increased as per census - But in Pakistan hindus have become almost extinct !! Hence what is stated is fact

These are my views - always debatable :) Ramashray -- (Talk to me!)

Godse being ex-RSS is debatable?

With reference to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Partition_of_India&diff=8342950&oldid=8304787

Godse being a former member of the RSS is debatable?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 07:24, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Was he member at the time of the assassination? RSS says he was a former member, had resigned before the assassination, but some people feel that the RSS is lying.

Someone -- an anonymous editor I think -- deleted a reference to the RSS in another part of the article, saying that it was too small then to be politically significant, and, IIRC, added the bit about Godse being "ex-Congress and ex-RSS". It didn't dawn on me at the time (d'oh!) but I think that might have been someone trying to deflect blame from the RSS. I didn't follow up with some research, and should have.

I could be avoiding dealing with this because I am aware that I have a visceral loathing of the RSS and BJP and I'm not sure I trust myself to be NPOV in writing about them. Zora 08:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Aftermath

Someone recently added the Golden Temple massacre to the "Aftermath" section. In what sense is that related to the partition? I realize that the Sikhs in question are separatists, but again, what does that have to do with this partition? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:35, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

I had to think a minute, but it makes sense if you take into the account the "unintended consequences" effects of nationalism. If the colonies must have their own nations, rather than being ruled by foreigners, who's a native and who's a foreigner? In long-established countries this may not seem like a major problem (but then again, there are Basque, Catalan, Welsh, Scottish, etc. etc. separatists). When the country is brand-new, then there's no stopping the chain of reasoning. If the English were foreigners and we deserve self-rule, well, as far as I'm concerned those $%@#$% in Delhi are foreigners too.
Then consider that the partition was primarily along religious lines, Hindu and Muslim, and the new frontier ran right through Sikh territory. They suffered more than most. I can see people developing a "pox on both your houses" mindset.
That's speculation, as I don't know all that much about Sikh separatists. But I think it's plausible argument. Zora 08:40, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Then maybe let's say some of that, because as just an item in a list it is of almost no use to any reader reading the article to learn about the subject. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:55, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Aftermath again

