Islam as a political weapon in Pakistan

what i am saying is that it is only by using islam and hindus that two gujratis became leaders of hindus and muslims.i think india should have been divided into many states but the brits were afraid of the USSR.basically man is irrational and he will act irrationally in the name of religion or any ISM.thats the tragedy.i am not a fan of any religion but i have a Muslim name and wherever i have gone i have seen bias.its all ridiculous.

those who fall behind have a greater tendency to use religion or race or any other factor to gain an unfair advantage.the ones who are ahead on the other hand try that they stay in control.then a conflict starts.

Mohtaram the division of mankind in race religion sexes and classes is a great tragedy.God's joke with mankind.

we have irrational people on this site who are labelling you or this or that.man is very irrational.

Yes, Pavo ji, that is the whole locus of control thing. Those who succeed believe they succeed because of their own goodness, or something good about themselves. Those who fall behind prefer to believe they fall behind because of other people.

Such biases are unfortunate, though perfectly natural. As is most other irrationality. Just another part of human nature.

Leaders have a huge incentive to exploit these biases.

pakistan and india were partitioned because of clash of egos of jinnah nehru and gandhi.

#147 pavocavalry: at least humans dont eat each other's children (like alligators). unless they are chowk posters.

Re: PAVO #141

What you have just shown, Major Sahib, is why the Muslims of India should have continued to remain loyal to the Raj. To update your analysis a bit, years ago for a graduate PoliSci class, I wrote a paper on the INA and it was very interesting to see that the most 'loyal' members of the Indian Army were the Punjabi Muslims--excepting turncoats like Shahnawaz of course. That is, they had the lowest proportion of prisoners joining the INA; of course, the vast majority of IA prisoners who joined the INA did so to escape the Japanese death camps (excepting the initial few that joined). Despite the crap one hears from modern-day nationalists and revisionist historians, namak halali is a good thing.

You yourself have said more than once that the British saved the Muslims in India from the Hindus and the Sikhs. Why then should the Muslims have turned against the Raj and joined those that would have gladly cut their throats?

There was no 'India' to by loyal to and the Mughal Empire was dead. Similarly, if the Empire was resurrected, I'm sure the Sikhs and Marathas would have been overjoyed to have a Muslim Emperor with real power ruling over all of India again.

I once asked my father's cousins and various relatives (either commisioned before Partition or VCOs etc) if the Army would have stayed loyal if the British had decided to stay on in India and to a man their view was that the Punjabi (Muslim, Sikh and Hindu), Gurkha and Rajput soldiers would have stayed loyal to the Raj; presumably so would Ranghars and other Hindustani Muslims. However, by 1946-47 it was clear that the British themselves were scuttling the Empire: remember, we did not win Independence, the British got tired and left.

fuzair #152 agreed with most of what you left, except the last sentence - which begs the question: why did the british get "tired"? the answer is - they realized time was up. better to pack and leave the colonies in good order, rather than like Dutch, French, Belgians or even the brits in 1789 from the US.

The immediate cause of the Partition may have been the Nehru-Jinnah ego clash (but would you care to expand on this? Do you mean the Cabinet Mission Plan?) but the ultimate cause was the UP Salariat and their fears of being unable to compete with the Hindus when put on an even basis with them--as you yourself have pointed out. This is also the main point of the Jalal Thesis: Muslim majority provinces did not want Partition, only the Muslim minority ones did.

