Partition Of India To India/pakistan In 1947

[Bharatvarsh2]

‎'Ranjeet Singh's rise led to creation of Pakistan' - The Times of India



http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india...439767.cms

So now its Ranjit Singh who was responsible for partition!



Earlier it was Savarkar.



How about the real reason, Islam itself?



Oh right I forgot surely this beatific religion of "peace" can never be blamed for anything.

TINDERBOX: The Past and Future of Pakistan

Author: MJ Akbar

Publisher: HarperCollins

Price: Rs 499



Prafull Goradia and KR Phanda wonder why MJ Akbar, while dealing with the creation of Pakistan, ignores the separatist tendencies inherent in Islam



The book under review is a masterly exposition by a journalist distinguished for his knowledge. He is also perceived to be objective in his views on communal issues. With his high credibility, he has tried to put the weight of the blame for Partition on the Congress, especially Jawaharlal Nehru. By implication, he has attempted to free Indian Muslims of all responsibility. If he has blamed any Muslim, it is Mohammed Ali Jinnah.



Like other Muslim authors of the past, MJ Akbar’s book, Tinderbox: The Past and Future of Pakistan, puts the entire blame for Partition on the Congress leadership. Akbar writes: “There were five swivel moments in the relations between the Congress and the Muslims before the formation of Pakistan. The pact negotiated by Jinnah in 1916, in which the Congress accepted separate electorates, was widely described as the basis on which the two communities could unite against the British. The second moment, Gandhi’s Khilafat struggle, promised liberation but ended in despair. Jinnah crafted the third opportunity, in 1927 and 1928, when an all-party effort was made to create a constitution for India by Indians; he failed to bridge the League-Congress gap. In 1937, the two parties could have cemented an ongoing understanding with a post-election coalition, but an ascendant Congress underestimated the potential of a disappointed Jinnah. The fifth and the most tantalising chance appeared at the very last minute, in 1946, when the Congress and the League accepted the British Cabinet Mission Plan to retain a united India, but the Congress, fearful of balkanisation, reversed its decision. After this, their separate paths became irreversible.”



Muslim writers, including Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, have blamed Nehru for Partition. He had not agreed to the inclusion of Muslim League candidates in the United Provinces Cabinet formed in 1937. Again, in 1946, it was Nehru who had rejected the Cabinet Mission Plan. Since he did not clarify his stand on these issues, it encouraged Muslim writers to put the blame on the Congress for Partition.



The fact of the matter is that separatism is an integral part of Islamic theology. Islam divides humanity into momins and kafirs. It is ordained in the holy book that momins should persuade non-Muslims to embrace Islam. On their refusal to do so, they should be killed. The imposition of jizya on Hindus (kafirs) by Muslim rulers was an exception. The status of dhimmi or zimmi was accorded to ahle-kitab or people of the Book only. According to the Hanafi law, Hindus had only two options: Convert to Islam or face death. For economic advantage to the rulers, however, Hindus were allowed to survive on payment of jizya.



In short, non-Muslims cannot coexist with Muslims under Islamic rule as equal citizens. What is happening to Christians in Lebanon, Sudan, Nigeria today is a replay of the Armenian Christian genocide by the Turks in the last quarter of the 19th century. The advent of British rule in India deprived Muslims of their privileged status, and reduced them to the status of common people. They were unhappy and made their last attempt to restore Muslim rule in 1857. Having failed, they decided to cooperate with the British. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan even told Muslims not to join the Congress. He was also one of the original exponents of the two-nation theory.



Akbar assigns a prominent role to Jinnah in the struggle for the creation of Pakistan. He quotes what Jinnah said on June 5, 1946, to the Muslim League Council: “Let me tell you that Muslim India will not rest content until we have established full, complete and sovereign Pakistan. Acceptance of the Cabinet Mission’s proposal was not the end of their struggle for Pakistan. They should continue their struggle till Pakistan is achieved.”



The fact is that Jinnah did not lead, but was led by the Muslim consensus. His role was that of a sincere and clear-headed lawyer who could formulate and articulate in precise terms what his client really wanted (Studies in Islamic Culture by Aziz Ahmad). This is further reinforced by the election results of 1945-46. Prof M Mujeeb writes: “The party which demanded the creation of Pakistan, a separate homeland for Indian Muslims, was the Muslim League. In the elections held early in 1946, which proved decisive, it secured 425 out of 492 seats reserved for Muslims in the central and different provincial legislatures. It could be said, therefore, that Muslims were overwhelmingly in favour of Pakistan. It insisted that the right to a separate homeland should be conceded first (Islamic Influence on Indian Society).



Partition, therefore, took place because Indian Muslims felt themselves to be Muslims first and Indians later. Given this background leading to the creation of Pakistan, it is surprising that the Congress leadership — Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel — did not ask Muslims to leave for their dar-ul-Islam. Jinnah, on the contrary, was clear. He along with other seven League leaders had asked for an exchange of population. The Congress did not agree. It seems the Indian leadership deluded itself that Partition was territorial and not a religious division!



http://www.dailypioneer.com/315674/Not-j...-show.html