Good day, friends! Have you ever considered what might have been different if India and Pakistan had not been divided? Cricket comes to mind immediately when people consider this circumstance. With Sachin Tendulkar and Shoaib Akhtar on the same team, we could have had a great team. Virat Kohli and Babar Azam will be playing together. People discuss the music. The standard of music that each nation would have produced if its musicians could collaborate with one another.
However, these are minor issues. This is worthy of in-depth discussion. What kind of economy would a united India have? What impact would this have on international relations? How would it affect the media and politics? Come, let's seriously talk about this situation. And let's see if we can figure out, using the actual history, what could have been done to stop the partition. After 200 years of British rule, India gained independence in August 1947." On a map, the British attorney draws a line.
In 1906, the All India Muslim League was established. The famous Morley-Minto Reforms followed in 1909, followed by the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms in 1919. These were used by the British to divide people politically based on their religion. by establishing distinct electorates. Seats that could only be won by members of a specific religion were known as separate elections. such as a few seats reserved for Muslims, for which only Muslims could cast votes.
As a result, Hindus and Muslims' differences continued to widen. Bal Gangadhar Tilak of the Congress and Mohammad Ali Jinnah of the Muslim League signed the Lucknow Pact in 1916. As a result, Congress approved these separate Muslim electorates. Why does Congress act as it does? They believed this would bring Muslims and Hindus closer together. However, as Gandhi once stated, while the intention to foster unity among Hindus and Muslims was commendable, using communal electorates as a shortcut would be counterproductive in the long run. However, Congress politicians were unaware of this.
The Hindu Mahasabha was established in 1915. In addition, Vinayak Savarkar, a Hitler supporter, published Essentials of Hindutva in 1923. He discusses the disconnect between Hindutva and Hinduism in it. Hindutva is a political philosophy that holds that Muslims and Christians do not belong in the country. M.S. Golwalkar, the leader of the RSS, lends him his support. Another Hitler supporter. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, or RSS, was established in 1925. Members of the RSS were specifically instructed not to take part in any movement against the British. that Christians and Muslims were the real adversaries. Hindus and Muslims both had organizations to promote the partition at this time. As a result, large-scale communal riots between the two religions dominated the 1920s and 1930s. Here, the need for a partition was born. Another Hitler supporter, Rahmat Ali, published a pamphlet in 1933 titled Now or Never Are We To Live Or Perish Forever?
Additionally, this pamphlet is referred to as the Pakistan Declaration. As a result, the five northern provinces of Punjab, NWFP, Kashmir, Balochistan, and Singh had to be merged into a separate Muslim nation known as PAKSTAN. Later, Pakstan was changed to become Pakistan. Savarkar continued his propaganda to divide the nation in 1937. He said at the Hindu Mahasabha session in Ahmedabad that India is not a homogenous and unitarian country. that India is home to two nations. One for Muslims and one for Hindus. In the Lahore Session in 1940, three years later, Jinnah made the same statement once more. that Hindus and Muslims have distinct social structures. Muslims ought to have their own country because of their distinct civilisations. Linlithgow, the British Viceroy, backed him. Winston Churchill, the British prime minister at the time, was of the opinion that Pakistan would continue to be a steadfast ally of the West if it became a nation. Additionally, it would serve as a barrier of defense against socialist India and the Soviet Union. Viceroy Wavell stated in 1945 that Winston Churchill supported a division.
He wanted to establish three nations. Princestan, Pakistan, and Hindustan Savarkar stated in August 1943 that Mr. Jinnah's Two Nation Theory was fine with him. He stated that Hindus and Muslims are two distinct nations that have existed historically. In the midst of these communal speeches, British India called elections in 1946. Muslims were given separate votes in these elections. The Muslim League won 425 seats in the elections as a result. Despite the fact that Congress still held 923 seats, However, the Muslim League's strength was abundantly clear. Additionally, the Muslim League won the majority of Muslim seats.