"Aftermath" section is pro-Indian editorial and takes the position that partition had negative consequences; that it lead to "wars," "nuclear arms race," "Sino-Indian War," "Bangladeshi civil war", etc. This looks like pro-Indian anti-partition editorial. How does the author know that things would have been better if the partition had not taken place? How does he know that millions more would have not died in communal violence, that Chinese war would have not occurred, had the partition not taken place? Just to make my point clear, imagine "Aftermath " section in Israeli article that argues that the creation of Israel led to wars, anti-semetisms, terrorism etc., etc. That would be anti-Israeli POV. Why isn't this anti-Pakistani POV? Can anyone explain? OneGuy 09:41, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this all should be contextualized to indicate some authority who claims these as consequences, otherwise it is deeply POV. And certainly the article could use more on the pro-partition side. Nonetheless, I would assume that there is a pretty universal agreement on the one hand that the communal violence attending the actual partition was a horror, and that the actual implementation in 1947 was a disaster; and on the other, that unlike other places that may be viewed as "divided countries" (e.g. Korea today, Germany before reunification) sufficiently different cultures and national identities have now evolved that Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh (not to mention Burma and Sri Lanka) are, today, genuinely separate countries, not a "divided India". -- Jmabel | Talk 19:01, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
Guys, I had been working on all this around the time it was Collaboration of the Week. Notice how the introductory paras are much, much more neutral than you would expect if either Pakistanis or Indians were given the run of the place :D. Will pay attention again now that I am coming back from Wikivacation--expect fireworks, because I want/am going to be adding details about the division of assets and so on.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:57, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
Um, well, Jmabel suggested I modify the Aftermath section, so I did. I don't think the perspective is pro-Indian; it's my own anti-nationalism. Or not my own -- there's actually a number of political scientists who have stepped back from nationalism and see it as an ideology rather than something so "obvious" as not to be worth discussion. Ditto for "culture" -- as a entity, it's as ephemeral as "national identity". See the Wikipedia article on Nationalism. Read that and then come back and look at Independence and Partition with new eyes ... say, as a struggle between elites for mass followings that would enable them to carve out their own fiefdoms. Zora 20:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is your opinion. This should be in the article as POV, not as something factual. Most of the claims are speculative guesswork anyway. Since we will never know, it's just a speculation to claim that wars occurred because of the partition . How do you know that? Where is the proof that a civil war would have not erupted killing even more people without partition? Where is the proof that Chinese war would have not occurred without partition? Most of these claims are speculative pro-Indian and anti-Pakistani arguments, not something factual or provable OneGuy 21:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OneGuy, do I understand correctly that what you are objecting to is what you perceive as an implication that these events were somehow caused by partition, not to a statement that they all occurred in the aftermath of partition? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:51, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, basically everything bad (wars, communal violence, Sikh separatists etc.,) is blamed on partition. These are probably common arguments in India (maybe even taught in Indian schools), but these are still pro-Indian-anti-Pakistani arguments. They should be reworded as POV opinions disputed by others. OneGuy 22:08, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Separatist movements were caused by nationalism -- as was the whole Independence movement, which opened up the can of worms. You don't get it -- I think Indian nationalism is just as loathsome and dangerous as Pakistani nationalism. Or American nationalism, which may be the greatest danger to the world today. I wish you'd actually stop and THINK about what I'm saying, rather than reacting to me as if I were a character in a drama in YOUR head. Zora 22:52, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nationalism? The separatist movements were caused by the fear of being a religious minority in a large Hindu majority. In any case, if you think "nationalism" is "loathsome." That's your opinion. It should be in the article as an opinion disputed by others. See NPOV OneGuy 23:14, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You still don't get it. The IDEA that people deserve self-government, and that the unit that deserves self-government is defined by ethnic/linguistic/religious boundaries, is nationalism and it's a Western import. Not only that, it's a fairly new idea in the history of the world. When it's put in play in areas of the world where it didn't previously exist, and there's no institutional momentum behind the new state government, it's profoundly divisive. Of course it's hard to see that, because the idea is so widespread as to appear completely natural and unassailable.
I don't object to the article being rewritten to make clear that this is a POV. But it's not just my POV. See the Nationalism article and perhaps read some Ernest Gellner. Zora 01:40, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am not interested in the article Nationalism. This article blames everything negative (wars, Sikh uprising, Sri Lankan civil war etc) on partition, and that's pro-Indian and anti-Pakistani POV. There were wars and communal violence before partition, even before British rule. In any case, the section is speculative POV theory. OneGuy 02:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zora, you are describing the old "Patriotism is the last resort of scoundrels." argument. And over the years, I have come to respect that more and more--even agree with it to a large extent. But that is a POV. And it is a truly objective encyclopedia's job to describe things as they are, for better or for worse.

For example, I agree with/like the use of the statement that "Violence between Hindus and Muslims, or between India and Pakistan, did not end with the Partition". That can be interpreted by "opponents" of the partition to say that it did not meet it's aim. But it can also be used by "supporters" of the partition as proof of the reason it was necessary--that violence between the communities was going to happen. And yes, it can be used by people with a distate for nationalism (or at least nationalistic jingoism) to prove that it in itself is the problem.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 01:36, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, went back and read that new para you added, Zora. It really is about 80% POV. And yes, it will be read by most Pakistanis as a pro-Indian polemic, however you meant it. Especially:

After a hundred years as a unified territory, in which there was free movement of populations between widely separated areas, the division of the British Raj into four nations based loosely on language and religion set the stage for continuing instability.

Besides sounding like it is putting forward British "Rule" as a good thing, it really is just plain wrong. If anything, there was much more free movement before the British then during. In fact, the British period added a new border. There are families in Bombay, Lucknow, Kashmir, Karachi and elsewhere that still have a strong Afghan culture, for example; but the British period led to Afghanistan now being almost not at all part of "South Asia" culturally and politically.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 01:44, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Edited Aftermath

Better? Zora 05:38, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I removed {{NPOV}} notice. OneGuy 10:56, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Sikh separatism died with Indira Gandhi. India has a Sikh Prime Minister & a Muslim President doesn't it?

