Talk:Partition of India
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:
- "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.
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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:
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)
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)
- 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)
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)