Numerous individuals claim that this was the most significant instance of Muslims voting in favor of Pakistan. because the Muslim League was clearly in favor of Pakistan's creation at the time. However, the fact that these elections did not have universal voting rights is an important fact that is not discussed here. The voting age was 21 years old, and not everyone was eligible to vote. They needed to own land, pay taxes, and meet a number of conditions before they could vote in these elections. Only those who met all of these requirements could vote. There were also property restrictions. Only 3% of the country's total population was eligible to vote in the Central Assembly as a whole. And only 13% of the people in the Provincial Assemblies are Christians. Essentially, these were elections for the upper class. The majority of people were unable to participate in the elections. An amusing fact is that the Hindu Mahasabha did not win seats in it. In August 1946, the Muslim League called for direct action after winning so many seats. Jinnah asserted that either India would be divided or destroyed. There was a lot of violence, and more than 4,000 people died in five days. And Hindus made up the majority of the victims of this violence. To defend Hindus, Gandhi risked his life by traveling to Noakhali.
The 14th of August in 1947 is known as Partition Day. However, partition was merely formalized on that day. It was officially put into action. As we now see, the history of Partition actually spans decades. What could have been done to stop this partition from happening? The partition was opposed by many leaders. Sardar Patel, Netaji Bose, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, and Maulana Azad Additionally, the partition was opposed by several political parties. Apart from the Indian National Congress, the All India Azad Muslim Conference, and the Unionist Party, individuals such as Gandhi and Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan never accepted the partition. However, the Cabinet Mission Plan, which Congress was presented with, was a plan in which India would not have been partitioned and the Central Government would have been extremely weak under that plan. As a result, Congress was forced to accept the partition plan at the end.
Additionally, the country's various units would have had the right to reevaluate their relationship with the Union every ten years. Congress thought that this plan would be even worse for India's integrity. Following that, Sadar Patel stated that they were of the opinion that accepting the partition would prevent conflict. They feared that the Muslim League would incite widespread violence if the partition was not allowed. that communal tensions would grow to such an extent that regiments and police forces might even become religiously divided. It is difficult to speculate whether this would have occurred, but one thing is certain: despite the partition, there was sadly nationwide bloodshed. Some argue that Jinnah ought to have been Prime Minister to avert the partition. due to the fact that Jinnah was pursuing political power. Would this have kept the partition from happening? No. Since Jinnah was not Pakistan's first Prime Minister in fact. Liaquat Ali Khan was that. In fact, Jinnah was offered the position of Prime Minister three times. In June 1940, Netaji Subhas made the offer, C Rajagopalachari made the offer a few months later, and Gandhi offered Jinnah the position of Prime Minister in the hope that it would prevent the partition. However, this was impossible. There are three scenarios, in my opinion, that could have prevented the partition. First, the simplest and most unlikely option. Gandhi managed to persuade Jinnah to halt the partition. Furthermore, Jinnah reneging on his demand for a partition. The partition could have been avoided if the Muslim League's leader had been persuaded. The second scenario, in which Nathuram Godse kills Jinnah rather than Gandhi. Godse repeatedly attempted to kill Gandhi. prior to the actual murder in 1948. Gandhi, as you are aware, opposed the partition. Additionally, Jinnah supported it. Nevertheless, Godse did not attempt to kill Jinnah for some reason. If Godse had killed Jinnah, the Muslim League might not have had a leader to keep pushing for the partition. Additionally, perhaps the partition would not have occurred.
There might have been a different outcome in this case. It's possible that nationwide communal riots would have occurred following Jinnah's assassination. Additionally, the gap between the populace would have grown. However, in my opinion, the third scenario is the most likely to stop the partition in its truest sense. Britain's government changed in 1945. Clemen Attlee became the new British Prime Minister after Winston Churchill resigned from office. of Labour Party Friends, it's interesting to note that the Labour Party opposed Imperialism. Additionally, Clement Attlee opposed India's partition.
This actually happened, not some fictitious scenario. He attempted to stop the partition. But he didn't act until way too late. The partition could have been avoided if the Labour Party in Britain had won power earlier or if Prime Minister Clement Attlee had stopped communal violence in India earlier. He had to get rid of the Reserved Electorate policy first to accomplish this. to introduce a worldwide franchise. to grant the right to vote to every Indian adult.