I would like to clarify to all you Pakistanis that Sikh separatism does not exist any more save a few Afghan & Pakistani Sikhs demanding Punjab. We Sikhs form the core of the Indian army. Moreover IFaqeer says that India's secular creentials are troubled!!! India has a Sikh Prime Minister & a Muslim President doesn't it?. English wisdom says "People living in glass houses should not throw stones at others" in Pakistan a non-Muslim cannot become a President by law. India gives a Haj subsidy ($50 million) to Muslims it even lets Muslims their own separate Social Law Code! If Gujarat incident shows India is not a secular country then pray tell me which Muslim country is truly Secular??? - (61.1.71.205, 31 Jan 2005)

  • Probably the most secular Muslim countries are Bosnia and Turkey. Certainly India is mostly secular, but that doesn't mean that its record in that respect is untroubled. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:46, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
I am not defending anybody--least of all Muslim countries. I know that's how a lot of people (in all communities) think, but I don't consider telling the truth about one country as being a defense about another. Thing is, Pakistan doesn't claim to be secuclar; it claims to be an "Islamic Republic"--the fact that it doesn't live up to even that description most of the time is another issue. You won't find me glossing over human rights problems in Pakistan or any other Muslim country--if you do, please point it out to me; you will be doing me a favour.
And I don't agree with your logic that because India has a Sikh Prime Minister and a Muslim President, all its Sikh problems are solved--heck, India had a Sikh President at the moment a group of aggrieved Sikhs shot the Prime Minister!! (I am old enough to remember that.) India is a much more complex country than you are giving it credit for. And I know you are a Sikh, but Sikhs are much larger, deeper and complex people than maybe you realize. They can, as the saying goes, walk and chew gum at the same time.
Though now that you mention it, maybe "troubled" is the wrong word. Maybe we should say "imperfect"--or say that it has a "troubled history", maybe?
And if it makes you feel any better, I throw stones at my own glass house every chance I get--I work in the human rights sphere in Pakistan. I guess I just think that living in a glass house is a bad idea and we should all work together to build robust, stable "houses" for all of us.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:21, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Alimustafakhan's edits

Recent edits by Alimustafakhan strike me as POV. I'm especially unhappy with his removal of a well-cited quotation. I'm going to leave it to those more expert than I to sort this out, just pointing out that it should be discussed. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:44, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I have rv to the earlier version, as no explanation was given for the edits by alimustafakhan. kaal 00:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The one thing I never understood about Partition

Politicians and community leaders on both sides whipped up mutual suspicion and fear...

Why did they do this? Why was there riots and fighting? --Bash 04:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From what I've read, it seems to me that people in Northern India had spent centuries under Islamic rule that categorized people by religious categories. Each religious group was allowed some self-government. The British allowed this to continue, I believe. A secular Indian state would have put all the old leaders out of business and instituted a completely new order. People in power tried to stay in power, and the masses followed familiar leaders and familiar patterns. This is all IMHO, which is why it isn't in the article.
Leaders recruiting followers by appealing to fears of the horrible "other" is a constant in human history, whether it's communal leaders in India or Milosevic in Serbia. Or Chinese communist leaders trying to whip up hatred of Japan to gain public support and take public attention away from the farmers rioting against corruption and pollution. Zora 07:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

David Steinberg

User:Davidsteinberg recently linked to a bibliography that I gather is his own. It looks useful; can someone possibly caption the link better, though? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:49, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

How's about "One scholar's bibliography"? Since David Steinberg is not a household name, I thought I'd leave his name out. Zora 05:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Recent edit POV

The most recent anonymous edit here probably adds some useful information, but its extremely pro-Gandhi, anti-Jinnah POV is a problem. I'm at work now, and only just had time to glance at this. Could one of the many excellent contributors this article has had please take a look? I don't want to just revert, because there appears to be some good content here. This will take some careful editing. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:30, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • I cut the excessive praise of Gandhi. The rest of this I'm not sure what to do with. Here's the passage that troubles me:
Considering however, the length of violence perpetrated by the League, the aggressive politics to certify the League as the sole spokesperson of Muslims, his demands for Hindu-dominated areas to be forced to stay in Pakistan, absolute obstructive aggression at the provincial and central levels to pan-Indian governments forming there, and the toying with the idea of Muslim control of the Government of India may very well indicate he was after either complete domination by the minority Muslims, or departing with a chunk of the nation much bigger than inhabited by Muslims, with considerable Hindu minorities.
The extreme vision of Pakistan, which Jinnah supported, was one included the provinces of Sind, Baluchistan, NWFP, Punjab, Bengal, Junagadh, Kashmir and Hyderabad. The East of Punjab and West of Bengal are states in the Indian Union today, and the huge princely state of Hyderabad stretched through four modern Indian states of Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa and Tamil Nadu. Junagadh is a small part of the state of Gujarat. Kashmir remains divided between India, Pakistan and China as a result of the 1947-48 war between the former two, and the 1962 Sino-Indian war. Hyderabad and Junagadh were outright Hindu-majority regions ruled by Muslim princes and ruling elite, while West Bengal and East Punjab were strongholds of Hindus and Sikhs.