Hey! We can blame the Muhajirs for Partition as well! ;-)

Tahmed:

Indian Nationalism did not drive the British out. Having won the War, defeated the Quit India Movement and having the full backing of the Muslim League, the British could have stayed on if they had wanted to. However, Churchill was voted out of power and Atlee's government did not have the stomach to face down the Congress Party--who were it's hum-khayal anyway. The British were also bankrupt after WWII (remember, India was a net creditor to the UK) and it is now an accepted fact that one of the US war aims was the dissolution of the Empire. Finally, the average British soldier wanted to go home and build Socialism in Britain (OK, National Health Care and some industrial nationalization), not fight to preserve the Empire. Don't forget, there were RAF mutinies in India as well, IIRC before the RIN mutinied. Incidentally, my Mamoo (Admiral Ahsan's contemporary) agrees that the initial RIN mutiny was really caused by bad officers and bad living conditions and not by nationalist feelings; agitators exploited legitimate grievances and gave it a nationalist twinge. IIRC, Indian Army troops (RajRif?) were willing to fire on mutinying RIN ratings but the British decided to use white troops and not push their luck.

#112 Mantolives {"Ofcourse as long as Masadi abuses Jinnah (who had bent over backwards to keep India United and who is despite all the claims made here the only politician who dedicated 3 decades to the cause of Hindu Muslim Unity called best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity by your politicians... and who was universally held by every politician from Gandhi, Nehru to Ambedkar as truly incorruptible) ... you will continue to praise his "humanism"."}

Manto Bhai,
The fact that nobody has ever questioned Jinnah Sahib's incorruptibility is truly an amazing quality - so rare in our neck of the woods. I would submit that Gandhiji was the other incorruptible one and it is a sad shame that the two honest leaders couldn't be honest about what was best for India and her multitudes. :(

fuzair, don't know about "blaming" the Muhajirs, but as so very often before, you have again put forward a really interesting perspective. Thanks.

(Really looking forward to reading Pavo's response. This is chowk at its best.)

Diesel #97 {"bhuttos steering the ahmadi bill was a grave damage to liberalism.he drank but banned liquor in army messes.again a contradiction.declaring friday a holiday.great man but he committed some mistakes.jinnah drank,liaquat drank, "}

Diesel,
The problem with Jinnah Sahib was that he stopped drinking. The problem with Liaquat Ali Khan is that he did not drink enough. The problem with Bhutto was that he continued drinking while denying others the same pleasure. :(

Re: # 155

Your thesis erroneously assumes that all Muslims were content on British Raj and only those Muslims living in Muslim minority areas wanted a separate country in order to save their jobs. It is lumping two issues together to prove an a priori thesis. First of all, the partition was the last item on the Muslim agenda of any back ground; while Muslimn religious right was against partition at all yet Muslim League was using this option only as a pressure tactic to press Congress for a constitutional parity that Jinnah demanded since his 14 points. That was the stance of ML until mid 1946 when Cabinet Mission failed to convince Congress to grant Muslim a constitutional parity. This drove the final nail in the coffin of united India.

However, while Muslim religious right and ML disputed over the partition, another avenue of disagreement was also the dominion status of the so called (partitioned or united) India as well. The religious right's stance was that British must leave and former colonies must be given full autonomy. On contrary both ML and Congress agreed on dominion status.

The emergence of militant Islam which was spearheaded by people like Allama Ubaidullah Sindhi, Moulana Hasrat Mohani, Allama Anayatullah Mashriqi with such vocal authority as Ataullah Shah Bokhari compelled British to make do with Congress and ML. Especially, the masacre of Khaksar in Lahore in 1940, activisim of Majlis-e-Ehrar, and communist influence in this militant activism was a no brainer for british.

Had British stayed in India even with a constitutional parity between Mulims and Congress or had they left a united INdia with a constitutional parity. The inevitability of a civil war between Hindus, Muslims, and British was written on the wall. The bloodbath would have paled the Carnage of Partition. British had no choice. A time had come when it was enough is enough for all parties......

#94 Diesel {"i read a french terrorism experts interview and he said that many jihadis booze.why this contradiction"}

Diesel,
One would have to be three sheets to the wind to be a jihadi. :)
In fact, the word assassin comes from the arabic HASHASHEEN. These were the suicide "bombers" on the 12th century whose mission it was to kill their victim regardless of how many bodyguards or protectors. Of course, this fanatic would be doped up on hashish to accomplish his mission.