If this had occurred and every citizen had the opportunity to vote, the Muslim League might have suffered significant losses in the 1946 elections. The riots could have been stopped if the police had detained and imprisoned Jinnah when he announced his support for Direct Action. Without a doubt, the partition could have been avoided if the British Indian government had taken the appropriate steps to control the atmosphere of communal animosity by enacting laws against hate speech. We would have been left with A Secular, Democratic, United India by the time the British left our country in 1947 if we had done this. Because Congress never wavered from its commitment to the secularism ideology, there is no doubt that United India would have been a secular nation. The primary benefit is crystal clear. The partition caused the displacement of nearly 20 million people. Families were torn apart by millions. During the partition, it is estimated that between 200,000 and 2 million people perished. They would have been spared death. However, this does not mean that the decades-long communal tensions between Hindus and Muslims would have ended abruptly.
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the nation's new prime minister, would have been up against a new obstacle. to bring people of all religions together. Despite the fact that 78% of Indians are Hindus and 14% are Muslims today, the demographics of United India would have been 62% Hindus and 32% Muslims. The country's total population would have been 1.76 billion people. Easily the world's most populous nation. The first few years would have been very important. The populace was wary of one another.
That needed to stop. With only superficial steps, it would have been impossible to accomplish this. To unite Hindus and Muslims in a united India, policies similar to Singapore's Ethnic Integration Policy would have been required. A percentage should be established for the maximum number of Hindus and Muslims allowed to live in government housing and government societies. so that there aren't many different ghettos.
The future would have been even more devastating if the country's unity were to break down for any reason. This is particularly evident in Yugoslavia. They were unable to maintain ethnic unity, so that was divided into parts. However, let's make the optimistic assumption that Pandit Nehru was successful in maintaining the nation's unity. People were encouraged to be brothers, and they lived in peace. The people of East Pakistan would have been affected next. The atrocities committed by the Pakistani government against the Bengali people were the primary factor that led to the establishment of Bangladesh. Imposition of Urdu was a major factor in this. Bengalians were compelled to accept Urdu. In the United India, this would not have occurred. Therefore, it would not have been necessary to establish Bangladesh. Additionally, in this scenario, millions of lives would not have been lost. Since it would be a part of our country, the illegal immigration from Bangladesh into the Northeastern States that we see today would not occur.
There would not have been another conflict. The language of communication between the various regions would have remained English, as it is today, because United India would have been a country that was even more diverse than India today. In fact, the higher proportion of Bangla- and Urdu-speaking people would have made English more important. The Hindi language's dominance in United India would have diminished. Additionally, United India's geopolitical impact would have been very intriguing. Friends, that's because the Cold War was at its height in the 1970s. The United States of America and the Soviet Union were at the height of the Cold War. while it was forced onto other nations.
Pakistan became America's proxy. Because Afghanistan is a landlocked nation, the United States sent weapons to Afghanistan through Pakistan to support anti-Soviet fighters. The Taliban were eventually born as a result of this. America supported religious extremism in the region for their own benefit. However, it would have been simpler for a nation of that size to remain neutral in this Cold War if it had been United India rather than Pakistan, a larger and more powerful nation. In point of fact, India was largely neutral during the Cold War.
The Kashmir issue would not even have begun in terms of regional geopolitics in such instances. Terrorism took off in the Kashmir region in the 1980s. Pakistan is said to have been a major player in it. Kashmiri pandits were forced to leave their homes as a result of an exodus. The Kashmiri pandits are still on strike to fight for their rights. Terrorism has engulfed Kashmiri Muslims for thirty years. Take a look at this tweet from the police in Kashmir from December 31, 2022: Terrorists killed 29 civilians in 2022.
21 of them were locals—three Kashmiri pandits, six Hindus, and fifteen Muslims. A terrorist attack occurs nearly every month. This could have been avoided in every way. Friends, on top of that, India and Pakistan have been involved in four wars. 1971, 1947, 1965, and 1999. Each of them was preventable. Many of those who perished in these wars could have survived. Another result of this would have been a savings of millions of dollars in both countries' enormous defense budgets. Pakistan's Finance Minister allocated 1,523 billion PKR for defense in June 2022. The Indian Finance Minister, on the other hand, informed us that India's defense budget for 2022 and 2023 was 5,250 billion rupees. Each year, we could have saved nearly $7 Trillion. Imagine if this money were put toward infrastructure, healthcare, and education. United India would have been significantly ahead in terms of economic and infrastructure development. China's threat would still have existed, so United India would have needed to guard its borders. However, even China would be wary of offending a nation of this size. In terms of people, Pakistani citizens' lives would have been better in united India. Since "India, that is Bharat, shall be a Sovereign, Democratic, Republic," the first elections in India were held in 1952 and India became a republic in 1950. Pakistan's Constitution, on the other hand, took many more years to be enacted.