The second paragraph is not as problematic as the first, though I think it could be worded more neutrally. But the first part? It seems to me like it belongs in a POV essay, not an encyclopedia article. Again, I'd rather see someone make this encyclopedic (appropriate attribution of the POV, rather than just cutting it), but if this doesn't happen quite soon, I'm going to simply remove that first (partial) paragraph and try to reword the second; For now, I am making one edit to it, removing the word "extreme" and rewording slightly for grammar and concision. I am also restoring some links on names. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:05, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

This has now been corrected (or perhaps over-corrected) byy the recent edits of User:202.176.232.145 which in some places may tilt toward a Muslim POV. Again, I'd appreciate review by a knowledgable, neutral party. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:32, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Side-by-side sectioning

I think the 2-column/side-by-side sectioning recently introduced in this article looks hideous. I'd like to revert it, but will wait for at least a couple of other people to give opinions. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind reverting. However, we could also try it as a table, instead of just columns. I'm not volunteering, however. Zora 06:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Tables that aren't really tables (that is, the rows and columns don't matter) are sheer hell on people who view the web with assistive devices. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, clearly you have thought more deeply on this than I have. Remove the columns by all means. Zora 06:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

New template

Rama's Arrow created a new template and applied it to the article. I removed it. There was no discussion; if there had been, there would have been objections, I'm sure, since the template was biased towards Indian nationalism. The British were "figures" and the Indians were "freedom fighters"; no mention of the Muslims who went to found Pakistan; India-centric, no mention of the three other nations created by the Partition. That template should not be applied ANYWHERE -- in fact, it isn't necessary, since categories and links can do the same job, less obtrusively. Zora 21:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Percentages

This edit changed 83% Muslims 16% Hindus to 86% Muslims 13% Hindus. It gave no citation, but as far as I can see, neither did what it replaced. Would someone please replace with a cited number? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


British India

The article's intro implies that only the British possesions in the Subcontinent were involved in the Partition (not Gwadar or French and Portuguese India). It also mentions that Burma and Ceylon had been severed from British India prior to Partition. Did British India at any point include the Maldives, Bhutan, Afhanistan or Nepal as well? //Big Adamsky 20:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Number of deaths

Massive violence and slaughter occurred on both sides of the border—leading to the deaths of as many as five million people—as the newly formed governments were completely unequipped to deal with migrations of such staggering magnitude.

Where did the figure of five million come from ? http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm#India contains the numbers listed in various sources and nowhere is it greater than a million. Tintin Talk 16:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I've seen many estimates, in many places -- and I didn't take notes. You've put your finger on a fault in the article. Surely we should expand this section to give a number of estimates, suitably referenced. Readers can then check out the various sources and decide for themselves which they think most creditable. But I can't commit to the project! I'm spending too dang much time on Wikipedia as it is. Zora 20:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I have changed it in the article as between 2,00,000 and a million. Tintin Talk 12:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[moved from top of talk page]
Although I understand the matter is somewhat complicated, this article contradicts itself:

  • "...millions (no one knows how many) died in riots, massacre, or just from the hardships of their flight to safety."
  • "...the death toll would have been in the millions"
  • "Estimates of the number of deaths vary from two hundred thousand to a million."

No idea how many actually died, but was it millions, in the millions, not in the millions, or between 200k and a million? Guinness man 06:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
[end moved text]

Is someone interested in researching for some citations? - Jmabel | Talk 01:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


Reversion of anon's edits

An anon made a number of edits, some of which were somewhat controversial. I reverted them all. Perhaps I shouldn't have -- some of them seemed OK at first glance. But I wanted to get rid of the controversial ones without having to rewrite the article at what is, here, 2:30 AM. Anon, perhaps you can make the edits a bit at a time and let us discuss them. Zora 12:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Template

I know one of the editors has been working over that template, and it's improved, but it's still too blankety-blank big. It takes over the entire page.

Templates, IMHO, should be sized either to be long thin lines across the bottom, or long thin columns to the right. If they take up too much real estate, they are a distraction rather than a help.

