Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Muslims sacrifieses for Pakistan

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Muslims sacrifieses for Pakistan

    1-I am trying to learn how many muslims were murdered by hindues, sikhs and brits during founding Pakistan.(Accorate numbers with references, )How many hindues were killed in that time and by whome.
    2-How many muslims have been killed in India after division and how many muslims were victimized by Indira ghandhi in Delhi under family planning drama.
    3-There was a report on terrorism against American by CIA published Which showed that south Ameria was number one place in rating compare to muslims,If any one knows about that report I would love to see it if any one can copy it via e-mail.
    I realy appriciate your input in this discussion and your efforts.
    ): :
    P S:How much brit,s could be blamed for all this mess and in other parts of the muslim world beside us muslims ????
    =============================================



    [This message has been edited by Babar Khawaja (edited October 07, 1999).]

    [This message has been edited by Babar Khawaja (edited October 07, 1999).]

    #2
    Mountbatten claimed that only 100,000 lives had been lost and that the partition ‘went off fairly well’. Today, the report is that over two million estimated people had died during the Partition and 15 million people displaced. Check, V.M. Hewitt, The International Politics of South Asia , New York, Manchester University Press, 1992. Most estimates range in between 1-2 million, I believe casualties were higher on the Muslim side, but maybe someone else could comment on that.

    I don't know about the other questions.

    Achtung

    Comment


      #3
      Partition riots was a natural culmination of politics of riots started by Jinnah (Read the account of 'direct action day' and 'great calcutta killings' in any western book.)

      Comment


        #4
        ZZ: why don't you elucidate on them, tell us how Jinnah started partition riots.

        Both Nehru and Jinnah were quiet dismayed by the emotions unleashed during partition.

        Like any other colonial country, once the boundaries were drawn (erroneously) demarking divisions on ethnic grounds, you were bound to have rioting. This is why Jinnah was so profusely arguing in opposition to dividing Punjab.

        Achtung

        Comment


          #5
          ZZ, I never thought that the level of your arguments would stoop to the low level of your other compatriots i.e. Sajjadm, Aman and Gharib. Hmmmmmmm, maybe i was mistaken.

          Comment


            #6
            The trap was to create an insecure situation. Jinnah did not want partition. He wanted to threaten partition to get represention in government and jobs which was much higher than the percentage of Muslims in population (and their level of education, still the level of education of muslims in whole subcontinent is not better than hindus/ sikhs/ parsis /christians). Hence various plans were proposed and the bleeding hearts like Gandhi and Azad were ready to avoid partition at any cost which Nehru and Azad were not ready. The blackmail was backed by use of force. In 46, on such occasion 'direct action day' was announced by Muslim League and 4000 people were killed in three days in Calcutta. Surhawady was the hero. Slowly Congress leadership found it better to go for partition than succumbing to arbitrary and ever increasing demands or face civil war which Muslim League seemed entirely capable of.

            The partition of Punjab and Bengal was unavoidable. The people in bosth provinces, more in Bengal (since punjabi muslims did not find it wise to clash with sikhs) had already suffred in riots. The unionists which was a pan-punjabi party had lost its Muslim following as well as Hindu/Sikh support. Afterall, whole argument of Jinnah was that Muslims can not trust Hindus or live with them. The argument worked the other way round too and these states withh sizable non-muslims were partitioned.

            [This message has been edited by ZZ (edited October 07, 1999).]

            Comment


              #7
              If you want a revolution, there are going to be losses. What your talking about is pre-partition. I'm sure there were losses. But Jinnah is not to blame for any of them, in fact he tried to avoid them - Nehru's rejection of the Cabinet Mission Plan initiated action from the Muslim league.

              Jinnah's methods as far as i know, were peaceful (as were Gandhi's). The anarchy which beseiged India, pre and post partition was due to poor implementation and a lack of law enforcement. That can be blamed primarily on the British. Jinnah needed to mobilize support, in 1930 a mere 75 people came to witness Allama Iqbal's speech. By 1944 the Muslim League had increased its membership to 2 million. In the 1945-46 election the Muslim League won 75 percent of the Muslim vote. The tide had definitely turned. The League took 460 out of 533 Muslim seats in both the central and provincial elections. For every Muslim in India, Jinnah made Pakistan mean something in terms of their identity – this is what made the movement work.

              ZZ: "The partition of Punjab and Bengal was unavoidable."

              Says who? You? Nehru screwed everything up. In 1946 Jinnah accepted what was termed the Cabinet Mission Plan . The Plan proposed an outline for a federation of Indian provinces after independence. Members of a taskforce put together by the British Imperial power drew up the Plan. Many Muslim leaders opposed Jinnah’s acceptance of the plan including a number of religious clerics. The fact that Jinnah accepted the plan was confusing for many Muslims. Many Muslims questioned weather Jinnah had abandoned his demand for a separate homeland? The Cabinet Plan stated that the provinces would not be divided , something which eventually would cause a great deal of unnecessary bloodshed. Shortly after Jinnah’s acceptance, Nehru rejected the Plan . This was perhaps the pivotal turning point in the negotiations for a separate homeland for Muslims. Jinnah was infuriated by Nehru’s behavior. Jinnah believed that accepting the plan would be a sure-fire way of avoiding violence and division in the future. By accepting the Cabinet Plan Jinnah hoped he could save Muslims torment and turmoil in the future and would not have to make a choice to save Muslims along a new border . After Nehru rejected the plan Jinnah was forced to make that choice. On July 28, 1946, in a meeting of the Muslim League in Bombay Jinnah made his position clear:

              “All efforts of the Muslim League at fair-play, justice, even supplication and prayers have had no response of any kind from the congress...the Cabinet Mission have played into the hands of the Congress...Pandit Jawaralal Nehru as the elected President made the policy and attitude of the congress clear...Congress was committed to nothing.”