In 1956, they enacted their first constitution, which was later put on hold and replaced by martial law. Following the adoption of a new constitution in 1962, another martial law was enacted. Another constitution was enacted in 1973, which was again put on hold before being reinstated in 1985. I would like to express my gratitude to the House for once more placing their trust in me." The establishment of a valid constitution took so long. There were numerous military coups.
None of Pakistan's five-year Prime Ministers has been able to serve the entire term. Pakistan receives a score of just 4.31 on the Democracy Index. It's referred to as a hybrid regime. Pakistan comes in 147th place on the Global Peace Index. Pakistan is 144th in terms of GDP per capita, and inequality is also high there. These aspects are linked to religion in some way, shape, or form. The poorest countries in the world place a high value on religion, as numerous surveys have repeatedly demonstrated. Furthermore, religion is of little significance to developed nations worldwide. These aspects would have improved if Pakistan had been a secular nation. Minorities in Pakistan must endure this extremism. Discrimination affects Sikhs, Hindus, Shia Muslims, and Ahmadiya Muslims. However, even the country's predominant religion is not happy. In Pakistan, the issues of unemployment and inflation are very real. Additionally, India's selective media frequently preaches about this. Youth unemployment is a problem in Pakistan. Inflation is at an all-time high in Pakistan. Pakistan has made its citizens pay higher prices for fuel. Therefore, one thing is certain: our media in United India would have Pakistan as a scapegoat to use as news. They might have talked more about Afghanistan at that time. or perhaps even Iran. But they would have had to talk about important things. It is not that minorities in India do not face discrimination, as they do in Pakistan; Muslims and Dalits face atrocities in India. In riots, Hindus are also murdered. However, this is not due to India's secularism. The perpetrators of the atrocities view secularism as a derogatory concept. India is also home to religious extremism. which results in such occurrences. Internal politics would also be significantly affected by united India. In a United India, these conspiracy theories and propaganda would have failed the politicians who base their politics on Pakistan, about how they showed Pakistan its place, or about how the opposition favors Pakistan. They might have to use China then to continue their politics. The following is a well-known line from 1984 by George Orwell: "This book talks about a country that is constantly at war with other countries." It has no bearing on the nation with which they are at war. Simply put, fighting is crucial. They must wage war. because war plays a role in creating this unique mental environment. Society continues to be misled.
Because India's GDP is significantly higher than that of Pakistan or Bangladesh, it might not have had a significant impact on GDP. Although India does not lack natural resources, there would have been a difference in the sense that United India would have attracted more foreign investment if it had remained a stable secular nation. The country's soft power would have been significantly greater than it is today, and it would have been a significant market for the rest of the world. A united India would have been easily comparable to China and the United States. You'd want this to happen after hearing this.
However, the nation of United India does not exist. Friends, you won't be let down. It is true that our ancestors failed in this endeavor. However, keep in mind that we are in charge of the future. We are the ones who will decide what will happen in the future. We were unable to stop the partition. But we can get back together. Why can't India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh reunite, just as they could reunite North Vietnam and South Vietnam and East Germany and West Germany?
Reunification is approached from the top down, with people waiting for a great leader to bring together India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. resulting in a miracle. However, friends, this will not occur. Change moves from the base to the top. The people must feel the desire for reunification. A great politician who will take up the issue on behalf of the people in order to win their votes will emerge when the public supports this. This can only be done at that point.The procedure was lengthy and complicated. It occurred in various stages between 1875 and 1947. Understanding that reunification is a lengthy process is essential when discussing it. We must reverse, step by step, the events that eventually resulted in the partition. Discrimination against minorities must end.
Communal politics must end. Religion-based politics must be discontinued. We must put an end to Muslim-Hindu animosity. In addition, cooperation between the three nations—India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh—will eventually be bolstered if they are able to successfully implement this internally. Reunification will also appear to be the logical next step. The European Union was established in this manner. This hatred has subsided in nations like Germany and France, which were once formidable foes.
.png)