That template should be narrowed and pruned mercilessly. Zora 21:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Pakistan's Muslim demographics

The Pakistan's Muslim population was 97% in 1991. The Muslim percentage always increases in India but seems to be dropping in Pakistan's statistics in Wikipedia. The Muslim birthrate is higher; nearly 3 million Afghan Muslims; over 300,000 Bangladeshi Muslims; and approximately 200,000 Iranian, Burmese, African and Arab Muslims have also settled permanently in Pakistan. This all points to Pakistan's Muslim percentage to be over 98% and not 96.3%.

Siddiqui 00:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Cultural effect

Hi ! I felt this section "Cultural effect" of the partition should be included here. However, I could not write the section well.It needs further inputs and modification.Please try to enhance the section.The cultural impact deserves to be mentioned.--Dwaipayanc 19:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

As Zora has pointed out in my talk page, I agree that a whole new article named something like "Partition of India in arts" or "Partition of India and culture" can be made (however, culture being a wide term, we can limit the scope to literature and cinemas only).In that case, the long list of books and cinemas at the end of the Partition of India could be shifted to the new article, while in the main article there would be a short section with link to the new sub-article. I proposed the name "Cultural impact of the partition of India", when Zora pointed out the following:
"...1) "Culture" is ambiguous in English. It can mean high culture, or just the arts (which is what I suggested), or culture in the broadest anthropological sense, which would include things like kinship, table manners, etc. I do get the feeling that you mean the arts, not table manners.
2) "Impact" is an over-used word that makes the copyeditors I know (from a mailing list) snicker. It sounds like a fancy corporate word for "cause" or sometimes "effects".
Starting with the words "Partition of India" is a good choice, because then we have the main article, Partition of India, and then we have breakout articles, like Partition of Indian and the arts, Partition of Indian and the effect on the Indian military, Partition of India and Indian cuisine, Partition of India and table manners, etc... :)"
Please comment and help. Thanks.--Dwaipayanc 08:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I see two issues here - one, the issue of partition as represented in movies and other media. The other issue is the people affected by partition becoming famous writers etc. These two are two entirely different issues, despite some significant overlaps, and need to be dealt separately. For the second issue, a paragraph or a section in this article should suffice. For the first issue, it would be advisable to have a separate article if enough material is available (I believe that it would be) - it can be titled "Portrayal of partition of India in arts/media" or "Artistic depictions of Portrayal of India." I prefer the second title as everything ranging from music to plays can fit in here. Also, imo, using "artistic" in the title is more artistic than using the word "arts." ;) --Gurubrahma 09:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm OK with "Artistic depictions of the Partition of India". I think Gurubrahma made a good point about separating the work of people who were affected, and dealt with it indirectly in their work, and the work of people trying to portray the horror. Zora 10:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
my bad, "Artistic depictions of the Partition of India" was indeed what I was proposing and not "Artistic depictions of Portrayal of India." --Gurubrahma 14:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I think there is a wealth of info for such an article. What should be poignantly noted is how the exodus affected culture: given that men like Dev Anand, Sunil Dutt came to India - also important to note Dilip Kumar's case - he had a brother Nasir Khan who became a Pakistani actor, yet Kumar did not move to Pakistan. It is also interesting to note how Muslim families inter-marry even today. Rama's Arrow 17:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, please do not neglect the negative cultural effects of partition - what was the cultural fallout of the violence that killed over 1 million people? For many years, over 10 million people had to live as refugees in India and Pakistan. For many more years, millions of people could not visit their old homes, reclaim property, etc. So how has this affected their culture? Also important, is how while India has a vibrant Muslim population, Pakistan's Hindus had to put up with cultural suppression. Even today there are many cases of Hindus leaving Pakistan over religious oppression. Salman Rushdie noted how a previously vibrant Lahore and Karachi became monolithic owing to the absence of Hindu and Sikh cultural influences. I understand completely the need for extensive references for all this. Rama's Arrow 17:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Based on some personal accounts, I know that the Gujarati Muslims who moved to Pakistan, speak a purer Gujarati language than a lot of Gujaratis in Bombay and in Gujarat itself. I met a Gujarati Pakistani from Rajkot in New Orleans, who was still speaking in a village dialect. It was amazing. Rama's Arrow 17:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Basically I wanted to start and build up an article in the tunes Rama's Arrow is talking.The article should contain not only the "Artistic depiction of the partition of India", but also the effect on common man's life and the course of each nation.Please see this for some thoughts on which the intended article can be built.
However, the "Artistic depiction" itself deserves to be a seperate article, and building up that would be relatively easier than the other proposal. The latter would need extensive referencing for supporting/ refuting point of views.For the time being, Artistic depictions of the partition of India would be a timely and nice start. Later on, if possible, the more controversial topics/ articles can be worked upon. --Dwaipayanc 19:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Since the material has been moved to the breakout article, I cut your para to a few lines, Dwaipayanc. The language you had used was perhaps too emotive in places, and made some judgements as to which works were masterpieces. We really shouldn't make artistic judgements. (BTW, I keep messing up on this all the time, and other editors iron out my enthusiastic prose -- so it's not just you!)

