11-18-2003, 03:55 PM
My post on the Paki thread of BR (posting here as is relevent to this discussion):
Some "intellectuals" among the pakis have charged for decades - that it was the INC and India that caused partition of the country by going back on the "Cabnet Mission Plan" of 1946. To refresh memories, that Plan, presented to INC & the IML at Simla in 1946 proposed an Indian federation in which the center would only control foreign affairs, defence & communications. Apparently the INC went along with it. However, Nehru was asked at Bombay airport whether that Plan provided a "constitution" for India, and he said that the Indian Constitution would be what the Constitutional Assembly developed by majority vote. Jinnah recoiled from any "majority vote", so that killed the Cabnet mission plan. Well, here is my Alternate History as I posted it on BD forum:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Victor:
It is also possible that because of a similar "agni pariksha", the USA is what it is today. One cannot imagine an Amrika without Texas, Arizona and California among other states.
The 'western' interests had very clear goals when they split India. The maps show it as clearly as any lie-detector test.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This BD thread is hardly the place for this discussion, but we might try it as poetic licence. First, a civil war certainly has been the coming of age for modern great nations. Second, how does that apply to India?. Let me address your point about US first. A few years ago there was a fictional "alternate history" book published on the US. The premiss was that the US lost the civil war to the Confederate States, as a result of which three republics emerged - USA, CSA and Texas. Long story short - the three united during WW II, and a consolodated USA went on to win the cold war against the USSR (sorry, cannot remember Author or Title).
Returning to India, 1946/47, we can consider a similar alternate history. Let us say that UK leaves a very losely confederated India by 1947 (cabnet mission plan, Simla, 1946). By begining of 1948, civil war caused by secession of muslim majority provences, breaks out Jinnah's strategy all along). UN intervenes (as they later did in Korea, eg). UN forces effectively divide India - Sindh, Balochistan, NW Frontier, Kashmir, all of Punjab, & perhaps a divided Delhi (which was in undivided Punjab provence) in the west, and All of Bengal, Assam, NE frontier & tribal areas (and some parts of Bihar) in the east come under muslim rule, leaving the rest as India. No religious cleansing would occur, but Hindus & Sikhs would be subject to regular massacares behind UN drawn borders and "peace keeping forces" (Balkans, 1992-). It would have been a horrible disaster.
Truth is, the partition of India in 1947 WAS India's civil war (the begining of it).
Imo, India-Pakistan-BD represent the longest running civil war in modern history. It will end with the destruction of the break away republics.
Some "intellectuals" among the pakis have charged for decades - that it was the INC and India that caused partition of the country by going back on the "Cabnet Mission Plan" of 1946. To refresh memories, that Plan, presented to INC & the IML at Simla in 1946 proposed an Indian federation in which the center would only control foreign affairs, defence & communications. Apparently the INC went along with it. However, Nehru was asked at Bombay airport whether that Plan provided a "constitution" for India, and he said that the Indian Constitution would be what the Constitutional Assembly developed by majority vote. Jinnah recoiled from any "majority vote", so that killed the Cabnet mission plan. Well, here is my Alternate History as I posted it on BD forum:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Victor:
It is also possible that because of a similar "agni pariksha", the USA is what it is today. One cannot imagine an Amrika without Texas, Arizona and California among other states.
The 'western' interests had very clear goals when they split India. The maps show it as clearly as any lie-detector test.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This BD thread is hardly the place for this discussion, but we might try it as poetic licence. First, a civil war certainly has been the coming of age for modern great nations. Second, how does that apply to India?. Let me address your point about US first. A few years ago there was a fictional "alternate history" book published on the US. The premiss was that the US lost the civil war to the Confederate States, as a result of which three republics emerged - USA, CSA and Texas. Long story short - the three united during WW II, and a consolodated USA went on to win the cold war against the USSR (sorry, cannot remember Author or Title).
Returning to India, 1946/47, we can consider a similar alternate history. Let us say that UK leaves a very losely confederated India by 1947 (cabnet mission plan, Simla, 1946). By begining of 1948, civil war caused by secession of muslim majority provences, breaks out Jinnah's strategy all along). UN intervenes (as they later did in Korea, eg). UN forces effectively divide India - Sindh, Balochistan, NW Frontier, Kashmir, all of Punjab, & perhaps a divided Delhi (which was in undivided Punjab provence) in the west, and All of Bengal, Assam, NE frontier & tribal areas (and some parts of Bihar) in the east come under muslim rule, leaving the rest as India. No religious cleansing would occur, but Hindus & Sikhs would be subject to regular massacares behind UN drawn borders and "peace keeping forces" (Balkans, 1992-). It would have been a horrible disaster.
Truth is, the partition of India in 1947 WAS India's civil war (the begining of it).
Imo, India-Pakistan-BD represent the longest running civil war in modern history. It will end with the destruction of the break away republics.