scot47

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhajir_people
Did Partition of the Raj work ? Is Pakistan a failed state ?

Bipat

Didn't read all your link, but the beginning talks of people migrating to Pakistan from different areas of India!!! Pakistan did not exist until Partition, the area was all 'India'. "Did it work"? For who? certainly not for the non- Muslims of Kashmir. Most have now left due to insurgency and violence from over the border and from the separatists.May be Attlee should not have forced a hurried withdrawal and given time for Nehru to get agreement to govern all and no Partition.Remember Bangladesh --millions of Muslims have migrated back into India (illegally) and there is good relationship between leaders.Is Pakistan a failed State? Better to ask this on the Pakistan part of the Forum!

scot47

" the Pakistan part of the Forum"
there isn't one !
The End of the Raj and Partition of British India is a hugely important part of Contemporary World History. It is strange that there are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan !

Bipat

Yes, I agree, it is an important part of World History. However any mention on this Forum of the atrocities committed by British during the Empire are dismissed with "It's History".Most Indian people are well aware that it was the British Governments of that time and that Governments are different now, also that ordinary British people were also 'ruled' and not free to behave as some would have wished. There are less Muslims in India than Pakistan --not much difference but less.Your original post,--- Pakistan to some extent considers Muslims from the north --Punjab, Kashmir as 'true Muslims' --the rest slightly inferior --Hindu converts --(during the Mughal Empire! ) the latter tend to be more open minded.

scot47

Considering the huge role of the Raj in the Empire, it seems strange how little most of us know of the Sub-continent.

kimilseung

Papers on Subhas Chandra Bose are due to be released in a week or two, there will probably be nothing in them, but we wont know until the release of course, so still a little time for speculation. How is India anticipating their release Bipat?

Bipat

There was interest earlier in the year in the newspapers, (I did a search yesterday after his name was 'mentioned' in TIO, but didn't find anything recent.)
It is not a subject of general conversation! I think mainly his relatives and historians are interested.

scot47

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netaji...Forgotten_Hero

Bipat

"Hero", when his name was mentioned on TIO, I was insulted and practically called a traitor to the British by even giving a little history!!The fact is India was an occupied country and there were different ways of getting rid of their oppressors/occupiers. I am told by those who were actually there, that Chandra Bose was a charismatic figure who had a lot of power and would use any method. Nehru was manipulative and along with Gandhi -- who also had the power of a great following-- favoured non-violent means. If Chandra Bose had survived he might well have been the first PM. It will be interesting to see what if anything is in the published papers. I think also Russia has documents.

kimilseung

I just hunted down the TIO thread. Quite bizarre. la mancha seemed very upset at some unclear slight.

scot47

There are interesting parallels with
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aung_San
who worked with the Japanese in the struggle to free Burma from Colonialism. Aung San's daughter is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aung_San_Suu_Kyi

a_f_d

If Chandra Bose's friends the Japanese has won WW2 then India would still be supplying the slave labour to run the Greater Pacific Empire.

AndyD

scot47

You think the British Empire won that conflict ? The real victors were further West !

a_f_d

Did I say that?
I can't really improve on what I said here #1371

AndyD 8-)₹

Bipat

Andy, who knows what would have happened regarding Japan?

Regarding your previous post---how could India possibly be a drain on resources when they were getting taxes, soldiers, exporting grain out etc etc.
(Or do you mean they would have to stop-- taking-- to avoid starvation in famines?)

Churchill did not want independence but a combination of factors led to the realisation that Britain could no longer rule. (If you mean resources to fight that --then yes).

As I said those that were actually there at the time, said/say Chandra Bose had a lot of power if he had survived would have been first PM-- but he didn't did he??