I haven't had time to look at the breakout article yet. I'm not sure that I'm going to be of all that much use there, since a lot of the material is going to be in languages I don't read. All I'll be able to do is copyedit. I'm glad that you're taking the initiative in doing this; it's going to be a big help to researchers and even just to ordinary people interested in finding out more about the period. A film or a novel, while not necessarily as reliable as a history based on primary sources, can give the feeling, the, uh, rasa of an event better than the history. Zora 07:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zora and others.Please see Artistic depictions of the partition of India and point out and change NPoV language.And Zora, I think not much of the article is in too enthusistic language, because mostly the artcle is descriptive.Bye.--Dwaipayanc 11:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

1905 partition

Shouldn't the 1905 partition of Bengal be part of "Background of the partition"?--ppm 22:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about it; does it prefigure the currrent border? - Jmabel | Talk 03:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Indian society scared by partition, Pakistan triumphent

Hello;

Your article does not give the opinion of Indians and Pakistanis to partition, Indians were humilated by the break up of thier India and are pyschologyically scared to this day, Pakistanis however think of partition as necessary to thier statehood and see the event with great sensationalism and enthusism. obviously many lost family and were not triumphent but overall Pakistanis obviously view the partition of India with great pride and and necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.122.237 (talk • contribs)

Anwar Saadat

Anwar keeps adding the description "Hindu leader" to Gandhi. This is just plain misleading. He was definitely a Hindu, but he did not see himself as representing only Hindus. He stood for the rights of all Indians, Hindu or Muslim. That is why the Hindutva people hated him, and why Godse killed him. It is a gross misrepresentation of a great man to annex him to ONE community. Anwar, please stop. Zora 02:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Try to understand the context of use of words. Addition of the prefix Hindu is not demeaning. Don't push your POV to make this non-issue into a revert war. You have already been cautioned in the Aucaman case to refrain from revert wars. Anwar saadat 03:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Anwar, nowhere in the findings of the Aucaman arbitration, can I find that Zora was given a caution by the ARbCom.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 03:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Anwar: addition of the prefix 'Hindu' is not demeaning; but, as Zora says, misleading in this particular context. Gandhi saw himself as a leader of Indians of all communities and made considerable efforts to back up that position with action. 'Hindu leader' could indeed imply 'political leader who considers himself a Hindu', but that is not what emerges from the context there. The context there implies the following reading "leader of the Hindus" ; which might further imply (a) leader of only Hindus (b) leader of all Hindus. Neither of those statements was at all true in Gandhi's case. Hence placing 'Hindu leader' at that point in the article would be inappropriate.
Please do respond to this before making any further edits to the article. Thanks! Hornplease 11:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Aftermath section

I had been letting edits here go past without carefully examining them. I should have been. Someone introduced a sentence saying that the 2002 Gujarat violence was caused by Hindu fundamentalists. I think it was too, but there are people who don't think that way, and it's only fair to let the question be argued in the 2000 Gujarat violence article, not here. Someone said that the wars between India and Pakistan had been inconclusive; I'm not sure that this is true. My impression is that Pakistan generally got whupped. But ... it's arguable and we shouldn't argue it here. I removed that sentence. The para had also been jumbled about so that it wasn't organized. Overall, I tried to bland out the section. Zora 15:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

First of my impression is that everyone and his kid brother has invaded india, aryans, moghuls, british, chinese and the list goes on, Second India was never a unified state until the British raj.