              The next day the League announced what was coined Direct Action Day, set for August 16, 1946 – the day was set for protest in demand for an independent Pakistan. Civil war erupted in many parts of India including Calcutta, where “horrific rioting” took hold. But whose fault was that? Nehru's or Jinnah's? Did Nehru expect the Muslim league to sit back, surely he knew that their would be repercussions - a day of protest was called - not a day of violence, it turned into such due to a lack of civil society.

              ZZ wrote: "more in Bengal (since punjabi muslims did not find it wise to clash with sikhs)..."

              Sure they did, some of the worst violence took place in Punjab, pre and post partition.

              ZZ wrote: "Afterall, whole argument of Jinnah was that Muslims can not trust Hindus or live with them."

              No, Jinnah was arguing that Muslims could not move up in the social echelon of a Hindu dominant India. His argument was that Muslims would be marginalized. If you look at the conditions and socio-economic indicators of Muslims living in India today, vis a vis their Hindu bretheren, Jinnah's argument was well intentioned and made sense.

              ZZ wrote: "The argument worked the other way round too and these states with sizable non-muslims were partitioned."

              Sure, thanks to Nehru's ineptitude.

              Achtung

              Comment


                #8
                It is true that between 1942-45 virus of communalism gripped the muslim psyche heavily throughout the subcontinent and popularity of league grew by leaps and bounds. The part of election successes was also contributed by the fact that in some elections in that period, congress boycotted and league contested.

                Now if cabinet mission plan is rejected, what is done. go around killing people who are likely to be clueless on what the plan was.

                There are plans and further plans and talk and further talks which are needed to resolve a complex issue. But Jinnah did not want to climb down from the horse of maximalist demands. He seemed a pesrson with whom negotiations are not possible. The result was breakup.

                Well ... I wave also talked about this issue in general section in thread, 'sins of my fathers'. It seems we are discussing same thing in two places.

                [This message has been edited by ZZ (edited October 07, 1999).]

                Comment


                  #9
                  The problem is that in India lots of people (at least those who know history) do put the partial blame on Nehru & Patel for partition. The surprising thing is how people in Pakistan just refuse to blame Jinnah (even in part) for the arson and killing. The killings in Calcutta (which were supported by Suhrawardy's government) has no parallel. Whatever may be Jinnah's intentions, the effects of partition were disastrous (and are still felt) in India where Hindus and Muslims have to live together (we don't have much choice, unlike you).

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Babar Khawaja,

                    I think your question should be like this ‘ how many Muslims killed by Muslims after partition’?

                    As far I know that at least three million Bengali Muslims were killed in 1971 by 'fellow brothers' from West Pakistan. The figure must be at least a million more Muslims killed by fellow brothers in the name of Language, Cast, Creed, Sect, Political Affiliation etc. in present Pakistan. The latest violence of Shia and Sunni claimed 36 bodies in one week alone. Killings in mosques while people offering prayers is the most unfortunate incidents and unprecedented happenings in Pakistan.

                    Why are you worried about Muslims killed in 1947 only? The blunder of partition also caused killings of Hindus. Why don’t you consider that Whether it is a Muslim or Hindu, for that matter belonging to any religion is a human being. Killing of innocent person is unforgivable sin mentioned in Holy Quraan Or under your brand of faith only people belonging to your community are human beings and rest are giny pigs.

                    You should be more worried about the present situation where Muslims are killing Muslims because of the different faiths/language/cast/creed or political back ground. If Muslims kill each other on these flimsy grounds, you do not expect any good will from people of other religions. Such stupid behavior would only prove the claim of enemies of Islam to brand Muslims as Terrorists and low cast creatures..

                    If your theory is to be taken as correct about its Pakistan’s creation because of the sacrifices and killing of Muslims by Hindus or Sikh then under past and present circumstances no justification remains for its existence either, using the same analogy..

                    Sincerely

                    Comment


                      #11
                      farid !
                      I agree with you whatever you saying but I was trying to get some infoe,s.
                      By the way it bathered you that muslims are killing muslims if you look back on to the time of hazrat usman (razi allah anhu)we have been killing each other and what a muslims we are compare to those ?

                      [This message has been edited by Babar Khawaja (edited October 09, 1999).]

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Babar Khawaja,

                        I tried but failed to understand your remarks about Hadhrat Usman. Do you want to tell that killing of Muslims by Muslims is normal because this crime is continuing since Hadhrat Usman's time? Will you please clerify?

                        Sincerely,
                        FARID M

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Farid,

                          Your post was damn good. I respect you man. Your heart's in the right place.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Hi
                            I think this topic belongs to the Arts and Culture forum. I’m transferring it there; anyone who wishes to participate can do so there

                            Saba

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X