Second, the Muslim rule of India was reminiscent of the european colonization of North America, it introduced a new language, script, religion and theology to a new continent.

third, India lost 2/5 of kashmir to pakistan in a thumping defeat for india despite having twice the size of army as pakistan, in short india was whupped in 1947 partition, 1947-1948 kashmir war, failed in 1965 (tried to take lahore and was stopped in its tracks) and then in 1999 lost kargil to pakistan.

thats not even mentioning the 1962 war with china! in which india was smacked once again!

No. India regained Kargil in 1999. The war was a major economic disaster for Pakistan:

http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/publication.cfm?program=STPP&ctype=article&item_id=438 http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/13/reacts/print.html The morale and credibility of Pakistan Army was gone. http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/publication.cfm?ctype=article&item_id=39 Riots ensued in Pakistan over their defeat http://www.warbirds.in/downloads/HeraldKargil.pdf In fact Musharraf had advised against Kargil: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_2-7-2003_pg7_19 Knowing full well that they'd be defeated.

I also believe Benazir Bhutto called Kargil Pakistan' biggest blunder. See: http://www.ipcs.org/PakMedia05-UAug04.pdf

Pakistani media lambasted the defeat of their own military

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/ayaz/990709.htm

In contrast, India's stock market rose after the war, India's military budget skyrocketed, and India wound up with one of the largest armies in the world. India definitely won the war in all aspects. India also won the 1971 war with Pakistan, with about 1 lahk surrenders from Pakistan army, and the other wars were a strategic victory for India (if not a tactical one). The only major loss for India was the China war. China had (and still has) superior army than India Rumpelstiltskin223 07:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Seeds of Partition

The "divide & rule "policy of british esp . Partition of bengal & morley-minto "reforms" which granted seperate electorate for Muslims , needs to be included as seperate subsections. Bharatveer 05:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Numbers changed with no citation

Numbers changed with no citation are always a bit suspicious. Someone may want to find something solid on this and cite it. - Jmabel | Talk 22:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

And now they have changed again, still with no new citation. I'd really like to see either a good online citation or some non-anonymous editor, preferably one who's been around for a while, vouching for having taken a set of numbers from a good print source. - Jmabel | Talk 05:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Zora's edits

I moved the History of South Asia template down, so that it was next to some areas of light text. I removed a claim that the Aga Khan had spearheaded the Muslim League -- really? if so, it should be referenced. I added a fact tag to someone's population transfer figures. They're very exact and they come from somewhere -- but where? I harmonized claims about the number of people who died during the Partition. I rewrote a para that had been modified to give the impression that it was always Muslims persecuting Hindus, and never Hindus persecuting Muslims. I didn't add the claim that Muslims have been the major sufferers in Indian communal violence, since I didn't have a citation, but I believe that this is true. It could be added, if someone has a solid reference.

Finally, I visited the History of South Asia template and removed the edits that changed South Asia to Indian subcontinent, and History of India to History of Greater India. Greater anything is irredentism and usually a preface to war and conflict. Zora 03:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Personality list

I removed some names from the list; they have been recently added, and they seemed to me to be politicians of much less stature than the ones who have been on the list since this article was started. I have the impression that this is due either to descendants of the politician trying to make sure that their ancestor is duly revered or perhaps to followers of present-day political parties who want to exalt their founders. I could be wrong, however. Could some of the other editors check my edit and make sure I haven't been too severe?

Also, an anon kept removing Sikhs from the history of the Partition. They suffered as much as other groups -- perhaps even more, since the new border ran right through traditionally Sikh areas. Zora 09:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

misleading term

SInce only Punjab and Bengal where divided,why is it called "Partion of India".Think about it.Cant say that all those provinces were together before 1947.Extremely misleading.WOnder who invented the term in the first place74.98.241.189 07:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

It is called "the partition of India" because prior to that time all of what is now Pakistan or Bangladesh was considered part of India. - Jmabel | Talk 02:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Partition of India/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article needs a lot of corrections. Go to your website page on 'Radcliffe line' and understand what I mean by corrections - u should get rid of all the sentences which refer to Hindu majority and Muslim majority areas because that is all rubbish. Try to get the facts right - the British have been successful in passing down the poor quality story as they did with the Weapons of Mass destruction in Iraq few years ago. For more info on the poor quality stories by the British read thru the pages on 'Great game' and 'Durand line'. There is a lot of history fabricated by the British, so we need to be a bit careful and take it with a pinch of salt. Raj.tota (talk) 11:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 11:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 21:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Partition_of_India/Archive_1&oldid=718501464"